Talk:Battle of Puketutu/GA1

I've removed them, I was copying the info box used in another article but always thought it a bit odd that one side has the flags and not the other. Zawed (talk) 06:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ranks don't need to be in the infobox, must names

Done. Zawed (talk) 06:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What's going on with the blank space next to the Māori names? If there's no flag you just don't leave a gap, surely?

Done. Zawed (talk) 06:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest replacing taua with war party in the infobox, as people will be reading that without having read the article to know what it means

Done. Zawed (talk) 06:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article says there were 320 British Army soldiers not 300, and 87 rather than 100 RN/RM personnel?

Made consistent with text. Zawed (talk) 06:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ibid Kawiti, 140 in text 150 in infobox

Made consistent with text. Zawed (talk) 06:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The British wounded figure should be 30–40?

Made consistent with text. Zawed (talk) 06:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Background

Suggest changing "the Crown" to "the British Crown"

Done. Zawed (talk) 08:00, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could we have an extra sentence explaining exactly what this "legal basis" allowed?

I have revised this as suggested in a way to also set up the "intentions" comment below. Zawed (talk) 08:21, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"the relocation"

Done. Zawed (talk) 08:00, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"contrary to the intentions of the Treaty of Waitangi" how so?

I have reworded this and tied it into the explanation of the Treaty earlier in the section. Zawed (talk) 08:21, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is dominance the right word here for the flagstaff? Perhaps control?

Done. Zawed (talk) 08:30, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"actions were"

Done. Zawed (talk) 08:00, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"and affected its credibility" > ", affecting its credibility"

Done. Zawed (talk) 08:00, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note 1 assumes you've already told us Hobson was governor but you haven't

I've deleted the note; trying to work in the point that Hobson later became the first governor probably isn't worthwhile for the purpose of this article. Zawed (talk) 08:33, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Link blockhouse

Done. Zawed (talk) 08:00, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We don't prefix HMS with "the", because that would mean "the His Majesty's Ship"

Done. Zawed (talk) 08:00, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Give Hazard a brief description, e.g. "the sloop HMS Hazard..."

Done. Zawed (talk) 08:00, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Kororāreka

Can you introduce the size of Kawiti's force here or is it only known for the later date?

Have clarified, I actually had the wrong number for Heke's force. Zawed (talk) 03:50, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Kororāreka was abandoned"

Done. Zawed (talk) 08:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"HMS Hazard" don't need to repeat the HMS after first mention

Done. Zawed (talk) 08:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Even some settlers participated in the looting." this is worded as if it is of special import?

I was trying to get across that it wasn't just Māori involved. Zawed (talk) 08:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Government response

This section might be better as a level 3 heading within Battle of Kororāreka

Done, but I have broken out some content into a level 2 heading. Zawed (talk) 03:36, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Name the Governor of New South Wales here

Done. Zawed (talk) 08:43, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"in the form of"

Done. Zawed (talk) 08:43, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

iwi should be italicised

Done. Zawed (talk) 08:43, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Angered by Heke's actions"?

Done. Zawed (talk) 08:43, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Repeat comment about not prefixing HMS with "the", and explanation of ship§

Done. Zawed (talk) 08:43, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If there's no link for Otuihu can you provide some kind of geographical explanation? ibid Waiōmio

Done. Zawed (talk) 03:15, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"~~at the very least~~"

Done. Zawed (talk) 08:54, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Nene's taua was at Ōkaihau" reword this, sounds like you're introducing it for the first time but it's already been mentioned

Rephrased. Zawed (talk) 08:54, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"offered a better opportunity"

Done. Zawed (talk) 08:54, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"would also allow the expected engagement to occur over open ground" does this mean other routes would not have allowed? A little explanation would be useful

Have revised. Zawed (talk) 03:15, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prelude

Remove repeated "HMS"s

Done. Zawed (talk) 09:12, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do we know Egerton's first name?

It is not available. Zawed (talk) 09:12, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Link acting

Done. Zawed (talk) 09:12, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I don't put "the" before ship names at all, but it's ok to do so when the prefix isn't present. Just make sure you're consistent!

Removed. Zawed (talk) 09:12, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean overestimated?

Whoops, yes I did mean that! Fixed. Zawed (talk) 09:12, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"It may have been that..." this is an argument, give the name of who opines it

Clarified opinion. Zawed (talk) 03:34, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"affected their gunpowder." vague; damaged might work better

Don't think damaged is the correct word, just went with wet. Zawed (talk) 09:12, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"was substantially in the form of a square" substantially? not sure that makes much sense or in necessary

Have deleted substantially. Zawed (talk) 03:32, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"A series of three palisades were in place" where is this?

Clarified. Zawed (talk) 03:32, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"It is also likely" another opinion

Clarified opinion. Zawed (talk) 03:32, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Battle

"but despite this" > "Despite this,"

Fixed. Zawed (talk) 04:16, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"as was at least some of his men" were not was; assume this means some of the army were not confident which is probably a more important point to emphasise

Actually not intending to imply a lack of confidence, it is just that there was only one oral statement in my sources from a rank-and-file soldier saying they were confident, or words to this effect. I have revised and included a quote. Zawed (talk) 04:16, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to describe what these "different routes" were?

I fear I have gone beyond the scope of the sources in terms of "different routes", so have deleted this mention. Zawed (talk) 05:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"presumably to breach the palisades" another opinion?

Revised. Zawed (talk) 04:16, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Lieutenant Egerton" no need to repeat rank

Done. Zawed (talk) 04:16, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"The use of the rockets was a failure and may have provided" > "The failure of the rockets may have provided..."

Done. Zawed (talk) 04:16, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"may have provided" needs attribution too imo

Done. Zawed (talk) 05:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Just prior to this, a red flag had been raised and lowered within the pā." why is this useful?

This goes toward the coordination between Heke and Kawiti, I have expanded on this. In doing so, I discovered in terms of sequence of event I had this in the wrong place so have fixed this. Zawed (talk) 04:16, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

" having caused British attackers to lose..." this is a strangely worded sentence, suggest rewriting more clearly (e.g. get rid of "lose")

Have rephrased. Zawed (talk) 04:16, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

effect not affect

Fixed. Zawed (talk) 04:16, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"This was likely to have been important" ibid earlier opinion-like phrases

Clarified opinion. Zawed (talk) 04:16, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"~~died~~ later died"

Fixed. Zawed (talk) 04:16, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"was fortunate to not have been killed" how so?

Have clarified. Zawed (talk) 04:16, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

"Pakaraka, closer to their home region" not sure we know where either Pakaraka or their home region are?

Clarified. Zawed (talk) 04:45, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Maungakawakawa" ibid

Done. Zawed (talk) 04:45, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"On receiving Hulme's overly optimistic report" how was it optimistic?

Have clarified. Zawed (talk) 04:45, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"trumpeted" suggest a less flowery word like "announced" or "proclaimed"

Went with declared. Zawed (talk) 04:45, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Ngapuhi" should this be the Ngapuhi, and have an accent?

Done. Zawed (talk) 04:45, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"regarded as representing a victory for the Māori" according to who?

Made this more succinct, each of the cited sources call it a victory. Zawed (talk) 05:09, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"was important to their success"

Done. Zawed (talk) 04:45, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"For the British..." have read this sentence several times but still struggling to figure out what it's meant to be telling us apart from that their weren't idiots compared to...someone?

Have rephrased. Zawed (talk) 04:45, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"is privately owned farmland" an "as of.." would be good here

Done. Zawed (talk) 04:45, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"of present day Ōkaihau" do you mean "of" here? Doesn't seem to make sense

Fixed. Zawed (talk) 04:45, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note #5 could be included at the end of the aftermath section in the main text when discussing the British response to the battle?

Have moved to the discussion of the present day site. Zawed (talk) 04:45, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

References look good. Online sources checked, AGF for print sources.

@Zawed: That's all I have for now, will await your responses. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:51, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe:, another well constructed and thought out review that caught out a few errors that I had made, so thank you. It is particularly helpful since I am considering taking this to FA once it goes through A-class review. This now now ready for you to have another look. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 05:12, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Zawed: Happy with your edits. Some final comments:

"on the route of the march"

Done. Zawed (talk) 09:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Say who James Belich is

Done and linked. Zawed (talk) 09:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ōkaihau is a duplicated link

Fixed. Zawed (talk) 09:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"~~By this time~~ a quarter of the British attackers"

Done. Zawed (talk) 09:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"moving to Maungakawakawa"

Done. Zawed (talk) 09:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You explain how the British gained experience from the battle; is there evidence that this was then used elsewhere, or more generally what significance these gains had?

From a scan of sources, not explicitly, I think because this battle was the only one of its type. It was the Māori that learnt the most from Puketutu, so I have expanded on this a little. @Pickersgill-Cunliffe:, this is ready for another look. Thanks, Zawed (talk) 09:16, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Zawed: Great, passing this as satisfying the GA criteria. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:29, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]