Talk:Canning Dam

Latest comment: 1 year ago by Steelkamp in topic GA Reassessment
Former good articleCanning Dam was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 30, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
January 24, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed
January 27, 2009Good article nomineeListed
January 13, 2023Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Template

edit

Does anyone know of one that we can work of? --Mdavies 965 (talk) 12:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Another source

edit

This includes some good background on the dam's construction. An article on Canning Contour Channel may also probably be in order. –Moondyne 13:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yeah i just had a quick skim read and it looks good, Sounds like a good idea on the tunnel though I wouldnt know what to do this is first article --Mdavies 965 (talk) 13:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

There's already a stub article on the tunnel -- Canning Tunnel. –Moondyne 13:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
sorry i meant the channel :), after doing more reading of the reference i must say i am impressed lots on info both for this article and for the channel, a new article is probley in order as it served a majority of Perth's water needs up until the 1970's. --Mdavies 965 (talk) 12:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Lead section

edit

The article is looking really good and I'm hoping that it will pass GA pretty quickly. My main concern is the lead section - it doesn't really summarise the notable points as per wp:lead such as the enviromental and recreation stuff mentioned in the body text. I'd write it myself, but I'm cr*p at writing introductions. Shelbypark (talk) 06:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ok i expanded the lead to include those sections. However im not so good either so feel free to re-word at anytime thanks --Mdavies 965 (talk) 08:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Channel article

edit

Is sandboxed at User:Moondyne/CCC, but I'm waiting for some material from my library which I wanted to see before putting that out there. It may be another week or so. –Moondyne 03:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sounds good, if your feeling up to it we could try and get it to GA class for the GA drive, as for this article I think its looking pretty good for the review to which i am patiently waiting for but suggestions for improvement would be welcome --Mdavies 965 (talk) 10:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. CCC needs more sources before going there, as well as content on things like its route and the treatment plant at Gosnells. I'll keep at it but don't really see it being at GA anytime soon. –Moondyne 12:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Now at Canning Contour Channel. –Moondyne 11:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Comment

edit

The article has really improved since I peer reviewed it a few weeks ago. Well done to all those who have worked on it.

There is just one thing which I neglected to mention in my review that editors might wish to address. In the lead section there is a sentence, [i]t is noted for its innovative structural and hydraulic design that was considered to be at the forefront of concrete gravity dam design at the time of construction. This is an important point of interest that needs expanding upon in the main body of the article if any of you have any information about it. DeepestGreen[talk] 10:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have to agree with the above, and I think more could me made of the statistics R/T height, span, width etc compared to other dams at the time and current dams. The Day and AHDB articles (amongst others) provide some of this information. Shelbypark (talk) 12:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Desal plant water

edit

The ABC news source is a bit vague as to whether the pumping of water back into CD is happening, or just a possibility. Is there some better detail on this? It seems a bit odd to be saying "The reservoir can also be used to store excess water ..." without context or detail. –Moondyne 13:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have found another vague source but so far I havent found anything concrete —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdavies 965 (talkcontribs) 23:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
The second, added reference was the same as the first, so I've removed it. I have reworded the sentence to more accurately reflect the content of the reference. Shelbypark (talk) 05:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
Can only find internal documents not publicly published.~~
edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Canning Dam. 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:

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

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 07:48, 14 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

notes

edit

GA Reassessment

edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Canning Dam/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article does not currently meet the well-written, verifiable or broad in its coverage criteria. Specific issues are as follows:

  • Large amounts of text with no citations.
  • Use of phrases that have become outdated such as "newly completed" or "Recently".
  • "state of the art" is wording that should be avoided.
  • Short paragraphs, some only one sentence long, hinder readability.
  • "and the work was completed on schedule to a date that was calculated seven years previously." This is hard to understand and does not make sense.
  • "loss of linkage". This is poor writing.
  • "Periodic flooding of the Canning River from the dam is required to disperse seed, stimulate germination and ensure seedlings survive". Seedlings of what types of plant?
  • Some of this feels like its written about the Canning catchment rather than the Canning Dam. Why is the highest point in the catchment important for example.

Steelkamp (talk) 16:16, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.