Talk:Royal Canberra Hospital implosion

Sources

Since I class this as being more notable than Brain Burke - some sources to work on improvement--Golden Wattle ^talk 09:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• http://www.courts.act.gov.au/magistrates/dec/bender/Sect01.htm
• http://www.courts.act.gov.au/magistrates/dec/bender/Sect03.htm

http://www.engineersaustralia.org.au/shadomx/apps/fms/fmsdownload.cfm?file_uuid=1D3C4605-EFE1-594E-7852-4DCCF62AABA8&siteName=ieaust

• http://www.savive.com.au/casestudy/canberrahospital.html
• http://nla.gov.au/nla.pic-an13459476

Not appropriate for this page to appear as a surrogate in google search for Royal Canberra Hospital. Links to RCH in this version were undone on basis of overlinking, although most appeared in separate sentences and paragraphs. Wiki overlinking policy:

Overlinking Overlinking in a webpage or another hyperlinked text is the characteristic of having too many hyperlinks. It is characterized by:
A large proportion of the words in each sentence being rendered as links. (NOT APPLICABLE)
Links that have little information content, such as linking on specific years like 1995, or unnecessary linking of common words used in the common way, for which the reader can be expected to understand the word's full meaning in context, without any hyperlink help.(NOT APPLICABLE)
A link for any single term is excessively repeated in the same article. "Excessive" is usually more than one link for the same term in a line (NOT APPLICABLE) or a paragraph (ONLY APPLICABLE IN ONE INSTANCE), since in this case one or more duplicate links will almost certainly then appear needlessly on the viewer's screen.Fauncet (talk) 00:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

As for the removal of most of the 'Royal Canberra Hospital' links, my only intention was improving the readability of the article in general. The guidline of course leaves some room for interpretation, but what I had in mind was WP:LINK#Link density: "In general, link only the first occurrence of an item." I agree, though, that I possibly went too far. Keeping the guidline in mind I'm proposing one link in the lead section and one in "Implosion". More than 1–2 links seems excessive, since that link will likely be the first to be followed anyway when the article is read. Plus – this is a rather short article. Also, the link from the bolded phrase in first sentence should be removed as well, according to WP:LINK.

As for the alleged bias on my side – that's far-fetched. I have never heard of the incident, aside from this article. But speaking of bias and NPOV – looking at your user name, it unfortunately seems quite possible that you are in a relation with Dr Marcus de Laune Faunce. A possible conflict of interests. As for the Dr Faunce's quotation in the article, I'd say this gives that viewpoint undue weight, considering the lack of alternative viewpoints being mentioned and the possible COI. I'm not trying to say that the viewpoint is correct or not; I just want to be certain that the NPOV is preserved. Quibik (talk) 02:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Royal Canberra Hospital implosion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20090609035707/http://www.courts.act.gov.au/magistrates/dec/bender/Sect01.htm to http://www.courts.act.gov.au/magistrates/dec/bender/Sect01.htm
• Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20090609035620/http://www.courts.act.gov.au/magistrates/dec/bender/Sect09.htm to http://www.courts.act.gov.au/magistrates/dec/bender/Sect09.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/early-morning-blast-fells-unused-glenloch-bridge

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)