Talk:Clackline Refractory

Australia: Western Australia Low‑importance

	Australia portal Clackline Refractory 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 Western Australia (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Western Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Western Australian Wheatbelt

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Western Australian Wheatbelt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Wheatbelt 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.Western Australian WheatbeltWikipedia:WikiProject Western Australian WheatbeltTemplate:WikiProject Western Australian WheatbeltWestern Australian Wheatbelt articles

largely untouched[edit]

The article says

By 1908, thousands of tonnes of clay had been mined, but the deposit was still largely untouched.

which doesn't read quite right to me. "Largely untouched" seems to contradict "thousands of tonnes ... mined". I presume what the article means is "barely scratched the surface of" or "barely made a dent in" but such expressions are too informal. Any suggestions? Mitch Ames (talk) 13:10, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we could quote the source directly; then the article could say something like

By 1908, thousands of tonnes of clay had been mined, reportedly "without making any appreciable impression upon the enormous deposit".^[3]

- Evad37 [talk] 05:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The word "reportedly" (and thus also the comma) is superfluous if you're quoting, but otherwise that would work. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:50, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done, without reportedly - Evad37 [talk] 07:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]