Talk:Napier Downs

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Australia: Western Australia Low‑importance Napier Downs 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 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 LibrarianWhat'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. Agriculture Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of agriculture 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.AgricultureWikipedia:WikiProject AgricultureTemplate:WikiProject AgricultureAgriculture Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. Wikipedians in Western Australia may be able to help! The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

I was contacted by the previous owner of the property who has questioned some of the article details, particularly those taken from the Beef Central reference

Thanks for the amendments. Just to answer your comment about the lease size. The lease area has changed over the years by way of resumptions and boundary changes, whilst it was 1,000,000 acres in 1969 it has changed many times since. The current lease area is closer to 380,000 ha. It is actually 386,679ha. It is unlikely that you will find this confirmed in any news article.Leut1 (talk) 04:41, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Just in case further details come into conflict with the BC reference then I'm leaving this note here..... Hughesdarren (talk) 04:52, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]