Talk:Morgan Whyalla pipeline

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.

Australia: South Australia Low‑importance

	Australia portal Morgan Whyalla pipeline 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 South Australia (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 South Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

retain historic description or paraphrase and upgrade?

The section "Description" is currently a very close copy of a 1946 description published in Western Australia as a comparison to the older Goldfields pipeline. I am seeking a second opinion on whether this should

be returned to an exact quote and boxed, or
paraphrased, wikified and upgraded with more modern information such as water treatment

Pinging @Doug butler: as main author. --Scott Davis ^Talk 02:32, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Scott. It's pretty clear I got a lot from "A MODERN WATER SCHEME". Kalgoorlie Miner. Vol. 52, no. 13, 640. Western Australia. 5 April 1946.

I thought I was fairly conscientious about paraphrasing but maybe not well enough that time. With technical descriptions there's sometimes not a lot you can do without losing comprehension. Doug butler (talk) 05:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just read it again, and the source, and thought it a pretty honest job of work. I doubt there's any six consecutive words common to the two. The sequencing is identical, but it's a technical description. The water starts here, goes through blah blah and ends up there. The phrase "arid country" stands out and could be replaced by any number of synonyms, but none better. Doug butler (talk) 06:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Doug butler. When I get round to it, I will try to rephrase parts of that section into being a historic description, as things like the filtration and milky appearance of the water have clearly been upgraded since then. Cheers. --Scott Davis ^Talk 22:56, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]