Talk:National edeposit

Update on article status
I've now more or less finished tinkering with the article (and those related to the topic) for now, except for the lead. has already removed the prod template, so if and others are happy to let it stand, I'll upgrade the lead, but if it is decided that the info should be merged into the NSLA article, I won't waste my time on that now. Thanks. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , you sure put in a lot of work. I am duly impressed. Congrats on your masterpiece! Normal Op (talk) 07:23, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks again! The other thing I forgot to note is that if it stays here, it could do with an infobox. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:46, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

However, it would probably be a toss up at AfD and it definitely "deserves" an article, so I'm not going to nominate it. --MrClog (talk) 10:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Source 1 was written/reviewed by the Chief Executive Officer of State Library Victoria (not independent).
 * Sources 2-7, 10, 14-16 and 22 were published by involved organisations.
 * Source 9 is written by the Director of Collaborative Digital Services at the National Library of Australia (not independent).
 * Source 11 is an interview with Libby Cass, the Director of Australian Collections Management and Terence Ingram, Director Collection Infrastructure at the National Library of Australia. Source 12 is by Cass as well.
 * Source 13 extensively quotes non-independent texts, so there is no independent SIGCOV.
 * Source 17 & 18 is not SIGCOV.
 * Source 19 is written by employees of involved organisations.
 * Yes, thanks . I did realise that as I went along, that there was next to nothing written about it by non-involved sources, but as I had already opened and started looking at the web pages, thought that I may as well add the various bits of detail to the article. Anyway - I'll come back to it and tidy it up another day, and hope that more independent sources about it are published in future years. (Actually, one thing I think I need to establish and clarify in the article - although it was built by the consortium of NSLA members, it is now hosted and managed by the NLA and presumably wholly funded by federal govt.) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 11:26, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Here is an independent reliable source which covers the Australian system and compares it with other countries. Digital Legal Deposit in Selected Jurisdictions (July 2018), report by the staff of the Global Legal Research Directorate of the Law Library of Congress (USA). 

Some others (or possibles): Normal Op (talk) 20:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Report: Australian Libraries Join Forces to Build National Digital Collection (NED) by Gary Price August 18, 2019
 * "The funding and personnel constraints have coincided with surging demand for digital services, and part of the library's response has been to develop the Trove and National edeposit platforms."
 * "Excellence in multi-agency partnership award... National edeposit (NED) — A national digital collection for Australia: National and State Libraries Australia (NSLA)"
 * A book deposited into edeposit system
 * Thanks for those, . I had already cited that Library of Congress one, although hadn't included the PDF, so may as well do that now - and I can probably pull some more info out of it, for this one and the Legal deposit and/or other articles. Some of the others you've listed are a little peripheral, but I'll see where I can incorporate them. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , I chose the alternative LOC citations because of MrClog's comment: "Source 13 extensively quotes non-independent texts, so there is no independent WP:SIGCOV". The citation you used pointed to what amounts to a single chapter of the overall report. By pointing to the report itself (like the PDF, which I see you've chosen) it makes it clear to any reader, researcher, or wiki editor that the report was written by a non-involved independent person or persons, that the report covered more than just Australia, that it covered Australia and the general topic in depth, and was a serious comparison and analysis piece. It is definitely a quality citation for the National edeposit article that should lay to rest any thoughts that the subject hasn't received significant coverage. To wit, I point to a re-reading of WP:SIGCOV to see how this LOC source fits closely to the IBM example given in the WP policy document. Furthermore, the source material satisfies "Reliable", "secondary sources", "Independent of the subject", and "Presumed". Normal Op (talk) 03:10, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , ah, I see - good point. I have now cited both and then got diverted back to Legal deposit and on to other additions there... but I'll still be on this one on and off for a while, at least until the lead is brought up to scratch. I appreciate your comments and extra detail. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 04:05, 7 May 2020 (UTC)