Jump to content

Talk:Kanak people/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: Tim riley (talk) 18:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Starting first read-through. More within 24 hours. Tim riley (talk) 18:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments before beginning second read-through: please disambiguate links to

Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most interesting and informative. Looks well documented. Not wholly neutral: some pretty clear POV at times. Prose is not too impressive: some suggestions below, but a thorough copy-edit would be a good idea.

  • General
    • "–ise or –ize" – at present you use both
    • English -v- American spelling: "colourfully" but "sepulcher" etc throughout: be consistent

(fixed to English spelling though wondering if this is wise as mist of WP is americised) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ur-loki (talk • contribs) 07:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • quotation marks: see MoS – smart (curly) quotes should be replaced with straight ones
  • Lead
    • "Do referendums pass?

Fixed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Demographics and language
    • "Southwest Pacific Ocean" – unsure about this: is "Southwest Pacific Ocean" a recognised name or just a geographical description (cf. South Sudan as opposed to south Sudan).
    • "of their forcible living" – of their being forced to live?
Yeah it should be southwest not capitalized as a name, fixed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early colonial rule
    • "United Kingdom", "Australia", "Canada", "Chile", "Fiji", "India", "Japan", "Malaysia" and "South Africa" – delink: see WP:OVERLINK
Delinked♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Malaysia" – didn't exist then: suggest pipe a link to the contemporary name
Changed to "what is now Malaysia".♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have added some additional text under "Early colonial rule" related to France annexing the island in 1850.--Nvvchar. 02:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revolt
    • "Coupled with diseases, their population dwindled to" – this doesn't make sense
    • "a mere 27,000" – suggest you drop "a mere" and let the figure speak for itself
No need to mention it twice anyway, removed sentence.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "who revolted in 1878 against the French colonial rule, which was brutally" – this says (but doesn't I think mean to say) that the colonial rule was brutally put down. And "brutally" is a touch POV and needs a citation to justify it.
Suppressed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • After World War II
    • "reserve areas" – you capitalise this earlier in the article
    • "leader of the Union Caledonienne" – someone else has tagged this with "who" – a good question
    • "This forum … declared their own Provincial" – singular noun and verb needing a singular pronoun
    • "Prime Minister Chirac" – faulty construction; in French, as in English, "prime minister" is not used as a title, but as a job description: "the French prime minister, Jacques Chirac" is needed here
    • "a virtual massacre … Following this massacre" – was it a virtual massacre or a massacre?
    • "French settlers, who are known as Caldoches" – surprisingly late in the article to be told this for the first time
I believe these have all been fixed now.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Matignon Accord
    • "What followed was a tragedy" – unacceptably POV
    • "lesser developed rural areas" – hypen needed
Fixed both.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nouméa Accord
    • "Kanaky would have greater say … while France retains" – starts off in the subjunctive and should stay there (or else be plain future tense throughout)
    • "However, in a speech…" This sentence contains 88 words and is far too long.

Shortened. Fixed all.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Present status
    • "a national committee evaluate" – "to" missing?
  • Traditional beliefs and religion
    • ""fish as food…"" – attribution lacking for this quote
    • "strictly observed with respect to locals" – does this mean "by locals"?
  • Conservation
    • "Now, a proposal has been mooted" – this will become out of date very quickly: see MoS and replace with "in [date] there was a proposal…" or similar
Year 2004 mentioned now. Reference fixed to the tag.--Nvvchar. 12:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed.

  • Fine arts
    • "Kanak arts … has" – plural noun with singular verb
    • "faces., although" – punctuation awry
    • "Paula Boi who paintings" – "whose paintings"?
Fixed all, what sharp eyes you have!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dances
    • "Dance performed is in the form of…" – "Dance is performed in the form of…"?
    • "described as 'the most tremendous…'" – by whom?
    • "trans-like status" – "trance-like", perhaps?

Fixed all

  • Music
    • "Conch shells … is the sound producing instrument" – plural noun with singular verb; and hyphen needed
  • Oboe" – why capitalise?
Fixed
  • Arts festivals
    • "women's association" – apostrophe in wrong place
Fixed

If you deal with these points I'll resume the review. Tim riley (talk) 09:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We progress. I'll do a final read-through tomorrow and then apply the template. Tim riley (talk) 22:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most issues have been addressed by Dr Blofeld, one of the authors of the article. I have further supplemented it with additional text and references wherever required. Hopefully, it now answers all observations of the reviewer.--Nvvchar. 02:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've addressed them. Tim, I will give this a copy edit now and I've also asked Rosiestep to also copyedit it. if you could wait another 24 hours.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very good. A copy edit will, I am certain, remove the last obstacle to promotion. I'll return, template in hand, tomorrow. Happy editing! Tim riley (talk) 13:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked through it and picked up on lots of issues. It is better now, Hopefully if I've missed things Rosie can look into it tonight.. It should be better than earlier with superfluous text rewritten and commas placed where they were needed and removed where inappropriate.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you happy with it now? If not I'll try to find another copy editor.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I've switched them. This is GA not FA Ssilvers.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that, but FA articles are the best examples to look at when one wishes to aim higher. Congratulations on the GA promotion. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All points above reviewed and pondered. At GAN level I think the prose now suffices (I have rechecked against the GA criteria), and my POV concerns have been addressed. Therefore:

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

As touched upon, above, this is not by any means a potential FA article as it stands, but is now, in my judgment, a respectable GA quality one measured against the GA criteria. Tim riley (talk) 20:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Oh, it twas never the intention to promote to FA. I gave up on FA a good two years ago now. It would be very difficult to find enough information and sources anyway to really provide a true FA quality article on the Kanaks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed it on the GA page under Australian and Oceania history, but please check that you think this is the most suitable pigeonhole for it. Tim riley (talk) 20:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems the best place, although clearly it would also qualify for Social sciences and society.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, I moved it to Social sciences and society, where nearly all the "peoples" groups are. See here. I notice that the Aboriginal peoples in Canada seem to be misplaced. Should we notify someone that the Aboriginal peoples in Canada ought to be moved to Social sciences and society? -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kanak_people/GA1&oldid=630076152"