Talk:Toorak Gardens, South Australia

Toorak 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
Date	Process	Result
June 15, 2007	Good article nominee	Not listed

Australia: Adelaide Low‑importance

	Australia portal Toorak Gardens, South Australia 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 Adelaide (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

GA review

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

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

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

"Generic" pages

http://wic003lc.server-web.com/~admin417/index.php?page=statistics-2
http://wic003lc.server-web.com/~admin417/index.php?page=market-update

Quarterly reports

Q4 2006: http://wic003lc.server-web.com/~admin417/uploads/Documents/QuarterlyHousePrices.pdf
Q1 2007:
Q2 2007: http://wic003lc.server-web.com/~admin417/uploads/Documents/Property%20Stats%20Jun07.pdf
Q3 2007: http://wic003lc.server-web.com/~admin417/uploads/Documents/House%20stats%20Sep07.pdf
Q4 2007: http://wic003lc.server-web.com/~admin417/uploads/Documents/Prop%20stats%20Dec07.pdf
Q1 2008: http://wic003lc.server-web.com/~admin417/uploads/Documents/Prop%20Stats%20Mar08.pdf
Q2 2008:
Q3 2008: http://wic003lc.server-web.com/~admin417/uploads/Documents/Suburb%20stats%20Sept08.pdf
Q4 2008: http://wic003lc.server-web.com/~admin417/uploads/Documents/Suburb%20Stats%20Dec08.pdf
Q1 2009: http://wic003lc.server-web.com/~admin417/uploads/Property%20Stats%201Q09.pdf
Q2 2009: http://wic003lc.server-web.com/~admin417/uploads/Stats/June%20Quarter%202009.pdf
Q3 2009: http://wic003lc.server-web.com/~admin417/uploads/Stats/Stats%20Sept09.pdf
Q4 2009: http://wic003lc.server-web.com/~admin417/uploads/Documents/House%20prices%20Dec09.pdf
Q1 2010: http://wic003lc.server-web.com/~admin417/uploads/Stats/Stats%20Mar10.pdf
Q2 2010: http://wic003lc.server-web.com/~admin417/uploads/Stats/HousePrices%20Jun10.pdf
Q3 2010: http://wic003lc.server-web.com/~admin417/uploads/Stats/House%20Prices%20Sep10.pdf
Q4 2010: http://wic003lc.server-web.com/~admin417/uploads/Stats/House%20Prices%20Dec10.pdf
Q1 2011: http://wic003lc.server-web.com/~admin417/uploads/Stats/REM%20April2011-Statistics.pdf
Q2 2011: http://wic003lc.server-web.com/~admin417/uploads/House%20price%20July%202011%20.pdf
Q3 2011: http://wic003lc.server-web.com/~admin417/uploads/House%20Prices/Statistics_Nov2011.pdf
Q4 2011:
Q1 2012:

Market updates

Q1 2007:
Q2 2007:
Q3 2007: http://wic003lc.server-web.com/~admin417/uploads/Documents/Market%20Update%20Sept07.pdf
Q4 2007:
Q1 2008:
Q2 2008: http://wic003lc.server-web.com/~admin417/uploads/Documents/Market%20Update%20Final%20Mar08.pdf
Q3 2008:
Q4 2008:
Q1 2009: http://wic003lc.server-web.com/~admin417/uploads/Documents/March%20Quarter%20Edition%202009.pdf
Q2 2009: http://wic003lc.server-web.com/~admin417/uploads/Documents/June%20Quarter%20Edition.pdf
Q3 2009: http://wic003lc.server-web.com/~admin417/uploads/Documents/Market%20Update%20Sept09.pdf
Q4 2009: http://wic003lc.server-web.com/~admin417/uploads/Documents/Dec%20Quarter%20Edition.pdf
Q1 2010: http://wic003lc.server-web.com/~admin417/uploads/Documents/March10%20Quarter%20Edition.pdf
Q2 2010: http://wic003lc.server-web.com/~admin417/uploads/Stats/June10%20Quarter%20Edition.pdf
Q3 2010: http://wic003lc.server-web.com/~admin417/uploads/Stats/Sept10%20Quarter%20Edition.pdf
Q4 2010: http://wic003lc.server-web.com/~admin417/uploads/Documents/Market_Update_Dec_2010.pdf
Q1 2011: http://wic003lc.server-web.com/~admin417/uploads/Documents/Market%20Update%20-%20Mar%202011.pdf
Q2 2011: http://wic003lc.server-web.com/~admin417/uploads/Jun11%20Quarter%20Edition%20-%20final.pdf
Q3 2011: http://wic003lc.server-web.com/~admin417/uploads/Sep11%20Quarter%20Edition%20-%20final.pdf
Q4 2011: http://wic003lc.server-web.com/~admin417/uploads/Market%20Update%202012/DEC11%20Quarter%20Edition%20-%20.pdf
Q1 2012:

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

Summary

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

Q2 2010

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

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

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%