Mdavies 965

Canning Dam

I can see that you've done quite a lot of work on Canning Dam, but I do have a few suggestions, that could help improve the quality of the article. I'm also only new to WP and I'm too chicken to write this stuff on the Peer review page as I've never done a peer review before. Some of these suggestions are things I've learnt the hard way, some are stuff I've learned from other wikipedians...

• add an infobox eg Template:Infobox dam. Sometimes searching for and finding the correct infobox for an article can be difficult. I usually just look for a simular article of decent quality and use the info box they have used. This is how I found Infobox Dam (from Hoover Dam) and the one I did today on Collingwood Stockade (from Pentridge Prison's page).
• redo the references/inline citations as per WP:CIT. If you need a hand with this, let me know.
• I can't find the reference "The Yard" anywhere. I tried Google Scholar, Melb Uni's Supersearch and catalogue searches etc. Is it one of the references you added, or was it from a previous editor?
• ML = Megalitres. mL=millilitres LOL. Fixed :)
• Sentences vs paragraphs - The flow of sentences in the history section could be improved. It looks like you have hit enter at the end of most of the sentences, which makes them look like paragraphs. Each point or statement should preferably be referenced with an inline citation. At the bare minimum, each paragraph should have an inline citation.
• References section - the first and second dot points look like they are the same file, just different sources? There's some great info on the facilities brochure which I really think you should use for the article and for inline citations. I can't open the third dot point article, but it could be my computer's connection.

I hope some of this helps! Shelbypark (talk) 06:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, references have been done as per WP:CIT. I can't get reference #5 to work (the URL appears to be broken?) so you might want to find another reference. The Canning Dam page at the Australian Heritage Database (reference #3) is really very detailed and you could probably get a lot more info for the article from this really good reference. I still can't get the third dot point reference to work. If you can't get it to work or can't find a stable link for the article, then it probably should be deleted. Good luck! Shelbypark (talk) 10:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

• I've put the info box in but there's a weird pipe and } at the top of the page, and }} in the info box. I don't know what's going on there, but it might have been due to the edit conflicts. I'll have a look at it again later.
• you need to use <ref>before the {{cite}} templates, and </ref> after. Shelbypark (talk) 12:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:WA

Welcome to the West Australian project. cygnis insignis 05:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

And welcome from me also. Nice work on Canning Dam - I hope you don't mind me adding a bit there. –Moondyne 12:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Getting Canning Dam to GA

Hi there, I have a few days off work so I thought I'd help get Canning Dam to GA for the 200 Au GAs drive. I hope you don't mind me asking questions here - if you would prefer email or msn messanger (if you have messenger), LMK.

• Reference 11 "Western Australian Articles" - I still can't get this link to work. I've tried it from home, from work etc with no success. Can you find another reference? One that's more easily accessed?
• There is a discrepancy in the catchment area size between the text and the figures in the info box. You could just make them the same, or you could comment on the difference (I personally would prefer the latter, but that could be just me). Shelbypark (talk) 11:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Your ArbCom Vote

Thanks for your interest in this year's ArbCom elections. Unfortunately, we were required to set a criteria for voters, and that was decided to be the following:

• Voters must have a registered account that was created on or before November 1, 2008.
• Voters must have made 150 edits to articles on that account on or before November 1, 2008.

According to an automatic check, which I confirmed by looking at your contribution history, you have not met the requirements. Either you have not made 150 edits to articles (these edits must be in the main namespace) or you did not make them before the deadline of 23:59:59 November 1, 2008 (UTC). I've indented your votes. If you believe I sent this message in error, and that you do meet the requirements, please let me know on my talk page. Thanks, ST47 (talk) 21:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Canning Dam

Be patient—the review will happen sooner or later. I'm hopeless at reviewing others people's work and actually find it slightly unpleasant. I generally prefer to work solo, so apologies if I don't get too involved. I also don't get too excited about pushing towards GA and FA and all that stuff as I find more enjoyment in finding content and filling gaps. –Moondyne 13:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

canning dam review

thanks for the review however i have been on holidays for a few weeks im not sure what to make of your comments on the lead, sorry if this is obvious but this is my first article "I'm guessing most of these issues were hammered out in the peer review, so nice work. one issue: you only need citations in the lead for controversial facts (see WP:LEADCITE), so the one about it as a cutting-edge gravity dam is probably good, but the others should be removed from the lead and incorporated into the body of the article" i am confused by the last part particulary "other should be removed" what others? and shouldnt the lead cover what the article is about?

otherwise thanks --Mdavies 965 (talk) 01:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy to elaborate. WP:LEADCITE explains that information in the lead only really needs to be supported by a citation if it is controversial, since the information should be discussed more in detail in the body of the article where the citation can be presented--the idea is to avoid citation-use inflation. The larger issue for Canning Dam, however, is that the lead presents unique information that is not conveyed in the body, while the lead is supposed to "briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article" (see WP:LEAD). I'm not going to push too hard on this for a GAN, and if you err, it's best to err with citations (for which you have six in the lead), but I think if you will read through WP:LEAD again, you might get an idea of how to improve the lead of this article. Look at some FAs and you'll notice that hardly any include in-line citations in the lead. Hope this helps! --Eustress (talk) 02:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

→Just a friendly reminder that the GAN for Canning Dam will expire tomorrow, after which it will be failed if the issues presented are not addressed. --Eustress (talk) 20:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mdavies 965. I just noticed that Canning Dam failed its GA review for only a couple of outstanding issues. Eustress has offered to give the article an expedited review if the few remaining points are addressed. I could just fix the article and renominate it myself, but because it's an article that you've worked hard to improve, I'll leave it up to you to make that decision. :) Somno (talk) 03:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Canning Dam GA reassessment

Canning Dam has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Steelkamp (talk) 16:19, 6 January 2023 (UTC)