Talk:Teuruarii IV/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Lemurbaby (talk · contribs) 02:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

• " last King of Rurutu who ruled" - Did his mother rule as regent throughout his reign? If so, it seems he never truly ruled, so the wording should reflect this.

• Probably not, since during annexation there isn't any mention of a regent. No years exist. There is no additional info on his mother. I am basically writing about a person that is mentioned in two or three pages in most of the sources I used. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• I stated that the period is unknown. Lemurbaby (talk) 15:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• Also, tell us what country Rurutu is part of today, and wikilink.

• I added "Rurutu is now part of the French overseas country of French Polynesia" but it seem to stick out like a sore thumb and seem unncessary.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• This is helpful for people who aren't familiar with this part of the world. I've made some edits to weave it in a little more subtly. Lemurbaby (talk) 15:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• "Teuruarii continued as king until the final annexation" - reword

• Reworded to "Teuruarii continued to rule as king until the annexation." --KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• Perfect. Lemurbaby (talk) 15:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• "French Oceania" - Review the whole article and additional wikilinks where appropriate and where pages exist, like here or in reference to other monarchs (or "that island" = Huahine) etc. Wikilink terms on their first appearance in the lead, as well as their first appearance in the body of the article and (optionally) their first appearance in the image captions

• I have no idea how to link this and link French Polynesia since its the same article but two different period and two different names.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• That's fine, just check for other opportunities to wikilink anything significant throughout the article. Lemurbaby (talk) 15:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• "According to one source, his family" - Remove references to sources unless there is another that contradicts and you need to discuss both or all versions of history

• Removed

• Thanks Lemurbaby (talk) 15:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• "His parents were King Teuruarii III" - In each new section, at the first reference to the king, provide his name rather than using "his". Also in this section restate when and where he was born. Any information contained in the lead needs to be restated in the body and cited

• done

• Great Lemurbaby (talk) 15:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• "If the early kings of Rurutu were to be considered, Epatiana" - rephrase. Also as currently worded it's a bit confusing who Epatiana is (I had to go back to the beginning to realize it was the king) - try to find a way to help keep this clear for the reader. Use Teuruarii as his name consistently throughout the article except when referring to the time before he was crowned (unless you think this isn't accurate - let's discuss)

• That section is title Family and early life. I only used his name Epatiana in the section concerning his early life, the sentence about his accession and the description of him by a Mormon priest. The name was probably used throughout his life and Teuruarii was just a title or name in his capacity was king. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:15, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• I reworded it. Would you check to make sure my changes haven't introduced errors in the content? Lemurbaby (talk) 15:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• I have the sense the sentence above isn't your wording - please review to be sure all the wording is your own and nothing has been copied from other sources without quotations around it

• Actually this is all my own words; it was in a French book that listed the genealogy of the chiefs of Rurutu. I round it up to forty. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• Okay. Lemurbaby (talk) 15:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• " bolstered an illustrious lineage" - use neutral wording

•  Done

• Much more neutral, thanks. Lemurbaby (talk) 15:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• "his full siblings were" - do we know genders and birth years?

• No for these siblings, nothing besides their names are mentioned. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• Okay. Lemurbaby (talk) 15:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• " his father's first wife" - do we know if they separated, she died, or he had multiple wives?

• Nope, all we know is they had a daughter and he married two times. No dates are verifiable. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• Wish we knew more! Sigh. Lemurbaby (talk) 15:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• "under his pen name Aylic Marin" - remove, as people write (not visit) under pen names. Also, what was the outcome of this visit? Any remarks or observations he

• I don't think so, the piece was just written down for entertainment. Aylic Marin was the name he published the article in though, so should that matter? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• It really doesn't, not for the focus of this article. This reads easier now. Lemurbaby (talk) 15:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• "young prince who" - try "the young prince Epatiana, who... at that time"

•  Done

• Great. Lemurbaby (talk) 15:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• " at the time based" - try "upon his accession to the kingship" or something similar

•  Done

• Thanks. Lemurbaby (talk) 15:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• "His coronation included traditional ceremonies" rephrase this sentence

• Reworded to "The young king's coronation was celebrated in the traditional fashion. The ceremony included the donning of the maro'ura, a sacred loincloth of red-tinted tapa cloth similar to the ones worn by the chiefs in the Society Islands, and a feather headdress, before being carried on the backs of two natives"

• Thanks - made a final tweak here. Lemurbaby (talk) 15:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• "his coronation" ... "he and his mother presided over..." - do we have dates for any of these events?

• Nope dates are hard to come by in most of these books. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• Okay. Lemurbaby (talk) 15:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• " foreign carpenter" do we know his nationality, or when/how he came to be on the island?

• There is no information on him other than his name. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• All right. Lemurbaby (talk) 15:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• "Va'a Tai 'Aru," - put in parenthesis

• That is the name of the law, not a translation of death penalty. Reworded to "During the regency, he and his mother abolished the Va'a Tai 'Aru, the law, enacted by his father, which had made crimes such as murder, treason and adultery punishable by the death penalty. Instead, criminals were exiled to small island of Îles Maria"

• That's clearer - thanks. Lemurbaby (talk) 15:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• "crime punishable" - all crimes?

• Reworded to "During the regency, he and his mother abolished the Va'a Tai 'Aru, the law, enacted by his father, which had made crimes such as murder, treason and adultery punishable by the death penalty. Instead, criminals were exiled to small island of Îles Maria"

• Perfect. Lemurbaby (talk) 15:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• "He had a close relationship with the neighboring island of Rimatara" - rephrase

• Rephrased to "In the late 19th-century, Rurutu shared a close relationship with the neighboring island of Rimatara, which was also ruled by an adolescent monarch, in the person of Queen Tamaeva IV. "

• Perfect. Lemurbaby (talk) 15:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• "They would also shared" - typo; also rephrase the sentence

•  Done

• Thanks Lemurbaby (talk) 15:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• " more friendly" - friendlier?

•  Done

• Thanks Lemurbaby (talk) 15:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• "In 27 November" - on 27 November (use "on" throughout); also use date formatting consistently (27 November or November 27?)

•  Done

• Looks good Lemurbaby (talk) 15:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• " the Faaito and the Ronui" - aboard ships named the... - also, what is the significance of these boats? They are clearly important as they are specifically referenced in the petition.

• Removed. No mentioned of the ships they were on. The Faaito and the Ronui were just the only native owned ships needing protection if a Protectorate was ever established.

• Okay Lemurbaby (talk) 15:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• the petition - I would recommend condensing a bit using "..." to omit repetitious sections; also check for spelling typos

• Could I just retain the entire passage? I proofread before I added it.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• All right - I've modified the punctuation, Americanized the spelling and corrected some typos so it's easier to read and matches the American spelling within the article That assumes the original was translated from a non-English source... was it? Was the original version you had written in French? Lemurbaby (talk) 15:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• "French responded immediately to what they presumed as a threat" - rephrase; also not quite immediate (~ 4 months delay)

• For this period it was immediate considering the news had to circulate among the island and than the officials had to act upon that news. And what is wrong with that sentence?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• Used "promptly" instead. Lemurbaby (talk) 15:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• "on board, and although the" - try this: "...aboard. According to the British (?) version of the event, the king..."

• No, it was a French book from Eteroa that stated the King was reluctant. A British newspaper in New Zealand talked about the discrepancy with the French sources and stated the majority of the islanders were reluctant, saying nothing about the King.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• Rephrased. Lemurbaby (talk) 15:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• " brought the island into" - brought the island under

•  Done

• Okay Lemurbaby (talk) 15:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• "The protectorate status" - Protectorate status

• Doesn't that sound more awkward?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• No, it's correct because protectorate status is unquantifiable so doesn't need "the" in this instance. I've made the change. Lemurbaby (talk) 15:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• "Tariffs were still applied " - were they always applied? Help the reader understand why this information belongs here if it's not a change resulting from the protectorate status.

• The next few sentences does that. The natives were dissatisfied by the limited trade privileges they received as a French protectorate and this was the force that pushed the chiefs of Rurutu to annexation.

• I've reworded to make this more explicit. Lemurbaby (talk) 15:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• " the port of Papeete" - the Tahitian port of Papeete

•  Done, but is this really necessary? I already mentioned Tahiti in the sentence before.

• Many readers don't know where Papeete is, so it's helpful for them. Lemurbaby (talk) 15:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• "their ships " -ships from Rurutu

•  Done

• okay Lemurbaby (talk) 15:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• "In 1899, an epidemic " - what epidemic? why did this result in closure of ports to foreigners in Tahiti? Is this related to the protectorate?

• The epidemic in San Francisco closed Papeete to all foreign vessels thus resulting in a disruption to Rurutu's trade with Tahiti since ships from Rurutu were considered foreign vessels. I added ", disrupting the increasing reliance on trade with Tahiti."--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• It was plague, evidently. I've made some edits to make the economic consequences of protectorate status more clear. Lemurbaby (talk) 15:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• You say the protectorate damaged the trade with Tahiti, but then describe increased relation with Tahiti; this section needs new focus and clarification

• The protectorate impede on trade with Tahiti at a time when the relation between the two islands were increasing. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• Check my edits here for clarity and accuracy Lemurbaby (talk) 15:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• "either for trade or "

•  Done

• "prompted him to considered " - typo

•  Done

• " In May of 1900," - new paragraph

•  Done

• " annexing the island, and in May 11," - "annexing the island. On 11 May..."

•  Done

• " brought the said Governor Gallet" - "...brought Gallet..."

•  Done

• "eight hundred francs, to pay off his debts, by the French government" - try "The French government gave the former king an annual pension of eight hundred francs to pay off his debts. He was also given..."

•  Done

• "native affairs of the island" - just "native affairs"

•  Done

• "Under French rule, he was only allowed" - Under French rule, Teuruarii was initially allowed...

•  Done

• "island, but in 27 June 1934" - "island. On 27 June 1934..."

•  Done

• "case that concern " typo; also "Tinorrua a Hurahtia had " - add comma after Hurahtia; several grammatical and spelling errors in this section

•  Done

• "Parliament, but the French colonial" - "...Parliament. However, the French colonial..."

•  Done

• Thanks Lemurbaby (talk) 15:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• "play major roles in island's affair" - affairs ; also, if these descendents are meant to be different from those described in the preceding paragraph, you'll need to expand on this to illustrate your meaning. Otherwise move this sentence to the beginning of the paragraph.

• Well this is talking about present living descendants. One descendant is running a bed and breakfast sort of place called Pension Teautamatea and another is a village storyteller or something, but I didn't think it was cited well enough or important enough to be mentioned.

• This reads better now. Lemurbaby (talk) 15:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• There are two three other points that should be addressed before the prose overall is ready for a pass.

• #1 - I've read in some of the sources that Teuruarii IV's father actually was NOT adopted. In some scholarly works it looks like this is a point that is debated. Would you look into this just a little deeper and then make adjustments as needed in the text to clarify what's fact and what is contested around this point?

• Yeah. I looked into that but the French sources really confused me. I'll try getting the chapter with that info translate for use. I will need a while for this one.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• I can help with the translation or proposing an alternative way to summarize the information if you can get me the content (scanned or whatever). You can send it to me via wikimail. I know you read French but not sure how fluently - I'm fully fluent, if that's helpful. Lemurbaby (talk) 13:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• Got your message on my talk page - awaiting your copy of the French-language piece. We can make this fix after it passes GA. Lemurbaby (talk) 11:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• #2 - the discussion of annexation comes a bit abruptly without much background to set the scene. The reader doesn't know how long the French or British had been involved in Rurutu or neighboring islands, or why Teuruarii thought the French might try to annex his island. Would you expand that part a bit? Just 2-5 sentences will probably do the trick for GA. Lemurbaby (talk) 15:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• This is a really complicated issue. Basically it went back to 1842 when the French gain control in Tahiti and wanted to annexed the Leeward Islands, but the British protested because the monarchs in those islands wanted to be connected to Britain because the London Missionary Society were the first to convert those groups and other islands in Polynesia. The Tahitians rebelled and there was a whole war in the Society Islands between the natives and the French. The French crushed the rebels and wanted to annexed the entire group but international pressure especially from Britain prevented this, so only a protectorate was declared over Tahiti. The French and British created the Jarnac Convention of 1847 which acknowledged the independence of the Leeward Islands. This really has nothing direclty to do with Rurutu, only that it explained Britain and France's conflict in the Pacific. When Tahiti was annexed by France, so was two of the Austral Islands which were once under Tahitian control. By 1881, Rimatara and Rurutu were the only islands in the chain not under French control. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
• How is something like this? I think the second part establishing the role of Britain need not be included.

"By 1880, France had formally annexed the Kingdom of Tahiti and its dependencies in the Austral Islands including Raivavae and Tubuai, Rurutu's neighbors to the south. The following year, Rapa Iti and ­Marotiri, further south in the archipelago, were also annexed to France. The United Kingdom protested French aggression in Eastern Polynesia, especially in the Leeward Islands, but the British acquiesced after the French agreed to hand over the New Hebrides." (This is problematic because the French never handed over the New Hebrides, only sharing the sovereignty over the islands.)

• Let's try tweaking the end to be a bit more general - "...especially in the Leeward Islands, but the British acquiesced after the French agreed to acknowledge British authority in the New Hebrides" maybe? Or acknowledge their claim, if they had one? Because that doesn't exclude French authority there at the same time, which is what ultimately happened after some more wrangling. Lemurbaby (talk) 13:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• Yes the statement becomes more accurate but it still sounds irrelevant since it has nothing to do directly with Rurutu.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:57, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• I included it without the less relevant part about the New Hebrides. Lemurbaby (talk) 11:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• #3 - I've been looking over some of the sources and I see there is a little information about what life was like on the island under his reign. This is important to include, as it suggests something about the context he ruled in and how well the island was managed. The source you quote that gives such an unfavorable description of the king (which now seems fairly biased to me, reading the rest of the document and the author's clear sensitivity - bordering on paranoia - around how his party is perceived by the islanders and others) also provides useful details about the island. It describes the size and number of villages, their organization, the number of schools and inhabitants, and the use of judges to advise the king. It would be good to include this kind of information. I've also seen sources state that the island is relatively prosperous because of the industriousness of the local population, as reflected in high trade volume and value relative to the size of the population (this source, p. 209 and on, and this source, are good ones). This is a good point to include as well to illustrate the society he governed. Lemurbaby (talk) 15:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• Where would I place this? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• I would include it in the section describing his reign. Lemurbaby (talk) 11:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• I included Goff's observation because it is the only primary source I could find describing the king. He was a Mormon missionary so he was paranoid because he couldn't convert the islanders who were Protestants (I think Calvinists but I am not sure). But the part about the judges advising the king is included in Goff's description at the end. As for the nature of the schools, houses hogs, and etc., described by Goff, I don't see how any of that relevant to this article. In my opinion such descriptions belong in the article Rurutu or on another about the History/Culture of Rurutu and I don't think his reign had anything to do with it; it could have been unchanged since his father's reign or Teuruarii II's reign. I am not saying Epatiana didn't have any effects on the life of his people but nothing of it has been noted on it by other writers or historians other than the information already included like the abolishing of the death penalty, the protectorate, annexation and his descendants. Without these things, all we know is that he was a leader; how he led, the specific way his rule affect his people we do not know.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• I added something from one of the French sources that suggests he was effective in strengthening maritime trade to his kingdom's benefit. Lemurbaby (talk) 11:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• I have seen the first source and the description of agriculture production is about Rimatara not Rurutu. The only thing Édouard Petit said about Rurutu was its cliffs, coral reefs, climate, wild vegetation, the native houses and the description of how Petit was received by Teuruarii III, his wife and baby Epatiana. All seem irrelevant in the bio of a king, maybe on the article for Rurutu.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• I think mentioning the population size and number of villages as well as the nature of the architecture/construction (i.e. glazed windows, not thatched traditional houses) does a lot to explain the extent and prosperity of his kingdom, so it's relevant for this article (details about the topography of the island etc are less so). Unfortunately Google isn't offering a preview of the source anymore, so I can't access it. Guess we'll leave it off for now. Lemurbaby (talk) 11:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

1. B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

• Image captions - do not add a period to the end of incomplete sentences

• I've now made this edit. Lemurbaby (talk) 14:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• Section headings - first word only is capitalized

• I fixed this myself Lemurbaby (talk) 15:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• Move all refs to after the punctuation (comma, period etc)

• I've now taken care of this. Lemurbaby (talk) 14:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

1. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

• review all your references and make sure they're in the complete correct citation template formats - for instance not leaving off location of publication

• I leave them off because I don't know the location of publication for most of them. Google books never includes them and I've returned most of the books I've used that were not on the internet and didn't look at the locations of publication; it'll probably take a month or more for me to request those books through my library's inter-library loan system again and that is after my school returns for the next term in the middle of January. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• double check you're using p. (page = ) for one page, pp. (pages = ) for multiple pages

• I've now fixed this. Lemurbaby (talk) 14:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• Remove the external links part and incorporate those links as references to specific parts of the article

• I've done this. Lemurbaby (talk) 14:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• There are some references that are included at the end but not cited in the body of the work. I've hidden these using the <!- coding. Have a look at these to make sure there isn't anything you'd intended to include from them. Lemurbaby (talk) 14:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• I did include all of the book sources you hid. The random genealogy sites are unreliable.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• I could not find those other sources when I searched for the authors/titles in the text of the article. It would be good if you could double-check this before anything is added back in. Lemurbaby (talk) 11:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• There are two references for Saura in 2008. The way to distinguish them would be to call one 2008a and the other 2008b throughout. The second reference at this point only indicates the name of the journal (Journal de la Société des Océanistes) but not the title of his contribution. Lemurbaby (talk) 14:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• I don't know what it is titled. The first page 167 doesn't say. You can try deciphering it once I send it to you; it is the same one I have been trying to send you. I have changed it to 2008a and 2008b.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• You might find some of the details in this article to be interesting and worth including. The French language WP article here also lists some info you don't have, like the names of his spouses and his children (they list two wives and four children). Lemurbaby (talk) 14:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah the additional information at the French wiki article is taken from sketchy geneaology websites that I tend to not trust; seeing as how the same site said Teuruarii III died in 1923.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• Still awaiting your edits here Lemurbaby (talk) 15:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• Where?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

1. B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

3. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

4. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

5. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

• Famille royale et chefs de Rurutu.jpg - needs US copyright/licensing tag info

•  Done

• Village royal de Rurutu.jpg - needs US copyright/licensing tag info

•  Done

• A bord de la Dives.jpg - needs US copyright/licensing tag info

•  Done

• Gustave Pierre Théodore Gallet (1850-1926).jpg - needs US copyright/licensing tag info

•  Done

• Great, thanks Lemurbaby (talk) 15:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

1. B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

• Are there no good photos of the king or his mother? (the large group photo at the beginning doesn't give us a good look at them or make clear who is who)

• There is only one photo of any of the Rurutu monarchs. Nothing else exist or if they do they probably are in private family hands.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:32, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• Okay Lemurbaby (talk) 15:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• provide a graphic to show where the island is

• Is there room for a map? Do you need a world perspective of where Rurutu is or where Rurutu is in French Polynesia or a map of the island of Rurutu? It is an extremely tiny island in the Pacific, about the size of Tokelau. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:32, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• Okay, I agree there isn't really a good place to put this while the article is still this length. If it ever gets longer, an image would be good to add near the beginning. Lemurbaby (talk) 14:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• "a portrait of the former King was painted" - let's definitely include this painting in the article

• I would love to if I can find it and it would probably be under copyright since the painter hasn't been dead for 100 years yet and it was painted after 1923.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:32, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• The copyright isn't such an issue since we can claim fair use, so the real challenge is tracking it down. I searched online without luck, but if either of us (or anyone else) does manage to find it, let's load it up. Lemurbaby (talk) 15:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• I check the source and it only mentions the painting but it doesn't show it. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

1. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments

1. I won't have time until next weekend to tackle the rest of these comments. Sorry.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:30, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

   Been a month since the above comment; how's addressing the comments coming? Wizardman 04:22, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

   It's moving along now... The article should be passed within the next week or so. Lemurbaby (talk) 14:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

   I don't think so. The last of your third point seem odd to me. And I can't find locations for the sources and this last request seems more work than necessary; I really don't want to request all those books again and look at the publication locations.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• It's been twelve days since the last comment. It seems to me it's up to Lemurbaby to respond as to whether this point KAVEBEAR is having trouble with is required for the GA, after which it will be clearer what, if anything, happens next. However, having seen a number of discussions about GA sourcing requirements play out on the WT:GAN page, I feel confident in saying that it is not a GA requirement to include locations in sources, so it should not be required in this review. There is nothing in WP:WIAGA that alludes to this kind of sourcing requirement, even on linked-to pages. Are there any other issues that remain beside this one? BlueMoonset (talk) 05:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• All right, I've just made almost all the other changes needed, and the location piece can be fixed later, maybe at FAC. KAVEBEAR, I just need you to note which of the two Saura refs is A and which is B in the Bibliography list. Congrats to Kavebear and thank you for working on these important but underrepresented topics. Lemurbaby (talk) 11:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• I've noted which was the A source and B sources as Saura 2008a and Saura 2008b. I will send the scans of the Saura 2008b source to you once you send a message to the email I left on your talk page. Thanks a lot for your guys help. Sorry if I got a little bit frustrated while editing this. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks - now could you check whether it's Marin 1885 or 1928? The years don't match between the notes section and the bibliography. Lemurbaby (talk) 04:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• It is 1885. No idea why 1928 was there.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• Excellent, thanks. I got the pages in my email - will follow up in a bit. Lemurbaby (talk) 10:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)