Talk:Royal Canberra Hospital

	Australia portal Royal Canberra Hospital 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 Canberra (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.

Hospitals Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hospitals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hospitals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HospitalsWikipedia:WikiProject HospitalsTemplate:WikiProject HospitalsHospital articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

If you have access to published records of activities at Royal Canberra Hospital or are able to expand or correct. Please add.Fauncet (talk) 07:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why does google not pick up this page, but only the implosion and the Canberra Hospital pages?150.203.87.185 (talk) 02:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Close paraphrasing

A note about close paraphrasing was placed at the front of this article (without any mention here of relevant details) Without any identification of where the paraphrasing is occurring (if it is) nothing can be done to rectify itFauncet (talk) 22:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, that I should have specified here, on the talk page, what I had in mind when placing the otherwise vague tag to the article. My apologies.

The concern was related to a couple of blocks of quotations included in the article. They seemed a bit out of place, since they weren't attributed to anyone in particular. I assumed thus, that they were simply direct quotations from the book in reference. Now, on closer look, I see that I was incorrect, though. They are indeed quotations from one or more persons, so no problem actually exists. That aside, they do seem a bit out of place in the article and are rather unencyclopedic. The personal experiences reflected in them don't add much additional detail to the history of the institution and they seem to break the flow of the text. So I propose removing them.(talk) 21:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]