Jump to content

Talk:Toorak Gardens, South Australia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeToorak Gardens, South Australia was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. 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
June 15, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed

GA review

[edit]

I have placed the articles review on hold, as at first glance it is clear that the article needs a lot more inline citations. Every fact in the article needs to be able to be verified by readers. Most paragraphs in the article will need at least one inline citation. Once these are added, let me know and I'll carry out a more thorough review. Epbr123 11:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's always nice to know that the Wikipedia hive mind (commonly known as "the cabal") has unanimously decided that in order to achieve GA or FA, there needs to be an explicit requirement of one reference a paragraph (or more). Of course, the idea that you only need to reference where appropriate doesn't apply. Nonetheless, I think I'll get that stupid book again and put in some references. Michael talk 11:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget to include the page numbers. Epbr123 11:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll forget, and waste all of my time, just for you. Michael talk 11:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Times up. The nominatiom has failed. Epbr123 11:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Real estate prices

[edit]

It is found in the top 5 of the most expensive suburbs in South Australia (based on average between Q1 2009 and Q1 2010) - http://wic003lc.server-web.com/~admin417/uploads/Stats/Stats%20Mar10.pdf

No it's not. (See summary below.) Pdfpdf (talk) 15:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're transferring data from that PDF onto here... manually?  Davtra  (talk) 11:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite.
If you're interested:
  • copy & paste from acrobat into MS word
  • reformat, sort, insert columns, insert rows: all to facilitate creation of a "wikitable"
  • copy & paste here as a "wikitable".
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk)
P.S. Fair comment!! Pdfpdf (talk) 14:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds neat. Is it any faster? If you ever do something like this again, I'll inform you that you do have a p**** envy problem ;) (Censored as a courtesy so not to offend anyone.)  Davtra  (talk) 01:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Faster than what? (Doing it manually? Yes, MUCH faster, and considerably less boring!)
" ... I'll inform you ... " ;-) (However, I suspect it has more to do with some sort of obsessive personality trait than with envy ... ) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Raw data

[edit]

I've yet to identify a consistent pattern in the choice of URLs

"Generic" pages

[edit]

Quarterly reports

[edit]

Market updates

[edit]

Pdfpdf (talk) 23:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC); Pdfpdf (talk) 11:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

[edit]

The "top 10" suburbs in each of the 4 quarters for which we have data I had data when I constucted the tables.
Sources: see above

Suburb
 1Q 09
Sales
 1Q 09
Median
 1Q 09
Rank
 2Q 09
Sales
 2Q 09
Median
 2Q 09
Rank
 1Q 10
Sales
 1Q 10
Median
 1Q 10
Rank
 2Q 10
Sales
 2Q 10
Median
 2Q 10
Rank
BLACK FOREST 3 450,000 121 1 465,000 112 8 695,000 44 1 1,100,000 9
COLLEGE PARK 2 1,800,000 2 2 890,000 11 3 835,000 26 4 1,785,000 1
GILBERTON 7 750,000 22 3 798,000 19 4 940,000 16 2 1,110,500 8
HEATHPOOL 4 707,500 28 3 921,000 9 1 785,000 28 3 550,000 98
HYDE PARK 3 1,242,500 5 6 814,500 17 7 1,100,000 7 11 997,500 14
JOSLIN 1 1,340,000 4 6 738,500 30 1 695,000 42 2 845,000 28
KINGS PARK 2 645,000 45 1 987,600 7 1 580,000 85 1 775,000 34
MALVERN 6 692,251 33 11 1,010,000 6 9 1,040,000 10 7 1,085,000 10
MEDINDIE 4 1,345,000 3 5 1,037,500 5 3 1,202,000 5 8 1,657,500 2
MOUNT OSMOND 351 1 600,000 63 351 1 1,300,000 5
NETHERBY 5 930,000 10 4 815,000 16 8 690,000 45 3 690,000 53
ROSE PARK 2 915,000 11 2 1,480,000 1 3 1,300,000 4 4 1,500,000 4
ROSSLYN PARK 5 782,500 20 6 600,250 60 2 1,326,500 3 6 757,500 38
SPRINGFIELD 351 2 1,197,500 2 351 5 1,650,000 3
ST.PETERS 6 857,500 15 5 935,000 8 16 1,022,500 11 13 892,500 22
TENNYSON 2 1,025,000 8 3 1,150,000 3 2 850,000 23 1 972,000 16
THORNGATE 2 970,000 9 350 1 1,150,000 6 350
TOORAK GARDENS 7 1,075,000 7 6 898,250 10 4 953,000 15 6 1,237,500 7
TRINITY GARDENS 2 694,000 32 350 1 1,100,000 9 350
UNLEY PARK 4 3,250,000 1 6 1,125,000 4 5 3,000,000 1 2 1,246,500 6
WALKERVILLE 9 717,500 26 5 750,000 27 8 1,100,000 8 9 880,000 23
WATERFALL_GULLY 1 900,000 13 350 2 2,550,000 2 350
WAYVILLE 1 1,100,000 6 7 785,000 21 3 625,000 64 2 623,000 72

Detail

[edit]

Q2 2010

[edit]

http://wic003lc.server-web.com/~admin417/uploads/Stats/HousePrices%20Jun10.pdf

Suburb Sales
2Q 09		 Median
2Q 09		 Sales
2Q 10		 Median
2Q 10		 Median
Change
1 COLLEGE PARK 2 890,000 4 1,785,000 100.56%
2 MEDINDIE 5 1,037,500 8 1,657,500 59.76%
3 SPRINGFIELD 2 1,197,500 5 1,650,000 37.79%
4 ROSE PARK 2 1,480,000 4 1,500,000 1.35%
5 MOUNT OSMOND 1 600,000 1 1,300,000 116.67%
6 UNLEY PARK 6 1,125,000 2 1,246,500 10.80%
7 TOORAK GARDENS 6 898,250 6 1,237,500 37.77%
8 GILBERTON 3 798,000 2 1,110,500 39.16%
9 BLACK FOREST 1 465,000 1 1,100,000 136.56%
10 MALVERN 11 1,010,000 7 1,085,000 7.43%
11 NORTH ADELAIDE 14 796,000 10 1,040,000 30.65%
12 LEABROOK 2 873,500 3 1,010,000 15.63%
13 URRBRAE 6 670,000 3 999,000 49.10%
14 HYDE PARK 6 814,500 11 997,500 22.47%
15 HIGHGATE 2 676,000 3 975,000 44.23%
16 TENNYSON 3 1,150,000 1 972,000 -15.48%
17 MILLSWOOD 6 635,250 9 960,000 51.12%
18 KINGSTON PARK 2 642,500 3 950,000 47.86%
19 GLENELG 4 618,000 5 932,000 50.81%

Q1 2010

[edit]

http://wic003lc.server-web.com/~admin417/uploads/Stats/Stats%20Mar10.pdf

Suburb Sales
1Q 09		 Median
1Q 09		 Sales
1Q 10		 Median
1Q 10		 Median
Change
1 UNLEY_Park 4 3,250,000 5 3,000,000 -7.69%
2 WATERFALL_GULLY 1 900,000 2 2,550,000 183.33%
3 ROSSLYN_Park 5 782,500 2 1,326,500 69.52%
4 ROSE_Park 2 915,000 3 1,300,000 42.08%
5 MEDINDIE 4 1,345,000 3 1,202,000 -10.63%
6 THORNGATE 2 970,000 1 1,150,000 18.56%
7 HYDE_Park 3 1,242,500 7 1,100,000 -11.47%
8 TRINITY_Gardens 2 694,000 1 1,100,000 58.50%
9 WALKERVILLE 9 717,500 8 1,100,000 53.31%
10 MALVERN 6 692,251 9 1,040,000 50.23%
11 ST.PETERS 6 857,500 16 1,022,500 19.24%
12 AULDANA 1 715,000 4 1,015,000 41.96%
13 GLENELG 3 800,000 5 1,011,250 26.41%
14 ROYSTON_Park 7 655,000 3 957,500 46.18%
15 TOORAK_Gardens 7 1,075,000 4 953,000 -11.35%
16 GILBERTON 7 750,000 4 940,000 25.33%
17 TUSMORE 4 825,000 2 931,000 12.85%
18 HAWTHORN 3 671,000 8 929,000 38.45%
19 KINGSWOOD 5 562,500 7 890,000 58.22%

Q1 2009

[edit]

http://wic003lc.server-web.com/~admin417/uploads/Stats/Stats%20Mar10.pdf

Suburb Sales
1Q 09		 Median
1Q 09		 Sales
1Q 10		 Median
1Q 10		 Median
Change
1 UNLEY_Park 4 3,250,000 5 3,000,000 -7.69%
2 COLLEGE_Park 2 1,800,000 3 835,000 -53.61%
3 MEDINDIE 4 1,345,000 3 1,202,000 -10.63%
4 JOSLIN 1 1,340,000 1 695,000 -48.13%
5 HYDE_Park 3 1,242,500 7 1,100,000 -11.47%
6 WAYVILLE 1 1,100,000 3 625,000 -43.18%
7 TOORAK_Gardens 7 1,075,000 4 953,000 -11.35%
8 TENNYSON 2 1,025,000 2 850,000 -17.07%
9 THORNGATE 2 970,000 1 1,150,000 18.56%
10 NETHERBY 5 930,000 8 690,000 -25.81%
11 ROSE_Park 2 915,000 3 1,300,000 42.08%
12 WATERFALL_GULLY 1 900,000 2 2,550,000 183.33%
13 NORTH_ADELAIDE 14 900,000 10 801,250 -10.97%
14 SKYE 1 880,000 1 710,000 -19.32%
15 ST.PETERS 6 857,500 16 1,022,500 19.24%
16 LGA_ADELAIDE 16 855,000 13 800,000 -6.40%
17 ERINDALE 5 845,500 6 847,500 0.24%
18 TUSMORE 4 825,000 2 931,000 12.85%
19 GLENELG 3 800,000 5 1,011,250 26.41%
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Toorak_Gardens,_South_Australia&oldid=1201484606"