Talk:Opawa/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Nominator: Alexeyevitch (talk · contribs) 05:45, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: TechnoSquirrel69 (talk · contribs) 05:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Nice to meet you, Alexeyevitch! I'm here from GARC circle 8; I'll be back with comments within a week. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Sure, not a problem. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 05:30, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

@TechnoSquirrel69. Content is near-finalized. Hopefully the comments will commence shortly. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 01:31, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Should be finalized now. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 05:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Lead

• "By the 1860s," feels a bit sudden for the third sentence. Maybe briefly mention that the locality was founded in the 1860s instead.
  • Should be less intense now.
• and its population largely included → with a population largely comprised of

   Done

• "and contains a light retail" is the second clause beginning with and in that sentence.

   Done

• "Various other names rendered the area" Seems like we're looking for a different word there.
  • It's is OK in my opinion. As the source also uses the word and I'm not sure what would be replaced there. Although, you may be right. UPDATE: I've changed it to "represented". If it reads awkwardly, we can always change it back to something else.

   Done

• "Its railway station ... since 1972." are not grammatical.

   Done

• Remove the two circular links in the paragraph.
  • I would appreciate if you could tell me more specifically.
• Linking "kindergartens" and "rugby fields" seems excessive to me.

   Done

History

• Link "Māori" and "Christchurch" on their first appearances in the body.

   Done

• "as far back to 1250 A.D." should be "as far back as 1250 A.D.", but I would prefer dialing it down to just "begins in 1250 A.D." in the spirit of avoiding editorializing.

   Done

• bird, have → bird have

   Done

• the coast. There → the coast, there

   Done

• settlements, in the area → settlements in the area

   Done

• Per MOS:WAW and MOS:SINGLE: It is a combination of 'Ō' which means a part of → It is a combination of ō which means 'a part of'. Similar changes for the rest of that sentence and for "(food-gathering place)" further down.

   Done

  • Is it OK now? I've removed double quotation marks and replaced it with singular.

   Done

• Why do some phrases use {{lang}} and not others? There seems to be an inconsistent application of the template among both proper and common nouns.
  • Some words of Māori origin do not need to be italicized in New Zealand English. E.g. sweet potato is written as kūmara or raupō does not need to be because it's common name in New Zealand English. Other uncommon words could be italicized.
    •  Done I've just used the template for words of Māori origin not common in New Zealand English.
• "(or Opaawaho)" What's the source for this other transliteration?
  • Removed. Although, I have seen this used in some archaic sources.
• Briefly gloss "kāinga".
  •  Done
• "resting place for Māori travelling" seems repetitive as we already know it was a Māori settlement. How about just "resting place for travellers"?
  •  Done Yes, that's better.

References

Citation numbers from this revision.

• Citation 5 needs a publisher.
  •  Done
• No need for all-caps in citations 7, 57, and 59.
  •  Done
• Citation 8 — linking to the definition of kāinga in the Oxford English Dictionary — is rather superfluous given that the word is linked to its corresponding article.
  •  Done. Removed.
• What makes the Christchurch City Libraries pages (too many citations to list) reliable? Who are the writers? Are they subject-matter experts or journalists?
  • All experiences I've had have Christchurch City Libraries have been positive. I check where they cite the content from at the bottom of the page, if that wasn't there, I would be skeptical about including it.

  I understand, but I'm afraid that isn't enough to satisfy the reliable sources guideline and thus criterion 2b. Considering how heavily the article relies on material from Christchurch City Libraries, this is something we will need to resolve before moving forward with the review. The marks of a reliable source in this context would be evidence that the pages in question were written by a subject-matter expert, an academic or journalist who then submitted it to a editorial review process, or that the material was published by a reputable publisher (usually reputable due to their editorial integrity). Failing that, I would need to see consensus in a discussion on the source that its contents are reliable. —TS

  I'll add secondary sources today and should be better than it currently is. I'll be back with (hopefully) better refs particularly in the 'landmarks' section. Alexeyevitch^(talk)

  UPDATE: I've replaced about half of the City Libraries refs and will finish the other half when I acquire: Mair, 1969 and Gillespie, 2007 (again). Keep the "community profile" refs since those are very helpful for the amenities section. What is concerning me at the momment is the reliability of sources in the "landmarks" section... those sources will be omitted or replaced by Mair, 1969 or Gillespie, 2007 in about a week's time.

• Citations 23, 24, 26, and 78 are duplicates, or close enough to it. I would highly recommend using named references to reduce redundancy and implementing the {{harvnb}} template to link the footnotes to the bibliography entries. Alternatively, using {{sfnm}} would solve both of those problems.
  •  Done That's very helpful User:TechnoSquirrel69. I wasn't aware of {{sfnm}}.
• Citations 29 and 84 claim access via ProQuest, but no link is provided.
  •  Done
• I would prefer adjusting citation 33 to use |work=Stuff and |publisher=The Press.
  •  Done
• Citation 58 already links to an archive so doesn't need the additional |archive-url=. I'd also appreciate a |via=Papers Past.
  •  Done
• Citations 81, 85, and 88 are bordering on being bare URLs. I would recommend fleshing them out to combat link rot.
  • It's typical for New Zealand articles to have those on templates redirecting to Education Counts.
• I have issues with the use of OpenStreetMap in citation 95. For one, the site is user-generated, by default calling into question its reliability; I have to object to it on principle. There's also the question of whether inclusion of information sourced directly from a map is receiving due weight.
  •  Fixed I've added a secondary source regarding its location alongside it.
• Similar feelings about citations 91, 94, and 106. Wikipedia does not include arbitrary data, and it's likely undue to mention the exact distance between places without an independent secondary source.
  • I'm unsure what it's like elsewhere but New Zealand articles tend to use this. I will now avoid/minimize this.
• What makes citation 105 (eurohockey.com) a reliable source?
  •  Fixed They've been there for years. I've added a source from The Press via ProQuest.
• I'd highly recommend adding an identifier, such as an ISBN or an OCLC number, to citation 116.
  •  Partly done Added URL.

Images

• Opawa Road (cropped) v.3.jpg, Opawa Rural Section Plan 157.png, Opawa Road Aerial circa 2024.png, Opawa Road bridge across Heathcote River, Risingholme 2024 (cropped).jpg, The Hollies, and Saint Mark's Church are appropriately licensed, tagged, and captioned. I commend you for your work creating or tracking down this media to illustrate the article.
• The Wikimedia Commons licensing policy requires that media asserted to be in the public domain must be eligible both in the country of origin and the United States (where the Wikimedia Foundation has its servers). A stagecoach in Cathedral Square, Opawa School circa 1920 (cropped).jpg, and Opawa Lawn Tennis Club.jpg have tags for New Zealand but not the US.
  • I believe it is anything published 1929 or earlier is public domain in the U.S. The school image is circa 1920 and the Lawn Tennis image was photographed circa 1932. The Photographer H. H. Clifford passed away in 1949 which is more than 70 years ago. I will attempt to correct the license.
    •  Fixed A new image is there now. License is verifiable.
• William Reeves does not mention its date of creation or publication, so I'm unable to check off the assertion that it's in the public domain.
  •  Done Removed and tweaked image.

Discussion

My apologies for the delay, Alexeyevitch! It's been an unusually busy weekend on my end, but I'm back to it. I didn't achieve my hope of wrapping up my comments tonight, but here are the ones I've got so far — more to come. Feel free to reply to my comments in line, and let me know if you have any questions. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I have a question on MOS:IMAGEREL is: or more relevant in the Education section?

According to MOS; Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. They are often an important illustrative aid to understanding. When possible, find better images and improve captions instead of simply removing poor or inappropriate ones, especially on pages with few visuals. At the moment, I think it's the more recent one complies better with MOS. But I'll wait a bit before changing if you would like to say anything. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 10:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

And by the way, your comments have been really helpful. I'll bear MOS:WAW and MOS:SINGLE in mind when I'm editing these sort of articles.

Thanks, I'm glad that my feedback has been constructive for you! Both of the images you're considering appear appropriate for that section, so I don't have a preference between them. You also have the option of using both. By the way, as a matter of preference I've undone your striking of my comments and marked them as {{Done}} instead — it avoids the implpication that I have retracted my message for whatever reason. I hope you'll accept my apologies again for not coming back with more comments, as it's been unusually difficult for me to sit down get a longer editing session in. The end of the review is coming soon, I promise! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:38, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks again for your patience, Alexeyevitch. I have a round of comments up concerning the references and images, and the completion of the prose review coming as soon as possible. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:58, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

@TechnoSquirrel69. Is it OK if you put the article on WP:GAN/I#HOLD when your comments are finalized. I'll be back here in 12 days for the review while I work on another project off-wiki. I'll still be online though. Just need some extra time. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 05:14, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

@Alexeyevitch: Sure thing! I think you've been quite the courtesy of patience over the last couple of weeks, and I would be happy to repay it. I'll put my last round of comments up and leave this on hold. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:39, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll be in touch when I've aquired the required book sources. Also, I hope you're not concerned worried about putting it on hold for a bit.

I'm focusing on other things outside of WP too. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 00:10, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Note: I'll be back in two weeks with three independent book sources which will replace most of the Council refs. :-) Alexeyevitch^(talk) 13:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

@Alexeyevitch: What's the status of your sourcing work? I'm still seeing references to the unreliable sources we discussed above in the article. I'm going to be rather busy at the end of the month and I'm looking to close out this review before then. Let me know either way. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 13:47, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I will need to go to the library this Thursday (which is tomorrow for me or prehaps Friday, but it's likely tomorrow). I actually intended to go the previous Saturday and Sunday but wasn't able to because of other commitments during the day. They will be replaced shortly. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 21:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

This is up to you to decide but I would recommend coming to a conclusion on Friday evening if the unreliable sources have been omited or replaced by independent book sources. Homes of the pioneers is quite hard to get a hold of but I'm confident it would be there. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 22:23, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what decision you're asking me to make at this point — as we discussed, the Christchurch library sources have uncertain reliability and would be better off replaced with quality secondary sources, which I thought we were in agreement on. If we are, then good luck with your research at the library, and send a ping my way once you're done! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:29, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I will be back as soon as possible with Homes of pioneers (1969). I'm aware of Place Names of Banks Peninsula and the Port Hills, this book has no content about the landmarks. I can possibly substitute it with a local history book of some sort which does. Talk soon! Alexeyevitch^(talk) 23:02, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

@TechnoSquirrel69. I have removed almost all the uncertain citations but I kept one which mentions the Christchurch earthquake. I also felt as the section was too big so I trimmed it to make it concise but not overwhelming. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 23:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your work. I'll be back this weekend with my final round of comments! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:42, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Added image of Risingholme Park. I think it's better to have an image of this rather than a generic corner store. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 03:00, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Final comments

I am quite disappointed that I have to take this decision after the time we've spent on this review, but on a final look through this article there are simply too many issues that cropped up; I am failing this nomination as a result. As I started to find these in the middle of my prose review, I was not able to complete that part. The most concerning of these issues is the multiple cases of close paraphrasing; please see the table below for a few examples.

Source	Source text	Article text
Simpson & Williams	No small part has been played in the development of Christchurch by the brick and clay industry, which has always had its home in Opawa and the s urrounding hills.	Opawa was home to the brickmaking and clay industries. Which contributed in the development of Christchurch and the industries always had its home in Opawa and its surrounding hills.
Morrison 1948	Until 1885 there were no shops in the district, and as late as 1890 the only regular means of conveyance, the stage coach, ran in deep ruts along the Opawa Road.	There were no shops in the district until 1885. Up until the 1890s, the only regular means of transportation, was a stagecoach which ran along Opawa Road.
City Council 2014	This area is serviced by Opawa Community Library, St Martins Library, Opawa Children's Library [...] All of these suffered substantial earthquake-related damage, however, the South Library and Service Centre and Opawa Children's Library have been able to re-open and operate.	Opawa is served by the Opawa Library and Opawa Children's Library. These buildings suffered substantial earthquake-related damages. The Opawa Children's Library was able to reopen and operate ...

Some of these could be asserted to be in the public domain due to their age, some not, and either way this is not the standard of writing expected of a good article. I had other issues with the prose as well: there are a lot of incomplete sentences, such as "with a roll of 343 students. And is located on Ford Road." or "Joshua Strange Williams gave his address as 'Opawa Farm'. A 50 acre property in the locale."

Many places in the prose read awkwardly or unnecessarily repeat information, such as "It is flood-prone suburb. Because of its location next to the river, the area has subsequently been flooded numerous times" or "As Woolston emerged as an industrial hub nearby, the population of Opawa grew rapidly, transforming it into an upscale and fashionable residential area. Additionally, it also grew as people left Woolston's industrial areas".

The level of detail explored varies significantly. § Amenities features a lot of discussion of various rather minor businesses and the distances between them — which, as I mentioned before, is unhelpful to readers and worryingly sourced to OpenStreetMap and online distance calculators. On the other hand, I found several pages in Wilson 2005 discussing Christchurch's tram system which is reflected in just a single short sentence (!) in § European settlement. There were other places I felt the level of detail was disproportionately high, and though the good article criteria don't ask for the "comprehensiveness" of featured articles, aspects of the subject need to receive weight in the article proportional to their discussion in sources.

Alexeyevitch, I truly respect the depth of research that you've put into this project and sincerely appreciate the good work that you've already done, but there is quite a ways to go before this can be a good article. I hope you'll internalize my feedback here, scan the article from top to bottom for these issues, and come back to the next nomination stronger than ever. I might also recommend requesting assistance from the Guild of Copy Editors to address the prose issues. Please let me know if you have any follow-up questions. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:59, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.