This is based pretty much off the government report. I became aware of it at this. I also saw it mentioned on the local news. I have included inline where the facts can be documented. --LauraHale (talk) 07:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Canberra and the Northern Territory have the most expensive cocaine in Australia" - I suggest this because cocaine is not produced in Australia. Cheers, --SVTCobra16:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article suffers from skewed focus. It hangs together just well enough that I didn't not-ready it over this; and focus would be a massive change so I couldn't do it during review; but it's really about the report as a whole, not about the particulars of where cocaine is most expensive. Moreover, problems with omitted details, mentioned below, probably would not have arisen in the first place had the focus been properly on the report. I recommend better focus on future such articles.
That these reports have only been produced for the past ten years seems essential to understanding most of the stats in the last paragraph. I hesitated over the point, but decided it was small enough and fit smoothly enough to work in.
The size of the report should have been here, but unlike the tenth-annual thing, could not be slipped into the current article structure non-disruptively (besides adding up uncomfortably on my involvement tally).
The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.
This article suffers from skewed focus. It hangs together just well enough that I didn't not-ready it over this; and focus would be a massive change so I couldn't do it during review; but it's really about the report as a whole, not about the particulars of where cocaine is most expensive. Moreover, problems with omitted details, mentioned below, probably would not have arisen in the first place had the focus been properly on the report. I recommend better focus on future such articles.
That these reports have only been produced for the past ten years seems essential to understanding most of the stats in the last paragraph. I hesitated over the point, but decided it was small enough and fit smoothly enough to work in.
The size of the report should have been here, but unlike the tenth-annual thing, could not be slipped into the current article structure non-disruptively (besides adding up uncomfortably on my involvement tally).
The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.
