Talk:Cullacabardee, Western Australia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Portal	Cullacabardee, Western Australia is maintained by 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.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Perth.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Cullacabardee, Western Australia has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.

OIC you've done a good keep neutral considering that information about this suburb is rarely neutral Gnangarra 09:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Gnangarra; you've done a great job here. And extra points for recognising it as difficult material and submitting it to others for review.

Consider removing or refactoring the "Controversy in the media" section heading. The section is about the alleged problems, not the manner in which these problems are alleged. Sorry, that was vague; let me put it another way. The section isn't about The West Australian, what it has reported about this Aboriginal community, and what editorial angle it has taken towards this Aboriginal community; it is about alleged problems in the community with respect to member behaviour, infrastructure and funding. Yes we avoid bias by reporting what The West Australian has said, but that doesn't change what the section is actually about. Would "Alleged problems" be a more accurate section heading? Hesperian 12:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Good point - in lieu of a better one I'll change it to that. Thanks for the vote of confidence guys! Orderinchaos78 16:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Review 01/01/07 2 Good Article Nomination 3 Orphan notes 4 Good Article Nomination

[edit] Review 01/01/07

Looking like a good B class, you could try GA, some images would be nice. The only real issue is in the distances as ititially the article here has 6km to shops/bus via bush track, yet the transport section has 4km via bush track. Thats the only stand out concern I see, but I'll have another look tomorrow. Gnangarra 15:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah thanks for pointing that out - I'd believe the article over Transperth's journey planner. As both of the suburb's main features are closed facilities (an Aboriginal community and a Commonwealth communications facility) I'm not sure what would be suitable for an image, although I strongly agree that one is needed. Orderinchaos78 13:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Quick note - this article contains no images as yet as the three key facilities described are "closed" facilities, either restricted property or requiring permission to enter. Orderinchaos78 13:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

If you have one maybe two appropriate images in the sources for the article then can be uploaded as copyrighted with a fair use rationale, but no images doesnt mean it cant reach GA or even FA. Gnangarra 14:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article Nomination

Good Evening (GMT time); I have concluded that, in my opinion, the article has failed one or more categories and is therefore denied GA status. In order to provide constructive criticism, I have below listed one or more of my reasons for failing the article, beside the relevant criteria title; this should be taken as advice for improvement, rather than a list of reasons for failing.

1. Well-written: Pass
2. Factually accurate: Pass
3. Broad: Pass
4. Neutrally written: Pass
5. Stable: Pass
6. Well-referenced: Pass
7. Images: Fail

My condolences to the lead editors - your hard work has been informally recognised; just keep it up, and do not be disheartened!

Kindest regards,
Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 22:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

note (b) a lack of images does not in itself prevent an article from achieving Good Article status. Gnangarra 03:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphan notes

I can't figure out where to put this, so will just leave it here. Information sourced from 2007 Streetsmart and 1963 MRS plan maps.

• Aboriginal settlement - was Lot 125 on Swan Locations G and 1315.
• Telstra - was an unnumbered lot on Swan Location 2515 (330a.0r.2p)
• Swan Locations 2470 and E1 also contain some Cullacabardee land
• GG 250191 Amend 120 - Pt Lot 5 (2515) set aside for treatment centre (get ref?) Orderinchaos78 16:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article Nomination

Good evening (GMT time); further to the relevant criteria, as expressed above, being accommodated, I have reviewed this article on 25^th of February, 2007 (GMT) in accordance with the Good Article (GA) criteria. There are seven main criteria that the article must comply with to pass:

1. Well-written: Pass
2. Factually accurate: Pass
3. Broad: Pass
4. Neutrally written: Pass
5. Stable: Pass
6. Well-referenced: Pass
7. Images: Pass

I have concluded that, in my opinion, the article has passed all categories and I therefore award it GA status. Congratulations to the lead editors, and keep up the excellent work!

Kindest regards,
Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 23:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)