Talk:New Zealand/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 10:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 10:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

By now I've had a relatively quick read through the article and it appears to be of GA-standard.

I'm now (well tomorrow) going to start the detailed review. This will be done section by section, but leaving the WP:lead until last. At this point, I will be mostly highlighting problems - so its a case of "no news is good news"; but I will make it obvious when I've go to the end of this part. It could take a day or so, but that will depend on what, if any, problems are found. Pyrotec (talk) 21:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology

This appears compliant.

... to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 11:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History -
- Main, untitled subsection -

This appears generally compliant, however:

Y Pyrotec (talk) 13:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC) -The last three paragraphs are unreferenced.[reply]

Now all these paragraphs cite at least one source. I think there's still some work to do though. --Avenue (talk) 12:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The rest of the article is good, so the odd or or two minor problems get "overlooked" at the final count. Pyrotec (talk) 13:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the early nineteenth century, Christian missionaries began to settle New Zealand, eventually converting most of the Māori population, who had become disillusioned[25] with their indigenous faith by the introduction of Western culture. -- This part looks biased in favour of christian missionaries. The reference cited looks like a book authored by a missionary and does not look like a really credible source.

Well, the source is available partially on-line. The author is named and his credentials are given. If you'd checked you would know the answer to that already. Pyrotec (talk) 19:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was one of the passages I was uncomfortable with. I don't think the fault is with the source, though, which doesn't seem overtly pro-missionary to me. For instance, it includes this nice Belich quote: "Saving 103,000 souls out of much fewer than 70,000 was miraculous indeed." I've rewritten the passage to align better with the part of the source I can access online. --Avenue (talk) 00:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- 20th century -

This subsection is entirely unreferenced.

Politics -
- Government -

For the reasons given below, this subsection is not WP:Verifiable.
Y Pyrotec (talk) 13:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC) - Ref 27 (called once) is merely a link to the Official Website of the British Monarchy.[reply]

A better link is now cited. --Avenue (talk) 15:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 28 (called twice), 29 (called once), 30 (called five times), 31 (called once) and 32 (called once) are merely a link to The Economist (the same one).

Now all calls are to the same initial ref. --Avenue (talk) 15:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you have. Thats only half the problem - the ref (now ref 31) states "Country profiles are no longer available in Country Briefings. Click here to find out more about the Economist Intelligence Unit's country analysis and forecasting service." so it does not appear to support any of the statements which cite it. Pyrotec (talk) 13:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Y (now ref 29) Pyrotec (talk) 15:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC) - Ref 33 is a broken link.[reply]

Link fixed. --Avenue (talk) 15:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Y Pyrotec (talk) 13:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC) - Several other paragraphs are unreferenced.[reply]

All paragraphs in this subsection now have at least one reference. More refs could usefully be added. --Avenue (talk) 16:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

... to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 20:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Foreign relations and the military -

Y Pyrotec (talk) 15:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC) - The second paragraph appears to have a direct quotation that is unreferenced.[reply]

Reference added. --Avenue (talk) 15:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Y Pyrotec (talk) 15:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC) - A few paragraphs are well referenced, but ref 36 (legal challenges) appears to be broken.[reply]

Link fixed. --Avenue (talk) 15:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Approximately half of the paragraphs are unreferenced and without citations the statements may be subjective and/or points of view.

- Local government and external territories -

This subsection is entirely unreferenced.

... to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 20:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where's the best place to respond, so feel free to move this comment. I have combined all the Economist references, although I note that they have stopped updating this report and the link is no longer informative, so it would be nice to replace this source. I think we should also try to avoid relying so heavily on one unofficial source, although none of this is very controversial stuff. I have also cited a source for the Savage quote, and fixed the dead links in refs 33 and 36 (old numbering). --Avenue (talk) 22:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS I will work my way through the various dead links shown here over the next few days, if no one beats me to it. --Avenue (talk) 23:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These have now all be done, although this doesn't pick up problems like those with The Economist. --Avenue (talk) 03:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy for me if you add your individual comment/reply directly under the particular comment of mine to which it refers. That way I can

them off, or ~~strike them through~~, at the various times during the review. Ref numbers tend to change during revisions/corrective actions, which makes it hard to check everything at the end. Pyrotec (talk) 15:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have now left notes directly under the specific points I have addressed. --Avenue (talk) 15:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't tend to review WP:FACs, but I have been a joint nominator once or twice, so I don't tend to use that tool. I will be checking references as I go: so if I find a broken cite, I'll flag it. Pyrotec (talk) 16:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Geography and environment -

This appears generally compliant, more refs would not go amiss but I'm not insisting.

Biodiversity -

This appears generally compliant.

Pyrotec (talk) 15:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Economy

Y (now ref 51) Pyrotec (talk) 12:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC) - Ref 44 leads to an IMF download page and an downloadable excell file - but the file was empty, so I'm not sure what data you are using in your reference.[reply]

I've substituted a more current link, and updated the text. --Avenue (talk) 03:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Y (now ref 52) Pyrotec (talk) 12:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC) - Ref 45 seems to be no longer available.[reply]

I think Xlerate fixed this, although I'm losing track. --Avenue (talk) 03:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Recent history -

Y (now ref 58) Pyrotec (talk) 13:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC) - Ref 55 has a 404 error ("key Tourism statistics").[reply]

Updated with new link. XLerate (talk) 13:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 56 seems to no longer exist (our old friend The Economist).

....to be continued. 16:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

::*Y (now ref 61) Pyrotec (talk) 13:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC) - Ref 58 has a 404 error ("1966 encyclopedia").[reply]

Fixed. --Avenue (talk) 13:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Y Pyrotec (talk) 13:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC) - Ref 59 seems to no longer exist ("Up from down under ...).[reply]

I've removed the link and expanded the citation instead.--Avenue (talk) 13:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Y (now ref 66) Pyrotec (talk) 13:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC) - Note: There is a display problem with ref 63 - I'm not sure how to fix it.[reply]

Fixed. --Avenue (talk) 12:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Y (now ref 74) Pyrotec (talk) 13:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC) - Ref 71 seems to no longer exist ("New Zealand external trade statistics).[reply]

I've substituted a more recent report, and updated the article. --Avenue (talk) 12:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Demography -

There are some {{deadlink}}s to fix; otherwise OK.

Culture -

Looks OK.

WP:Lead -

Looks OK.

Summary so far -

This article looks to be on track for GA-status this time round. The main problem, sorry to state the obvious, is fixing web links and adding citations where necessary.
I'm now putting the review On Hold. Pyrotec (talk) 10:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see that one of the GA criteria is about images. Did you have any thoughts on this front? --Avenue (talk) 12:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At this stage I'm only concentrating on "problems"; but at the end I will given an overall summary against WP:WIAGA. However, the article appears to be well illustrated and compliant in respect of images. Pyrotec (talk) 12:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

A comprehensive, well-illustrated and referenced article.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
Generally referenced.

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
Generally referenced.

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
Extensive coverage, with {{Main}} links; but focused.

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
Very well illustrated.

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Very well illustrated.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

This is a comprehensive and well illustrated article, I'm therefore awarding it GA-status.

Its certainly a good GA. Parts of this article, in particular the main text and the illustrations, possibly, bring this article somewhere between WP:GAN and WP:FAC area; but I suspect that it would be regarded as inadequately referenced for FAC. The next step for this article would be WP:PR. Congratulations in producing a fine article and for promptly addressing my concerns, above.

Pyrotec (talk) 13:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]