683:'Reasonable to assume' doesnt really cut it for sourcing for me I am afraid. AHC keeps fairly detailed records and I couldnt find anything to say they commissioned it. Likewise there is no info that it was ever published by them (as you would expect a report they commissioned would be). I have no problems with the existance of the report as stated above, its undoubtedly completely reliable given who wrote it for the info it contains, however nothing sourced TO the report was in the article. The report was, on the face of it, being used to support that the AHC find Gibraltar Falls of interest enough to make it notable. And that was what was unreliable about it. I suppose the edit summary could have been clearer, but I made my position quite clear on the talkpage above. (Also see Fram's talkpage for more on that, he can comment here but I think he did the similar sort of checks I did into the reports origin) If someone wants to get a copy and source stuff to the report, thats fine by me, there is probably quite a bit of info in it that would be relevant. Given its quite difficult to get hold of (yes I did try, unlike most stuff *published* by the AHC directly its not generally available) that may be a problem. Assuming good faith, I would consider it merely a minor issue of not checking the source properly. If I wanted to be harsher, I could say it was leaning towards padding a barely notable article in order to hit the minimum character mark for a DYK. Since there are other issues with source-misreading on the same article however I will happily go with the first one.
576:(EC) AHC report - Quite clearly TO the AHC, not BY the AHC. However what disturbs me is its usage, its clearly being wedged in there to support some sort of notability by implying the AHC find it of interest. As its not authored by (and I cant see anything confirming it was even commissioned by them) the AHC, the source in that context is not reliable. If there was info on the Falls that was in the article that was discussed in the report that would be a correct use of it as a source. There probably IS such info in there that could be used, given the nature of the report, but it would still probably be a weak source.
668:. Given that the for-profit consulting units of leading universities aren't in the habit of doing things for free, it's reasonable to assume that the report was commissioned by the Heritage Commission as part of its program of work. As reports of this type generally cover their topic in depth, these seems to be no reason to not mention it in the body of the article given that it's likely to be the most comprehensive work anyone has ever written on the topic. As such, I've restored it, albeit with tweaked wording to note that it was commissioned rather than published.
223:
80:
421:
290:
263:
177:
94:
53:
22:
104:
398:
201:
366:
73:
542:
what you are using it for, thats worse. Ginninderra Falls is not in ACT, its in NSW - Canberra is by far the closest urban link, but its over the border in NSW. A better (well more accurate) wording would be 'Its not the most well-known falls in the general area'. But I would want to see a source actually saying that. Still looking at other issues, just posting an update.
242:
558:
nothing to do with the Falls; and having two identical sources (the
Canberra Times, currently sources 10 and 12) is a bit of overkill as well) and I have given my opinion of the source used for the archaeological dig (not a published source, only available in one university library, the representation of it here is incorrect).
300:
518:
740:
edit also appears unjustified. The first and third citations are reliable sources which clearly support the material attributed to them (the third source is a statement by someone who's apparently a "authority on
Canberra's bush waterways"). I can't see what's in the second ref, but even if it wasn't
698:
I am a bit nonplussed as to why you want it in. At the moment all its being used is to say 'A report was done'. Notability isnt inherited, so that the AHC is notable and (as I say above) a report was prepared for them, doesnt make the report itself notable. As nothing is being sourced to the report,
557:
Thanks. The truly incorrect info is gone (I think), the remaining problems are of a lesser magnitued, more to do with padding the article (the opening hours of the car park and the fact that is has a barbecue are touristic information, not encyclopedic; the description of who is on that painting has
541:
Working through Fram's rough list above and concur. Some of the info is not supported by sources provided. The Bonzle one is really bad. If I AGF the people who have (re)inserted it have actually read it, then competance is an issue here. Its not a reliable source anyway, but when it doesnt even say
454:
Have you even bothered to check the info you readded? I have provided reasons in the edit summaries. You have e.g. readded the clearly incorrect Bonzle information (incorrect in the sense that you used it for things it doesn't claim, i.e. distances), and Bonzle isn't a reliable source anyway. You
600:
lists dissertations and theses, which are often similarly difficult to lay hands on. That said, until someone's actually looked at the source (for all we know, it could basically say "we looked, but didn't find anything significant"), I don't see that it belongs here in the article. The
658:
edit by Only in death was not well considered - especially the edit summary of "Remove info - source of dubious reliability". A couple of minutes
Googling was sufficient to establish that the authors of the report are qualified experts in relevant fields (here they are:
934:
495:
Right... My edit summary has "Ginninderra falls isn't even in the ACT", the immediate revert of it by LauraHale is "It is clearly in the ACT. It is not in New South Wales". Wanna discuss "comprehension" or do you prefer to drop your incorrect remarks?
462:
601:
Gibraltar-not-Gibraltar business is cute, but if there isn't that much to say about a subject (which appears to be the case here), we should accept that and move on, rather than trying to slather it with enough filler to get through DYK.
467:. The archaelogical dig is not in the source you provided. having a source for an announced walk, and another one from the next week to say that it did happened, is serious overkill for such a trivial issue.
465:
633:
used as a lever to remove sources that were quite unobjectionable in context. But I see no reason to keep it if the reference hasn't actually been consulted (beyond its title) to build the article.
439:
Sourced, relevant information appears to have randomly been removed from the article. I have restored it. Before removing information randomly again, please comment on talk page to explain why. --
615:
By 'not reliable' I meant 'not reliable for the use it is being put to here'. I'm sure its very reliable for what it contains/was written about. That however was not what it was being used for.
699:
why is it there? It adds nothing to the article without some explanation of its content. For all we know the report says 'This is a boring place with nothing of interest'. Needs context.
412:
408:
375:
273:
827:
823:
809:
596:
I think it's a stretch to call the report "unreliable". If it's written by experts in the field, I don't think the tiny distribution is much of a concern;
894:
629:
Oh, I quite agree with your point then. My apologies, I knee-jerk a bit when I see "reliable", as I've seen failure to comply with the precise letter of
167:
157:
781:
904:
191:
914:
889:
356:
924:
909:
899:
346:
919:
79:
805:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
714:
I've restored it only as it was removed on questionable grounds. On consideration, it might work best as a 'further reading' entry.
322:
459:
741:
accurate there's no good reason to remove the other material. I've just restored the first and third components of this material.
665:
513:
The article claims that "The
Australian Heritage Commission published a report": actually, it didn't; two authors made a report
929:
133:
120:
58:
186:
63:
72:
404:
870:
313:
268:
33:
664:), and the report was written under the oversight of the Australian National University's consulting arm at the time,
455:
claim that
Ginninderra Falls is in ACT, not in NSW? Strange, that's not what the sources tell, neither ones you prefer
782:
https://web.archive.org/web/20120416041611/http://www.tams.act.gov.au:80/play/pcl/get_out_there/camping/woods_reserve
481:
The article does not say that the
Ginninderra Falls is in the ACT. You seem to be having trouble with comprehension.
826:
to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
517:
the AHC, and the report was never published and is only available through one copy at the university (see e.g.
21:
861:
773:
704:
688:
620:
581:
547:
785:
444:
845:
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
833:
39:
772:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
420:
289:
262:
662:
440:
222:
799:
321:
on
Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
793:
732:
700:
684:
616:
577:
543:
486:
129:
830:
before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
232:
846:
176:
521:
746:
719:
673:
638:
606:
305:
109:
853:
660:
765:
456:
812:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by
563:
532:
501:
472:
852:
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
883:
482:
630:
597:
819:
742:
715:
669:
634:
602:
93:
52:
818:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
295:
200:
99:
559:
528:
497:
468:
365:
125:
935:
Articles created or improved during WikiProject
Oceania's 10,000 Challenge
875:
750:
723:
708:
692:
677:
642:
624:
610:
585:
567:
551:
536:
505:
490:
476:
448:
786:
http://www.tams.act.gov.au/play/pcl/get_out_there/camping/woods_reserve
419:
213:
654:
I don't want to buy into the debate over this article too much, but
318:
800:
http://cbn.canberrabirds.org.au/documents/cbnvol29no4.pdf#page=3
392:
15:
364:
221:
199:
175:
411:", which started in November 2016 and is still continuing.
776:
for additional information. I made the following changes:
769:
737:
655:
317:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
822:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
124:, which aims to improve Knowledge's coverage of
808:This message was posted before February 2018.
132:. If you would like to participate, visit the
8:
403:This article was created or improved during
19:
764:I have just modified one external link on
257:
47:
259:
49:
7:
311:This article is within the scope of
38:It is of interest to the following
208:Need help improving this article?
14:
895:Low-importance Australia articles
768:. Please take a moment to review
905:Low-importance Canberra articles
396:
298:
288:
261:
240:
102:
92:
78:
71:
51:
20:
351:This article has been rated as
162:This article has been rated as
142:Knowledge:WikiProject Australia
915:WikiProject Australia articles
890:Start-Class Australia articles
236:can be contacted via email to
145:Template:WikiProject Australia
1:
925:Low-importance River articles
910:WikiProject Canberra articles
900:Start-Class Canberra articles
751:09:16, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
724:09:16, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
709:09:13, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
693:09:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
678:08:49, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
643:02:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
625:15:16, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
611:15:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
586:12:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
568:12:44, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
552:12:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
537:11:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
506:11:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
491:11:43, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
477:11:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
458:nor truly reliable ones like
449:10:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
373:This article is supported by
325:and see a list of open tasks.
248:for non-editorial assistance.
214:National Library of Australia
184:This article is supported by
876:18:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
331:Knowledge:WikiProject Rivers
701:Only in death does duty end
685:Only in death does duty end
617:Only in death does duty end
578:Only in death does duty end
544:Only in death does duty end
334:Template:WikiProject Rivers
233:Wikimedia Australia chapter
951:
920:Start-Class River articles
839:(last update: 5 June 2024)
761:Hello fellow Wikipedians,
357:project's importance scale
168:project's importance scale
376:the Waterfalls task force
372:
350:
283:
241:
229:
207:
183:
161:
87:
46:
130:Australia-related topics
757:External links modified
118:is within the scope of
930:WikiProject Waterfalls
424:
369:
226:
204:
180:
28:This article is rated
523:. Hardly a reliable,
423:
368:
225:
203:
179:
121:WikiProject Australia
820:regular verification
435:Restored information
187:WikiProject Canberra
810:After February 2018
405:WikiProject Oceania
864:InternetArchiveBot
815:InternetArchiveBot
425:
370:
314:WikiProject Rivers
227:
205:
181:
148:Australia articles
34:content assessment
840:
736:
429:
428:
391:
390:
387:
386:
383:
382:
256:
255:
252:
251:
942:
874:
865:
838:
837:
816:
797:
730:
409:10,000 Challenge
400:
399:
393:
339:
338:
335:
332:
329:
308:
306:Geography portal
303:
302:
301:
292:
285:
284:
279:
276:
265:
258:
247:
246:wikimedia.org.au
245:
244:
243:
150:
149:
146:
143:
140:
112:
110:Australia portal
107:
106:
105:
96:
89:
88:
83:
82:
81:
76:
75:
74:
69:
66:
55:
48:
31:
25:
24:
16:
950:
949:
945:
944:
943:
941:
940:
939:
880:
879:
868:
863:
831:
824:have permission
814:
791:
774:this simple FaQ
766:Gibraltar Falls
759:
437:
397:
336:
333:
330:
327:
326:
304:
299:
297:
277:
271:
239:
237:
210:Ask a Librarian
147:
144:
141:
138:
137:
116:Gibraltar Falls
108:
103:
101:
77:
70:
67:
61:
32:on Knowledge's
29:
12:
11:
5:
948:
946:
938:
937:
932:
927:
922:
917:
912:
907:
902:
897:
892:
882:
881:
858:
857:
850:
803:
802:
788:
780:Added archive
758:
755:
754:
753:
727:
726:
696:
695:
652:
651:
650:
649:
648:
647:
646:
645:
591:
590:
589:
588:
571:
570:
511:
510:
509:
508:
479:
436:
433:
431:
427:
426:
417:
401:
389:
388:
385:
384:
381:
380:
371:
361:
360:
353:Low-importance
349:
343:
342:
340:
337:River articles
323:the discussion
310:
309:
293:
281:
280:
278:Low‑importance
266:
254:
253:
250:
249:
228:
218:
217:
206:
196:
195:
192:Low-importance
182:
172:
171:
164:Low-importance
160:
154:
153:
151:
114:
113:
97:
85:
84:
68:Low‑importance
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
947:
936:
933:
931:
928:
926:
923:
921:
918:
916:
913:
911:
908:
906:
903:
901:
898:
896:
893:
891:
888:
887:
885:
878:
877:
872:
867:
866:
855:
851:
848:
844:
843:
842:
835:
829:
825:
821:
817:
811:
806:
801:
795:
789:
787:
783:
779:
778:
777:
775:
771:
767:
762:
756:
752:
748:
744:
739:
734:
733:edit conflict
729:
728:
725:
721:
717:
713:
712:
711:
710:
706:
702:
694:
690:
686:
682:
681:
680:
679:
675:
671:
667:
663:
661:
657:
644:
640:
636:
632:
628:
627:
626:
622:
618:
614:
613:
612:
608:
604:
599:
595:
594:
593:
592:
587:
583:
579:
575:
574:
573:
572:
569:
565:
561:
556:
555:
554:
553:
549:
545:
539:
538:
534:
530:
526:
522:
519:
516:
507:
503:
499:
494:
493:
492:
488:
484:
480:
478:
474:
470:
466:
463:
460:
457:
453:
452:
451:
450:
446:
442:
434:
432:
422:
418:
416:
415:
414:You can help!
410:
406:
402:
395:
394:
378:
377:
367:
363:
362:
358:
354:
348:
345:
344:
341:
324:
320:
316:
315:
307:
296:
294:
291:
287:
286:
282:
275:
270:
267:
264:
260:
235:
234:
224:
220:
219:
215:
211:
202:
198:
197:
193:
190:(assessed as
189:
188:
178:
174:
173:
169:
165:
159:
156:
155:
152:
135:
131:
127:
123:
122:
117:
111:
100:
98:
95:
91:
90:
86:
65:
60:
57:
54:
50:
45:
41:
35:
27:
23:
18:
17:
862:
859:
834:source check
813:
807:
804:
763:
760:
697:
653:
540:
524:
514:
512:
438:
430:
413:
374:
352:
312:
230:
209:
185:
163:
134:project page
119:
115:
40:WikiProjects
30:Start-class
884:Categories
871:Report bug
274:Waterfalls
854:this tool
847:this tool
794:dead link
525:published
441:LauraHale
139:Australia
126:Australia
59:Australia
860:Cheers.—
527:source.
483:Hawkeye7
64:Canberra
798:tag to
770:my edit
666:ANUTECH
355:on the
212:at the
166:on the
790:Added
743:Nick-D
716:Nick-D
670:Nick-D
635:Choess
603:Choess
328:Rivers
319:Rivers
269:Rivers
36:scale.
631:WP:RS
598:WP:RS
747:talk
738:This
720:talk
705:talk
689:talk
674:talk
656:this
639:talk
621:talk
607:talk
582:talk
564:talk
560:Fram
548:talk
533:talk
529:Fram
520:and
502:talk
498:Fram
487:talk
473:talk
469:Fram
445:talk
407:'s "
238:help
231:The
128:and
828:RfC
784:to
515:for
464:or
461:or
347:Low
158:Low
886::
841:.
836:}}
832:{{
796:}}
792:{{
749:)
722:)
707:)
691:)
676:)
641:)
623:)
609:)
584:)
566:)
550:)
535:)
504:)
489:)
475:)
447:)
272::
194:).
62::
873:)
869:(
856:.
849:.
745:(
735:)
731:(
718:(
703:(
687:(
672:(
637:(
619:(
605:(
580:(
562:(
546:(
531:(
500:(
485:(
471:(
443:(
379:.
359:.
216:.
170:.
136:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
