Talk:Battle of Puketutu/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk · contribs) 17:35, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at this shortly. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:35, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prelim[edit]

  • Have added US tags to these images. Zawed (talk) 08:20, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No edit wars
  • Earwig repots copyvio unlikely

Lede and infobox[edit]

  • Hone Heke has the accent in the main text but not in the lede
  • Done in lead and infobox. Zawed (talk) 06:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correct, it is different. Zawed (talk) 06:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest replacing "miserable" with "difficult" or similar
  • "there were repeated"
  • While I believe expectation is usually to remove flags from infoboxes, we seem to keep them for battles
  • 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
  • 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?
  • 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
  • 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[edit]

  • Suggest changing "the Crown" to "the British Crown"
  • 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"
  • "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?
  • "actions were"
  • "and affected its credibility" > ", affecting its credibility"
  • 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]
  • We don't prefix HMS with "the", because that would mean "the His Majesty's Ship"
  • Give Hazard a brief description, e.g. "the sloop HMS Hazard..."

Battle of Kororāreka[edit]

  • 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"
  • "HMS Hazard" don't need to repeat the HMS after first mention
  • "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[edit]

  • 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
  • "in the form of"
  • iwi should be italicised
  • "Angered by Heke's actions"?
  • Repeat comment about not prefixing HMS with "the", and explanation of ship§
  • If there's no link for Otuihu can you provide some kind of geographical explanation? ibid Waiōmio
  • "at the very least"
  • "Nene's taua was at Ōkaihau" reword this, sounds like you're introducing it for the first time but it's already been mentioned
  • "offered a better opportunity"
  • "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

Prelude[edit]

  • Remove repeated "HMS"s
  • Do we know Egerton's first name?
  • 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!
  • 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
  • "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?
  • "It is also likely" another opinion

Battle[edit]

  • "but despite this" > "Despite this,"
  • "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?
  • "Lieutenant Egerton" no need to repeat rank
  • "The use of the rockets was a failure and may have provided" > "The failure of the rockets may have provided..."
  • "may have provided" needs attribution too imo
  • "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")
  • effect not affect
  • "This was likely to have been important" ibid earlier opinion-like phrases
  • "died later died"
  • "was fortunate to not have been killed" how so?

Aftermath[edit]

  • "Pakaraka, closer to their home region" not sure we know where either Pakaraka or their home region are?
  • "Maungakawakawa" ibid
  • "On receiving Hulme's overly optimistic report" how was it optimistic?
  • "trumpeted" suggest a less flowery word like "announced" or "proclaimed"
  • "Ngapuhi" should this be the Ngapuhi, and have an accent?
  • "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"
  • "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?
  • "is privately owned farmland" an "as of.." would be good here
  • "of present day Ōkaihau" do you mean "of" here? Doesn't seem to make sense
  • 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[edit]

  • 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"
  • Say who James Belich is
  • Ōkaihau is a duplicated link
  • "By this time a quarter of the British attackers"
  • "moving to Maungakawakawa"
  • 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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Puketutu/GA1&oldid=1135256868"