Template:Did you know nominations/Water fluoridation in Australia
- 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 Carabinieri (talk) 20:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Water fluoridation in Australia
[edit]- ... that in 1953, Beaconsfield, Tasmania became the first town in Australia to fluoridate the water supply?
Created/expanded by Fishieman15 (talk). Nominated by PFHLai (talk) at 04:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Newness fits (nom's within 2 days), long enough, references are written in format as required but 1,6,30,32 are not verificable and there are whole lof of replicated links to the pdf file that can/should be cut with the ref name tag. Also the second paragraph is not relevant, especially for the lead (perhaps a background section but it needs a source). Is got a nice useful image but needs indication of which is for which year. Nice hook, but it links to the ref 6 listed above.Lihaas (talk) 14:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
-
- Good on the hook source for verifiability. The bt sorted the duplicate refs. My only concern is the 2/3 remaining unverifiable refs. Otherwise good to pass.Lihaas (talk) 10:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- I have just left a note on the author's usertalkpage asking for more info on the 2 off-line references in question. Hope this helps. --PFHLai (talk) 00:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I found some details for a couple of problematic refs and added them to the article. Should be good now. --Orlady (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- Is there anything for ref 29? Try something here and im good to passLihaas (talk) 07:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- Cited references do not need to be online in order to be verifiable. Previously, when that reference was cited as nothing but an abbreviated title ("Interim Report of the Fluoride in Waters Survey Committee"), the reference was not sufficient for verifiability. I found that this particular document is widely referred to by that name, but the other publications that reference it include a standard reference citation. I added some publication details (date of 1947, name of first author, and published by Department of Agriculture and Stock in Brisbane) that should be sufficient for verifiability. An interested person should be able to use those details to obtain a paper copy. Many of the online references cited in the article would benefit from additional reference details, but all of the references listed are now verifiable, and in my opinion the reference list in the article now meets the requirements for DYK. I have not evaluated all of the other review items (although I confirm that the hook is well-supported), so I did not add a tickmark. --Orlady (talk) 13:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- Is there anything for ref 29? Try something here and im good to passLihaas (talk) 07:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- I have just left a note on the author's usertalkpage asking for more info on the 2 off-line references in question. Hope this helps. --PFHLai (talk) 00:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- Good on the hook source for verifiability. The bt sorted the duplicate refs. My only concern is the 2/3 remaining unverifiable refs. Otherwise good to pass.Lihaas (talk) 10:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- All set.
Lihaas (talk) 13:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
