Talk:Morgan Whyalla pipeline

retain historic description or paraphrase and upgrade?
The section "Description" is currently a very close copy of a 1946 description published in Western Australia as a comparison to the older Goldfields pipeline. I am seeking a second opinion on whether this should Pinging as main author. --Scott Davis Talk 02:32, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) be returned to an exact quote and boxed, or
 * 2) paraphrased, wikified and upgraded with more modern information such as water treatment
 * Thanks Scott. It's pretty clear I got a lot from
 * I thought I was fairly conscientious about paraphrasing but maybe not well enough that time. With technical descriptions there's sometimes not a lot you can do without losing comprehension. Doug butler (talk) 05:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I just read it again, and the source, and thought it a pretty honest job of work. I doubt there's any six consecutive words common to the two. The sequencing is identical, but it's a technical description. The water starts here, goes through blah blah and ends up there. The phrase "arid country" stands out and could be replaced by any number of synonyms, but none better. Doug butler (talk) 06:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you Doug butler. When I get round to it, I will try to rephrase parts of that section into being a historic description, as things like the filtration and milky appearance of the water have clearly been upgraded since then. Cheers. --Scott Davis Talk 22:56, 6 January 2021 (UTC)