Talk:Canning Dam

Canning 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
Date	Process	Result
November 30, 2008	Peer review	Reviewed
January 24, 2009	Good article nominee	Not listed
January 27, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed
January 13, 2023	Good article reassessment	Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Australia: Western Australia / Perth Low‑importance

	Australia portal Canning Dam is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Western Australia (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Perth (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Western Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Dams Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dams, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Dams on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DamsWikipedia:WikiProject DamsTemplate:WikiProject DamsDam articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in Australian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, program, labour (but Labor Party)) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Template[edit]

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

Took me a while, but I finally found Template:Infobox dam. It's the one that's used on the Hoover Dam article. Shelbypark (talk) 05:09, 29 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 (talk • contribs) 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.~~

External links modified[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: 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) 07:48, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

notes[edit]

http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article26351479 1911 proposal Gnan garra 13:20, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment[edit]

Delisted. Steelkamp (talk) 04:58, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.