sorry copy

Two sleeps to go. After booking the ferry tickets the other day we idly scrolled through the ferry company websites reading what they had to say about Rotto, and the experience was pretty ordinary. Why oh why is this considered essential information to convince people of the delights of the beautiful island:

11 kilometres long, 4.5 kilometres at its widest point. All three ferry companies report this. The width at its narrowesht point is more intereshting, shurely?

And the weather: surely people will be wondering what sort of climate they can expect? How best to convey this vital information?

The island is an A-Class reserve enjoying a semi-arid Mediterranean style climate. Right right right. At least Rottnest Express doesn’t regurgitate this. The company doesn’t say anything about the weather at all.

Rottnest Express says the island is “idyllic”. Oceanic Cruises says it’s “charming”. Rottnest Fast Ferries merely says it’s “WA's most beautiful Island”.

According to RE the bays are “tranquil turquoise”, and then a bit later they’re “world-class” – a very WA phrase. OC claims the bays are “some of the finest in the world”, which we guess means world-class. No opinion on the bays from the folk at RFF.

Proofreading isn’t the most sought-after skill at RE: The underwater life in and around the world-class bays makes diving adn snorkelling both breathtaking and beautiful for expart and novices alike.

And they haven’t done their quokka research, either: Growing less than a foot tall, the quokka cannot be found anywhere else in the world which is why it is a star attraction on the Island.

Those ones down south and on nearby islands must be faux quokkas.

OC and RFF have this: a unique style of architecture dating back to the 1800's. The apostrophe abuse is annoying – and having spruiked the architecture, why not give some detail?

Are we being too critical? Do we expect too much? Why don’t some people write for their audience?