Talk:Taiari / Chalky Inlet/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 18:38, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:38, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First a couple of FYIs; these are not issues for GA, but just comments.

I don't think you need the internal links to the upper arms of fiord. It is sometimes useful to have internal links like this, but these are ToC headings so the reader is likely to be perfectly aware they're covered in this article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have removed these - they may eventually merit articles in their own right but the links can be added at that point.Turnagra (talk) 00:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~MOS:DASH says you should have either spaced en dashes or unspaced em dashes, but not both. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)~~[reply]
I think I've got all of them now, but may have missed one or two. Turnagra (talk) 00:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA issues:

~~What's the evidence that File:Chalky Island Te Takahu skink by Hannah Edmonds-DOC.jpg is released under CC 4.0? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)~~[reply]
The Department of Conservation has a CC BY 4.0 license on all its images per their copyright page. Turnagra (talk) 00:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the sources, I paused over fmg.org.nz. Is this just a group of concerned locals? I get the feeling that they turned into more than that but can't see evidence of it. What makes them a reliable source? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it they started out like that, but they've grown in prominence and gained legal recognition through the Fiordland (Te Moana o Atawhenua) Marine Management Act 2005. They now have a formal role in conservation of the area and provide advice direct to government ministers and have govt appointed board members. By my read they seem fairly solid as a source for Fiordland-related things. Turnagra (talk) 00:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I found this which covers the government-appointed bit, which is good enough. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 08:49, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~FN 12, fiordlandnz.com, is a dead link. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)~~ [reply]
Have managed to find an archive of that link, which looks like it has the formatting messed up and looks way too close to a 90s wordpress site for comfort despite being an NZ govt source. Will try and find a better source for these statements but hopefully this works for now? Turnagra (talk) 00:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I said that wrong -- dead links are not a problem per se for GA, but source reliability is; I should have said I needed to be able to see why the source was reliable. This seems to be the relevant "About" page, and it looks like it's a trade organization, perhaps an unofficial one. I don't think this is a great site to use for historical information, which is what it looks like you're using it for. What would make this reliable for historical content? Or can you find the same material from another source? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're right - I was getting nz.com (which does seem like a trade organisation at the absolute most) confused with newzealand.com, which is a government source. There should be other sources for that content though, I'll take a look in the morning and see what I can come up with. I suspect some deep dives into early NZ sources ahead... Turnagra (talk) 09:17, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~FN 20, goodnature.co.nz, appears to be a blog. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)~~[reply]
It's technically a business page for the company manufacturing the traps, but point taken. I'll try and find a better source for the stuff around the pest control in the area. Turnagra (talk) 00:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~What makes FN 25, predatorfreenz.org, a reliable source? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)~~[reply]
They're one of the most prominent NGOs in NZ around eliminating introduced pests and so work closely with these islands. But given they're citing a report in a proper scientific journal, I might just cut out the middle man and cite that if I can track it down. Turnagra (talk) 00:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, but I think you're right that it's enough as it stands, so I'll strike this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest glossing "iwi" inline; many non-NZ readers won't know the term. I see you do gloss it later in the article; you could just move that up. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done Turnagra (talk) 00:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Following the collapse of the whaling industry, Taiari has remained largely uninhabited." Looking down the article I don't see anything about any current population. I know countries differ in whether people are allowed to live in something defined as a national park, so perhaps there are humans living there, but should "largely" be struck? Or should the article say that it is now uninhabited, or perhaps has been uninhabited since some date? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have reworded this - it was mainly a reference to the expeditions and brief attempt at mining but given that was more in the next fiord over I think it's fine to say uninhabited aside from temporary expeditions. Turnagra (talk) 00:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that's better, but per WP:LEAD we need everything in the lead to be in the body, and I don't see the equivalent statement in the body. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"continues the roughly north–south orientation of the main length of Taiari, whilst Te Korowhakaunu / Kanáris Sound runs roughly perpendicular to this in an east–west orientation": just from looking at the Google Maps view, it seems the main line of the fiord is northeast-southwest, not north-south, and the angle between the two arms is about 45 degrees, and isn't really close to perpendicular.
Fair point - have reworded this to hopefully be more accurate. Turnagra (talk) 00:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I had to read the sentences giving the derivation of the Māori names Te Tapuwae-o-Māui and Te Rereka-o-Māui a couple of times to follow them. (Why is the latter in italics on first mention, by the way?) I think the issue is that because you give the names first, and then go back to give the derivation, the names have to be repeated, but as they're not English names one has to look back up a couple of times to tie the references together. How about doing giving the English names first, and then give the Māori names via explaining the derivation? Perhaps something like this: "The head between these two fiords, on the northern edge of Te Korowhakaunu and the eastern edge of Moana-whenua-pōuri, is known as Divide Head in English. The Māori name comes from the Māori creation myth for the fiord, which tells that the demigod Māui leapt ashore at Divide Head, giving it the name Te Tapuwae-o-Māui (the footstep of Māui), and the hills behind the head are named Te Rereka-o-Māui, representing his leap." Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken another pass at the wording here, can definitely see how it was confusing. How does it look now? Turnagra (talk) 00:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That works. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~"Cora Lynn Falls drain": shouldn't this be "drains"? Or are these multiple falls? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)~~[reply]
I think it's just the one, so have changed. Turnagra (talk) 00:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"the arrival of Māori in New Zealand, roughly 800 years ago": I think the current scholarly consensus is about 700 years ago (or possibly a little less). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have changed to 700. Turnagra (talk) 00:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~"and established a camp for a number of months. The crew of the Cutter made camp": can we avoid the repetition? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)~~[reply]
Good shout, changed this - also made me realise that I had accidentally renamed the ship in the process, so that's fixed now too. Turnagra (talk) 00:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The most prevalent of these was that of Alfred Henry Burton": I don't think "prevalent" can be the word you want, but I'm not sure what the intended meaning is. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Prominent, perhaps? Or alternately, perhaps 'consequential' could work too? Turnagra (talk) 00:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Prominent" works. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Is the National Parks Act 1952 worth a redlink? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)~~[reply]
Have added one in. Turnagra (talk) 00:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"including the renaming of Chalky Inlet to the dual Taiari / Chalky Inlet": do the Māori names for the upper arms also only have official status from 2019? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They do - Te Korowhakaunu / Kanáris Sound was subsequently renamed again in 2021 to correct the spelling from Cunaris, but that was separate to the dual name addition. Have reworded this section and added an archive link as the press release on the citation was dead. Turnagra (talk) 00:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The fiord also contains evidence of multiple petrel colonies": seems an odd way to say it. Can't we just say "The fiord also contains multiple petrel colonies"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have changed this. Turnagra (talk) 00:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks:

FN 17 cites "Since this, Taiari / Chalky Inlet has been largely untouched. Its isolation has prevented the development seen in fiords further north, such as Milford Sound / Piopiotahi or Doubtful Sound / Patea. There is no land route to the fiord, even by foot, so human interaction is limited to sea or occasionally air access." The source is a commercial travel company; I don't see all of this information on that page, but even if I missed some of it I don't think this is a good source for most of this information. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I wasn't sure about the reliability side of things for some of the sources as I'm sure you can tell! I'm wondering if this article might help to establish the lack of development, perhaps alongside the topo map to demonstrate the lack of land access? Let me know what you think. Turnagra (talk) 00:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a reliable source; you'd have to change some of the wording, but it would support e.g. "very difficult to reach on foot" and the fact that they're remote. I think "the bush has taken it all back" is good enough to say that the towns have gone. I went looking for the rules for NZ National Parks and found e.g. this, so I don't know if we can definitively say *nobody* lives there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FN 8 cites "The name Cunaris Sound stems from this expedition, although the exact etymology is unclear. It was previously believed to be derived from the plural of the French name for the canary, canaris, in reference to the songbirds and mōhua (yellowheads) prevalent in the area at the time." The source talks about the original name being Bras Canaris, with a later corruption to Cunaris. The birds mentioned in the source are bellbirds; we have "songbirds and mōhua" -- are those two different things? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bellbirds and Mōhua are both songbirds, but they're distinct. Given the source uses bellbird specifically, I've updated the wording here to match that.
FN 14 cites "After a stay of a few months, the Cutter left to continue its mission of maintaining supply depots around the region. Upon its return in 1820, Edwardson's account described the environment around Lake Cove and the changes which he witnessed from his first experience. The cove, which had been a lagoon impossible to enter by ship on their first visit due to dangerous tides and silt, had opened up into a deep harbour large enough to hold a whaling ship, with two large river inflows instead of one." I don't see support for "maintaining supply depots around the region". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely read that somewhere, but can't for the life of me find it now. I've changed it to match the specific source, but will keep digging. Turnagra (talk) 00:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The spotcheck has to be passed for me to promote this to GA, so rather than check any more I'm going to pause to let you respond to these points and check that all the citations source all the information they're used for. When you've had a chance to do that I'll do another spotcheck. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing this so quickly and thoroughly, Mike! I've made a few changes in light of your comments, and have added responses above (apologies if this isn't how I'm supposed to do it, it's my first GAN). I'll get stuck into checking the reference side of things now, and will let you know once I've sorted that for another spot check. Turnagra (talk) 00:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck most points; for the unstruck ones it was either evident you're still working on them or I've replied. Yes, adding interspersed responses is fine -- there's no requirement to copy up the signature of the person you're responding to, though it's harmless. See Talk:Albert Luthuli/GA1 for a typical GA layout. Would you be interested in reviewing a GA or two, by the way? You're a good writer, and an experienced editor, and we always need more reviewers. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:21, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think I've gotten everything and fixed up the sources. Let me know if I've missed something and I'll take another pass - I suspect the wording I've added around the stoat might be a bit clumsy but hopefully it's okay. Turnagra (talk) 09:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The stoat wording looks fine to me. Before I do another spotcheck, it looks as if the material you added to the lead is not also in the body? Shouldn't that also be at the end of the history section? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:04, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have taken another pass at that wording (helped by another source which helpfully states how The Southern fiords (Figure 4.6) have traditionally received low use, largely as a result of their distance from ports (access difficulty). Hopefully this does the trick! Turnagra (talk) 18:20, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Second spotcheck

For a couple of these, it would be a good idea to identify in the citation which page of the source you're using. I do it by using short form citations, but there are other ways. The problem with just giving the page range of the article is that if it's a ten-page article it's hard for a reader to find the reference.

FN 20 cites "A 1977 study identified a number of invasive species to remove from the area, including noting the impact of deer on the area." Verified.
FN 12 cites "Two battles are said to have taken place in neighbouring Rakituma / Preservation Inlet around 1780 between the iwi, indicating the extent to which Kāti Māmoe were pursued." I can see there are references to Rakituma but can't spot the supporting text -- what page or pages should I be looking at?

My bad, I'd forgotten to change the text on that to match the source. Have updated it to match pages 59-60 (note that Kai Tahu and Ngāi Tahu are the same iwi in different dialects)
OK, this now looks good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:27, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FN 24 cites "Over 100 stoat traps were set on the island in response to the sighting, with staff from the Department of Conservation seeking to capture it as part of wider pest control efforts in Fiordland." Verified.
FN 13 cites "Evidence of Māori habitation in the fiords is noted by many European explorers from this point and has been identified through archaeological studies of Fiordland, indicating that occupation may have become permanent for a period." Again can you give me the page number I should be looking at?

The many European explorers is a summary of the bottom left quarter of page 33, but I have no idea where I got the second bit from given that the right hand column says almost the exact opposite - I've edited the text to match. Turnagra (talk) 09:04, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK for the European explorers. What are you seeing that supports "seasonal habitation"? The right hand column of p. 33 talks about different Māori settlement patterns, and at the bottom of the left-hand column there's a bit about a cave in Preservation Sound but I don't see anything that makes it definite it was seasonal. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was basing that off the right hand column, where it says "Round houses may have been associated with highly seasonal but irregular and opportunistic journeys to Fiordland during the late prehistoric period, whereas the rectangular dwellings, the traditional form of Maori dwelling constructed in Southland (see below), may have been associated with task-specific and perhaps more patterned journeys to Fiordland during the colonial era." But I'm also happy to get rid of the seasonal portion altogether if you don't think that's enough. Turnagra (talk) 17:56, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think that's fine; I just missed it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FN 10 cites "However, evidence has since suggested that the fiord was instead named after Konstantinos Kanaris, a hero of the Greek War of Independence, and in 2021 the spelling of the European portion of the name was altered to Kanáris Sound to reflect this naming origin." This is a dead link; do you have an archive link for it?

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:11, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that LINZ unhelpfully updated their link format - the document is here, and I've updated the citation with an archive link of it. Turnagra (talk) 09:04, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that clearly supports the Greek name. I would suggest also adding a cite to the parent link page, which confirms that the change was made -- the pdf only says the change was proposed, as far as I can see. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again - I'll respond more comprehensively later on when I'm back at a computer, but in the interim what's the best way of indicating the page number when using different pages from the same citation in different spots? for example, the hydrology data from source 1 is from a couple different pages in that publication, so I'd like to point to the specific one but I'm unsure of the best way to do that. Turnagra (talk) 20:22, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The standard is to cite only the supporting pages, not the page range of the article. See here for a discussion. As you can see there are arguments about it. Another way to do it is to use one of the short form citations. See ice drilling for an example -- in the sources, Aamot (1968) is a journal article with a page range of 321-328; in the footnotes FN 154 cites Aamot with the specific page. You can also do this with {{sfn}}, though I don't use it because it doesn't work well with the visual editor, which I prefer. See Ludwig Ferdinand Huber for an example -- that has the advantage that the footnote link jumps you to the right source. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:25, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these, I'll work my way through the sources tomorrow and add specific page numbers to the citations. Turnagra (talk) 09:04, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK -- when you do that I'll have one more look and I think we're getting close to promotion to GA. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go ahead and pass this. Adding more page numbers is helpful but isn't required for GA. The second round of spotchecks found only minor issues; I've eyeballed a couple more sources just now and saw no further issues, so I think this is good to go. Congratulations! And I'd like to reiterate my suggestion that you consider reviewing; you'd make an excellent reviewer and we're always short of reviews. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:24, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'm definitely keen to try and help out at some point, I think I need to get my head around the criteria a bit more first - there's some of the stuff you picked up that I never would've! Turnagra (talk) 06:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]