The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I see that a couple of editors have been collaborating closely on this article; you both should feel free to respond to comments and make changes during the review! —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:37, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article now meets the GA standard - it's not at FA standard yet, but it's in great shape. Congratulations to the nominators (Alexeyevitch and Marshalec) and anyone else who worked on it. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:16, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In its early days which days were these? Very vague - specify.
Some suggest that he did discover who are these "some"? Specify if possible. Also, what would have been his policy reasons for hiding the existence of the strait?
From an organizational standpoint, I'd recommend that both the shipwrecks and the lighthouses section be moved into 'History' as subsections.
Shipwrecks in the Foveaux Strait region are unfortunately not just a historical problem, with 8 people drowned in an incident in 2012, and on-going incidents that could lead to fatalities. My opinion is that a separate topic is warranted, given the reputation of the strait as "one of the roughest and most unpredictable stretches of water in the world". Note: for transparency, I want to advise that extensive work has been undertaken on Draft:List of shipwrecks of Southland, including all the shipwrecks currently described in this article. In due course, I propose that the Shipwrecks content in the Foveaux Strait article will be greatly reduced to a covering paragraph and a link to the new list article (once published). However, I remain of the view that shipwrecks warrant their own top-level heading, and do not need to be nested beneath history.
The lighthouses are a current feature of Foveaux Strait (although I note that the current text could make this clearer). Given that Foveaux Strait is an important navigable waterway, that it is used by many small vessels, and that it has notoriously bad conditions at times, lighthouses still have a role. They are maintained by Maritime New Zealand, despite the ubiquitous use of GPS navigation systems. There is an interesting history associated with the lighthouses, but in my view, their history is better kept together under a topic heading, as a feature of Foveaux Strait that is far more than their history alone.
I also note that moving the two sections Shipwrecks and Lighthouses into the history section may make that section a bit large.Marshelec (talk) 03:15, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both fair points - I'd also support changing the shipwrecks coverage from a list to prose. However, I don't think it's inaccurate to place them under 'History' - history sections generally include everything right up to the present. It would be good to (as you say) include a sentence or two more about the current set of lighthouses. Alexeyevitch, what do you think of these comments? —Ganesha811 (talk) 03:37, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with both of you but I also think the lighthouse section might need a trim. I will do some more work here. Alexeyevitch(talk)
The issues discussed above can be modified as needed, but I trust that in either prose or list form that the prose will meet GA standard ; all GA articles need to be kept up. Pass on prose after my tweaks.
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
Nothing not already discussed in 2b. Pass.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
Cites #4 and #8 (Taylor, lore and history) are identical and should be combined. Please check for other duplicates as well.
Is Cite #12 (Howard, Basil) actually several cites combined? I'm confused about how it's formatted and described.
Cites #11 and 14 (Place name detail) are effectively identical and should be combined.
Where missing, please add ISBNs or other identifiers (ISSN) to books and journal articles. For instance, Wises New Zealand guide, 1979, seems to be missing an ISBN and an author or publisher.
This appears to be complete by Marshelec... Let me know if there are any more missing and I will add it. Thx. Alexeyevitch(talk)
In #22 (Southland Murihiku) I don't think there's a need to italicize the name of the Ministry.
For #25 (Grady), is the publisher Reed or Methuen or both? I can't see any connection between the companies - did they merge at some point?
What's the case for shipwrecklog.com being a reliable source? It may be, I'd just like some more detail about it. Seems like it's just summarizing some other sources without adding anything.
For #115 (Seabird prioritization), same thing as above - no need to italicize the name of the Ministry. Reformat.
For #117 (Wildlife Management International), the Ministry of Primary Industries should be given in the cite as the hoster (via) or sponsor in some way.
I may have more sourcing comments later but will leave it there for now. Overall, it's well cited and almost all the sources are reliable, so it's just a bunch of tweaks to go through. —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a few more cites where a publisher or sponsor is given as a website name, resulting it being italicized. I just fixed Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa in one - please check through and address the others remaining (Radio New Zealand, Department of Conservation, Ministry of Primary Industries, etc)
If there is a more independent source re: the Stewart Island Ferry and RealNZ, that would be preferable, but the current source is acceptable if no others are available. Similarly with Rakiura Shipping and Stewart Island Flights.
I have added further citations from independent sources that provide coverage of Rakiura Shipping and Stewart Island flights.Marshelec (talk) 06:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is Newsroom a reliable source? It's quite new and I see there have been a couple controversies about their coverage in the past.
Further comment:
This sentence: Smith had been in Sydney Harbour with Eber Bunker from whom he probably learned of the eastern seal fishery contains information not found in any of the three citations for that or the following sentence. Where did this information come from? It's crucial that the sources actually support the sentences they are given for.
I acknowledge that. Deleted the unsuported content. Alexeyevitch(talk)
In general, when a source is repeated multiple times, but simply with a new page #, it can be added to the References section and cited from there - this was done for some sources (Ingram, Richards, etc) but not others (Taylor, lore and history).
Not yet done
Cites #46 and 47 (Lying for the admiralty) are a bit odd, the first appears to be multiple cites combined into one, the second a repeat of one of the cites contained in #46. I'd separate them all out and combine the duplicate cites to the same book review. —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:52, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have combined the Taylor reference and split the other cite. Alexeyevitch(talk)
Great work on references from both of you. The last one I think that needs merged is the two cites to "Early days in Foveaux Strait" and then we should be good to go on references!
#147 (fisheries legislation) seems like mild OR, citing a law directly. It's not a severe issue, but if you can find a secondary source discussing this regulation, that would be preferable.
The two citations #147 and #148, taken together, support the text of this section, and provide a reader with useful links to provide further information. I do not see that any part of this section is original research. However, I have found an independent source that I will add as a further citation.Marshelec (talk) 22:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Earwig finds nothing of concern, but hold for manual spot check.
This paragraph (Murihiku Māori who settled around Foveaux Strait were mostly ... hunted forest birds including weka, takahē, kererū, kākāpō and kākā is far too closely paraphrased from the source (1). It's functionally identical, with just a few changed words. While lists of birds are ok, the rest should be more extensively rephrased into our own words, or (if there is no way to rephrase elegantly) converted into a few choice direct quotes.
I attempted yesterday to reword to sentence and add some new content. Hopefully it's okay now. Alexeyevitch(talk)
Issue addressed, nothing else found by manual spot-check of 6 sources I can access.
File:Smith's Straits by OF Smith.tif is described as the "own work" of the uploader, which clearly it is not. The copyright tag should be updated to describe its actual author and that it is now in the age as an unpublished work from a very long time ago.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
