Template:Did you know nominations/Galilee Basin

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by BlueMoonset (talk) 23:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Galilee Basin

(

)

... that water supply for mines in the Galilee Basin was provided as a reason to support the development of the Bradfield Scheme in Queensland, Australia.

Created/expanded by Shiftchange (talk). Self nom at 01:05, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The length is okay, but I would suggest consolidating the various sections into an overall summary given the brevity of the article. Also, I cannot verify the accuracy of the article's hook because the cited reference cannot be accessed. Ditto the other published sources although the web-based sources look credible. Otherwise, the article is good to go. Marcd30319 (talk) 23:44, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The reference can be accessed via Google Books by clicking the link, searching for Galilee Basin within the book and clicking on page 132. I don't know what you mean about consolidating the various sections or why that is needed. - Shiftchange (talk) 22:18, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your follow-up. I think the burden is on the editor and not the reviewer to verify the veracity of the references used in an article. I have taken the liberty of providing the direct link to the stated page for the sources used in the article. You may revert if you wish, but future users of the article would undoubtedly appreciate seeing the actual sourcing without having to play hide-and-seek. Regarding consolidation, I would recommend combining the Structure and Resources section into a single section just to beef up the content. Both sections are complementary, and the article would look less fragmentary. Marcd30319 (talk) 11:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Good enough. Marcd30319 (talk) 14:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC)