Wikipedia:Featured article review/The Catlins/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Dana boomer 22:13, 3 February 2011.

Review commentary

 * Notified: User talk:Grutness, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Zealand

The article is lacking in sources in many places. It is also lacking in information on whether any hospitals or schools are accessible to the areas. The information about the politics needs to be more specific as the area is only a very small part of the electorate, and the overall restul of the area may not be reflective of the particular enclave. The first two websources in the citelist are not acceptable. The first is an ameteur source. Teh second leads to the front page of a news site without anythign specific  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  02:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The politics section covers various levels of government, only one of which has a ward that corresponds closely to the Catlins. But they are all covered, including the parliamentary electorate that includes the Catlins. I don't see a real problem there.
 * I'm not suprised there's been some linkrot in the sources over the last four years. I'll see about replacing those two. --Avenue (talk) 03:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That passage (on big wave surfing) is now reworded and I think well sourced. --Avenue (talk) 13:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment regarding the issues:
 * There is a unreferenced paragraphs starting with and Tahakopa-Wyndham route and (820 ft) long tunnel in the "Transport" section, which has not cited.
 * This is now sourced.--Avenue (talk) 12:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This section "Government" has no footnotes or citations. This falls into section 1c.
 * This section now has seven inline citations.--Avenue (talk) 12:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There are eight dead links in this artcle:
 * http://www.pkphotos.com/fourtysix.html - This link redirects to the Photo Shelter website.
 * http://www.catlins.org.nz/natural_history.htm - This link appears to be broken.
 * https://www.projectcrimson.org.nz/assets/Project-Crimson/Crimson-Trail/SouthlandTrail.pdf - This link appears to have no connection.
 * http://onenews.nzoom.com/onenews_detail/0,1227,176261-1-5,00.html - It also redirects to the TVNZ site.
 * http://www.southlandnz.com/sites/southlandnz.com/_eco/profile_pages/PDFindustry_profiles/Tour_last_COL.pdf - Dead link.
 * http://www.otago.ac.nz/geology/askus/previous.htm - Dead link. Error 404.
 * http://www.forestandbird.org.nz/Marine/reserves/nuggets.asp - Also a dead link.
 * http://www.southlandnz.com/sites/southlandnz.com/images/venture/community/docs/DRAFT%20CATLINS%20TOURISM%20STRATEGY.pdf - This link appears to be broken. JJ98 (Talk) 05:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Four down, four to go. --Avenue (talk) 13:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm still looking for a replacement for the southlandnz.com source. All the other dead links are fixed. --Avenue (talk) 00:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't found a replacement for that last link, so I've removed the statement it supported. --Avenue (talk) 13:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I've added a small section on schools. It's very rough and ready, though, so will need substantial copyediting to get it into FA shape. Grutness...wha?  05:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The nearest dedicated secondary schools are South Otago High School in Balclutha and Menzies College in Wyndham. - what about adding an indication of how far away those places are? Kahuroa (talk) 11:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't have thought that necessary. Both Wyndham and Balclutha are marked on the Catlins area map near the top of the article, and since the boundaries of The Catlins are imprecise any kilometre value would be as well. Grutness...wha?  00:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Featured article criterion of concern are sources and comprehensiveness  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll '')  02:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delist for FA criteria concerns above. JJ98 (Talk) 02:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * All of which have been fixed... Grutness...wha?  10:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delist per criterion three issues:
 * File:NZ-Catlins.png - Needs a verifiable source per WP:IUP.
 * File:Catlinsmap.jpg - Same as above.
 * See MOS:CAPTION regarding period usage. Эlcobbola  talk 14:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe I've now fixed the captions. As I recall, the maps were created by Grutness, but it's probably best if he confirms that. --Avenue (talk) 17:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Very strange, but hopefully now fixed. One of them I was still listed as the creator of, the other one I'd originally listed using gfdl-self, so somehow the author information must have got lost in transit. In other words, the file histories clearly showed that these had verifiable sources per WP:IUP. Grutness...wha?  22:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand that Grutness created these files, but what they need is the source of the underlying map. I presume these weren't drawn from memory.  Эlcobbola  talk 15:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * They were drawn by combining details from about six maps, and I'm beggared if i can remember now which ones they were - this was a considerable time ago. I never use one specific map as my source, feeling that to do so would be copyvio, but rather amalgamate information, and many of the features would have been drawn freehand. Grutness...wha?  21:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: I've added a section on medical services, including nearby hospitals. I believe all the issues raised above have now been addressed, either here or in the article; please give specifics if you have any remaining concerns. --Avenue (talk) 12:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll be away on holiday for the next ten days. If any more concerns do come up, please hold the review open until I get back and have a chance to respond. --Avenue (talk) 14:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep . As one of the authors, no doubt I'm biased, but I believe the concerns expressed above have now been addressed, and the article meets the FA criteria. --Avenue (talk) 08:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Struck my keep; new concerns keep arriving, most of which I think have been dealt with, but more work is still required on citation formatting. --Avenue (talk) 17:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. I acknowledge that I am also biased for the same reasons, but since all the objections raised have been met and fixed, I see no reason why this should still be considered for delisting. In similar circumstances with an article which I had not helped write, I would say the same thing. Why would you delist an article if all the problems raised with it have been fixed? Grutness...wha?  10:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per Avenue and Grutness. All concerns have been addressed. JJ98 (Talk) 15:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The lead is still short, and many snippets of information are not cited, in particular, some statistics  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  04:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Have the requirements for a FA changed, YellowMonkey? I ask, because this became a featured article with the lede exactly the length it is now. If it was fine then, why is it not fine now? Grutness...wha?  08:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * My impression is that the criteria haven't changed much, but the interpretation of them has become much more stringent. Even leaving that aside, the article now has two new sections, so we should at least expand the lead section to cover them. --Avenue (talk) 00:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OK - that makes sense. Grutness...wha?  23:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've extended the lede to incorporate the new sections and a bit more info from the rest of the article. Grutness...wha?  23:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There are still some inconsistencies with the surname, given name and the usage of colons etc in the authors in the refs. which styled is desired??  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  01:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Article name; could someone please verify that this article is correctly named, and not a breach of WP:MSH ("The")? I see numerous citations among the sources that refer to the place as Catlins, not The Catlins.  Every official government source I can find refers to it as the Catlins or Catlins: THE is not part of its proper name, sample here.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I understand. In the document you cite as an example, the vast majority of occurrences of "Catlins" are preceded by "the", with sensible exceptions along the lines of "Catlins River", "Catlins cultural history", and "the wider Catlins". Or did you expect to see "The" capitalised? This isn't common usage, but that doesn't determine whether the region's name includes the "the". Anyway, the NZ Geographic Board finally formalised the name earlier this year: '“The Catlins” is a locally used recorded name now formalised as the official geographic name with a bounded extent as published in the New Zealand Gazette on 4 February 2010 [...].' --Avenue (talk) 01:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Correct, they are preceded by "the", not "The": not a proper noun, see WP:MSH. Almost every source I reviewed indicated the name is the "Catlins". However, since you now have a new document that shows the name was formalized to "The Catlins" earlier this year, that means we're OK now, but the article was improperly named until February of this year.  These are the sorts of things that should be checked at FAC and FAR. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)


 * WP:OVERLINKing review needed, on just a quick glance, I find rabbit and fishing linked (in the lead, no less). Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 13:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Now fixed I hope. --Avenue (talk) 17:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Citation consistency: there are still problems. Does "Department of Conservation" go first or after the article title?  There's an ibid in there-- we don't use Ibid on Wiki!  Citations need review.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 13:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Grutness has fixed the ibids, at least. --Avenue (talk) 00:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Process note: two of the three Keep declarations at this stage are from the article's original FAC nominators-- independent review is needed. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll come by and give a review shortly. Iridia (talk) 23:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Iridia ... unwatching now on the assumption that most of what I raised has been addressed. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Otherwise the coverage seems fine; I didn't go and check for closeness to sources/prose similarity. Iridia (talk) 03:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * "Archaeological evidence of human presence dates back to AD 1000." Say what? That would be the earliest habitation in NZ... That needs an academic literature cite at the very least.
 * Well spotted! The Department of Conservation source repeats that date twice, and talks about migrations "from the North Island between 850AD and about 1650AD." Looking at their reference list, it seems some of the archeological detail they're reporting may date back to the mid 20th century or even earlier, so it's probably quite outdated. I have tracked down a 1992 paper on the Papatowai site that critically reviews the earlier work and gives better dates (around 1350 AD). --Avenue (talk) 11:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If confirmed...then the Lead should mention that human habitation dates from c. 1000 AD. Also, wikilink big wave surfing.
 * I've added the new date to the lead, and that wikilink. --Avenue (talk) 11:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Structural issue: As pointed out in the FAR stage, the History stops at about 1850. This is confusing. Some of the information in Population and demographics, and in Economy, should be moved there to give a better flow to the present. Either that, or move detail such as rabbiting into Economy, since that's talking about the Catlins' economy. Some rearrangement there should smooth things out without too much alteration needed.
 * I don't see where this was mentioned before. I've rearranged it now, anyway. --Avenue (talk) 13:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Why is the mention of Hone Tuwhare in Population and demographics? Should mention he lived there from 1992 until his death in 2008, and that he was a noted NZ poet. Following that sentence with a block quote from a Tuwhare poem about the region, to emphasise how he wrote about the region and enhanced its significance in NZ culture, would be ideal. I would like it to be mentioned in the lead as well, but am not too concerned there.
 * I don't see a perfect place to cover him, but I've moved it to the Geography section. I've added a relevant quote from one of his poems, but I'm not very familiar with his poetry; maybe someone else can find a better one. I don't really see the need to mention him in the lead, but don't feel strongly either way. --Avenue (talk) 15:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's good. Iridia (talk) 03:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Species name consistencies: In the lead alone we have Yellow-eyed penguin followed by New Zealand fur seal. This continues in the article body; switching between sentences from kakariki to Hector's Dolphins. Needs formatting for one style or the other, ie. Yellow-eyed Penguin or yellow-eyed penguin.
 * Yes, this was a mess. Now fixed I believe. --Avenue (talk) 03:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Some prose needs cleanup: eg. "shipping much of the resultant timber", run-on sentences like "The Catlins take their name from the Catlins River, itself named for Captain Edward Cattlin (sometimes spelt Catlin), a whaler who purchased an extensive block of land along Catlins River on 15 February 1840 from Kāi Tahu chief Hone Tuhawaiki (also known as "Bloody Jack") for muskets and £30 (roughly NZ$3000 in 2005 dollars).", "The Catlins boasts a rugged, scenic coastline" (how does a coastline boast?)
 * Those passages are now tidied up, along with a few other bits. --Avenue (talk) 16:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that the Geology section would be particularly accessible for a general reader, but then again they often aren't.
 * I've added a introductory sentence; maybe that will help. --Avenue (talk) 11:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Much better. Iridia (talk) 03:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I've made a start on some of your points, as noted in between. Still quite a few to do. --Avenue (talk) 11:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * All done now, I think. --Avenue (talk) 16:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments - still a few fixes needed before this is closed: Once the above are taken care of, this should be good to go. Dana boomer (talk) 14:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What makes ref #81 (Letsgo) a high quality reliable source? It is a budget travel guide written by students.
 * Let's Go is written by students, but there is some editorial oversight. I think it is sufficiently high quality and reliable for the statement it supports (namely that "the [old hospital's] building and grounds now host a youth hostel and holiday park"). But this is not the most central point in the Medical Services section, and I wouldn't object to its removal if anyone feels the source is inadequate. --Avenue (talk) 14:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Geography, second paragraph, last sentence - the parenthetical needs a ref due to the use of words like "notably" and "iconic".
 * This now has a ref. --Avenue (talk) 14:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Wildlife, second paragraph, last sentence - due to containing a statistic (most populous) this needs a ref.
 * I haven't been able to found a source confirming this, so I've changed the statement to something that I can support. --Avenue (talk) 12:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There are quite a few really short (1-2 sentences) paragraphs scattered throughout the article, which make it aesthetically choppy and harder to read. Could some of these be combined with others?
 * No single-sentence paragraphs left, at least. --Avenue (talk) 12:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * All done, I think. --Avenue (talk) 12:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.