Talk:Andamooka, South Australia

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Andamooka, South Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050620171211/http://oacdt.sa.gov.au/html/communities/andamooka.html to http://www.oacdt.sa.gov.au/html/communities/andamooka.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050616085745/http://www.nfwrhs.sa.gov.au/andamooka/index.asp to http://www.nfwrhs.sa.gov.au/andamooka/index.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

One link has been replaced while the other probably should remain because the information for which it is used is not in any of the sources of similar content. Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 20:23, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Andamooka, South Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161012010923/http://maps.sa.gov.au/plb/ to http://maps.sa.gov.au/plb/%23
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160216061521/http://apps.planning.sa.gov.au/HeritageSearch/HeritageItem.aspx?p_heritageno=13 to http://apps.planning.sa.gov.au/HeritageSearch/HeritageItem.aspx?p_heritageno=13
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160216035729/http://apps.planning.sa.gov.au/HeritageSearch/HeritageItem.aspx?p_heritageno=21950 to http://apps.planning.sa.gov.au/HeritageSearch/HeritageItem.aspx?p_heritageno=21950

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:23, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Untidy and unsourced information

I just wanted to register my concern with the state of this article and see what actions other editors think might be necessary to fix it. Until 8 July 2022, this article was structured reasonably soundly with paragraphs. A series of edits that day turned it into a list of lengthy bullet points, many unencyclopaedic in content, and almost all without citations. The "things to do" section, which reads like touristic promotional material unsuited to Wikipedia, replicates exactly the text of this (unacknowledged) Facebook post from a month prior. A useful "population" section was deleted for no apparent reason. The editor who made these edits might have been unfamiliar with Wikipedia standards and has edited no other articles, but it is curious that they marked all but one edit as minor, including those that made the biggest changes.

My view is that the article should probably be reverted to the version of 1 May 2022 (the last before the edits of 8 July 2022). Edits after 8 July 2022 have been small. Some of the content added in July might, though, be worth keeping in a rewritten article that combines pre-July material with verifiable and encyclopaedic content from the current version. I do not have time to do a full rewrite of this article myself, but another editor might. What do people think? Axver (talk) 13:42, 26 February 2023 (UTC)