Two things that strike me as slightly odd.
Whether the marriage was at Ballarat or Melbourne. It would be kind of understandable for someone who didn't know where the actual marriage had taken place, but thought it was in Victoria, to say that it was at Melbourne. But since the apparent record actually exists, and it is specifically at Melbourne, then it seems strange to claim that it was at Ballarat.
The second thing that is odd, is that the informant on the death certificate is not the husband, nor indeed the son. Unless there is indication of a severe estrangement, this suggests to me that the husband was already dead.
