Talk:Kardinya, Western Australia/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Vacant0 (talk · contribs) 13:13, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I saw this article on the GAN backlog. I will start the review asap. Cheers, --Vacant0 (talk) 13:13, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Although optional, I would prefer the addition of a {{short description}} on top of the article.
Link the "European settlement" in the lede and "Before European colonisation" section with the History of Australia (1788–1850) article.
Rest of the lede is alright and it is well-written. It satisfies the manual of style.
Move the "History" section above the "Geography and natural history" section which can be renamed to "Geography and nature".
Link dunes in the Geography section. The rest of the section is good.
"They lived on the area south" → isn't this supposed to be "in the area"?
Law and order can be linked in the "European colonisation" section.
Would prefer "The suburb was home to 8,730 people at the Australian Bureau of Statistics's 2016 census" → The suburb was home to 8,730 people according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics's 2016 census.
"It sold groceries and had a petrol pump. That was demolished in the 1970s." – these two sentences should be merged.
"Kardinya in the City of Melville local government area." → Kardinya is located in the City of Melville local government area.
Link "centre-left" with centre-left politics and "centre-right" with centre-right politics.
Labor Party and Liberal Party should be capitalized.

Thanks for taking the pictures, they look great. Alt texts are also included, great!

2016 census source is used multiple times in the article, it can be removed from the infobox per MOS:INFOBOXREF.
"However, especially for objects like boundaries (of neighborhoods, allotments, etc.), where other reliable sources are available they should be preferred over Google Maps and Google Street View." – if there is a different reliable source that is not Google Maps then you should replace the Google Maps source with the different one, otherwise it can stay if there aren't any.
Rest of the sources are reliable and they can stay.

@Steelkamp: I will put the article on hold until these small things get fixed. Good job! --Vacant0 (talk) 14:52, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Vacant0: Thank you for doing this. I have made all the changes you asked. Steelkamp (talk) 16:06, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thanks for fixing it. I'm promoting this to GA. --Vacant0 (talk) 16:33, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]