Talk:Meralda Warren

consider

Is the importance of Meralda Warren as 'artist' really so great that she qualifies for a wikipedia entry? or is it because she happens to be worldfamous in Pitcairn. I am sure there are other small communities who have an artist who is at least as qualified as Meralda Warren. That Warren had criticism on the sexual abuse is a known fact, but many had, either pro or contra. Are they all getting a Lemma? What she had to say abt it was her personal opinion and could easily be countered by the fact that the court decided that British law alsways had been law on pitcairn. Apparently Warren herself - as witnessed by this very lemma- that there was underage sex. That she had no problem with it doesnt mean other girls had no problem with it. One of her critics is Brenda Christian, a former Mayor who took office after her brother Steve Christian and the prior mayor, was arrested for child abuse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.159.130.241 (talk) 21:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about artist, but the verse of hers that is quoted pretty much proves she isn't a poet. Aredbeardeddwarf (talk) 22:17, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Add to Lead

Rework Lead to put what is most significant earlier in it - the first book in Pitkern and English. If she is most recognized as an artist and poet, that should be emphasized.Parkwells (talk) 13:52, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

• Many thanks for your copyedit.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:38, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Meralda Warren/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Seabuckthorn (talk · contribs) 00:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Nominator: ColonelHenry (talk)

Hi! My review for this article will be here shortly. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 00:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

1: Well-written

• a. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
• b. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

WP:LEAD:

Check for WP:LEAD: Check for Correct Structure of Lead Section:  Done Check for Citations (WP:LEADCITE):  Done Check for Introductory text:  Done Check for Provide an accessible overview (MOS:INTRO):  Done Check for Relative emphasis:  Done Check for Opening paragraph (MOS:BEGIN):  Done Check for First sentence (WP:LEADSENTENCE):  Done Meralda Elva Junior Warren (born 28 June 1959) is an artist and poet of Pitcairn Island, a remote British Overseas Territory in the South Pacific. Check for Format of the first sentence (MOS:BOLDTITLE):  Done Check for Proper names and titles:  Done Check for Abbreviations and synonyms (MOS:BOLDSYN): None Check for Foreign language (MOS:FORLANG): None Check for Pronunciation: None Check for Contextual links (MOS:CONTEXTLINK):  Done Check for Biographies:  Done Check for Organisms: NA Check for Biographies of living persons:  Done Check for Alternative names (MOS:LEADALT):  Done Check for Non-English titles: Check for Usage in first sentence: Check for Separate section usage: Check for Length (WP:LEADLENGTH):  Done Check for Clutter (WP:LEADCLUTTER): None

WP:LAYOUT:

Done Check for WP:LAYOUT:  Done Check for Body sections: WP:BODY, MOS:BODY.  Done Check for Headings and sections:  Done Check for Section templates and summary style:  Done Check for Paragraphs (MOS:PARAGRAPHS):  Done Check for Standard appendices and footers (MOS:APPENDIX):  Done Check for Order of sections (WP:ORDER):  Done Check for Works or publications:  Done Check for See also section (MOS:SEEALSO):  Done Check for Notes and references (WP:FNNR):  Done Check for Further reading (WP:FURTHER):  Done Check for External links (WP:LAYOUTEL):  Done Check for Links to sister projects:  Done Check for Navigation templates:  Done Check for Formatting:  Done Check for Images (WP:LAYIM):  Done Check for Links:  Done Check for Horizontal rule (WP:LINE):  Done

WP:WTW:

Done Check for WP:WTW:  Done Check for Words that may introduce bias:  Done Check for Puffery (WP:PEA):  Done Check for Contentious labels (WP:LABEL):  Done Check for Unsupported attributions (WP:WEASEL):  Done Check for Expressions of doubt (WP:ALLEGED):  Done Check for Editorializing (MOS:OPED):  Done Check for Synonyms for said (WP:SAY):  Done Check for Expressions that lack precision:  Done Check for Euphemisms (WP:EUPHEMISM):  Done Check for Clichés and idioms (WP:IDIOM):  Done Check for Relative time references (WP:REALTIME):  Done Check for Neologisms (WP:PEA): None Check for Offensive material (WP:F***):  Done Check for WP:MOSFICT:  Done Check for Real-world perspective (WP:Real world):  Done Check for Primary and secondary information (WP:PASI):  Done Check for Contextual presentation (MOS:PLOT):  Done

WP:EMBED:
Done Prose is preferred over list (WP:PROSE): Check for Tables (MOS:TABLES):

WP:BLP:

Check for WP:BLP: Check for Writing style (WP:BLPSTYLE): Check for Tone: Check for Balance (WP:COAT): Check for Reliable sources: Check for Challenged or likely to be challenged (WP:BLPSOURCES): Check for Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material (WP:GRAPEVINE): Check for Avoid gossip and feedback loops (WP:BLPGOSSIP): Check for Avoid misuse of primary sources (WP:BLPPRIMARY): Check for Avoid self-published sources (WP:BLPSPS): Check for Further reading, external links, and see also (WP:BLPEL): Check for Presumption in favor of privacy: Check for Avoid victimization (WP:AVOIDVICTIM): Check for Public figures (WP:PUBLICFIGURE): Check for Privacy of personal information and using primary sources (WP:DOB): Check for People who are relatively unknown (WP:NPF): Check for Subjects notable only for one event (WP:BLP1E): Check for Persons accused of crime' (WP:BLPCRIME): Check for Privacy of names (WP:BLPNAME):

2: Verifiable with no original research

• a. Has an appropriate reference section: Yes
• b. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: excellent (Thorough check on Google.)

WP:RS:

Done Check for WP:RS:  Done Check for the material (WP:RSVETTING): (contentious)  Done Is it contentious?: Yes Does the ref indeed support the material?: Check for the author (WP:RSVETTING):  Done Who is the author?: Does the author have a Wikipedia article?: What are the author's academic credentials and professional experience?: What else has the author published?: Is the author, or this work, cited in other reliable sources? In academic works?: Check for the publication (WP:RSVETTING):  Done Check for Self-published sources (WP:SPS):

WP:MINREF:
Done Check for inline citations WP:MINREF:  Done Check for Direct quotations:  Done Check for Likely to be challenged:  Done Check for Contentious material about living persons (WP:BLP): NA

• c. No original research:  Done

WP:NOR:
Done Check for primary sources (WP:PRIMARY):  Done Check for synthesis (WP:SYN):  Done Check for original images (WP:OI):  Done

3: Broad in its coverage

a. Major aspects:

Done Check for Article scope as defined by reliable sources: Check for The extent of the subject matter in these RS: Check for Out of scope: Check for The range of material that belongs in the article: Check for All material that is notable is covered: Check for All material that is referenced is covered: Check for All material that a reader would be likely to agree matches the specified scope is covered: Check for The most general scope that summarises essentially all knowledge: Check for Stay on topic and no wandering off-topic (WP:OFFTOPIC):

b. Focused:
Done Check for Readability issues (WP:LENGTH): Check for Article size (WP:TOO LONG!):

4: Neutral

WP:NPOV:

Done 4. Fair representation without bias:  Done Check for POV (WP:YESPOV):  Done Check for naming (WP:POVNAMING):  Done Check for structure (WP:STRUCTURE):  Done Check for Due and undue weight (WP:DUE):  Done Check for Balancing aspects (WP:BALASPS):  Done Check for Giving "equal validity" (WP:VALID):  Done Check for Balance (WP:YESPOV):  Done Check for Impartial tone (WP:IMPARTIAL):  Done Check for Describing aesthetic opinions (WP:SUBJECTIVE):  Done Check for Words to watch (WP:YESPOV):  Done Check for Attributing and specifying biased statements (WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV):  Done Check for Fringe theories and pseudoscience (WP:PSCI): None Check for Religion (WP:RNPOV): None

5: Stable: No edit wars, etc: Yes

6: Images  Done (None)

Images:

Done 6: Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:  Done Check for copyright tags (WP:TAGS):  Done Check for copyright status:  Done Check for non-free content (WP:NFC):  Done Check for valid fair use rationales (WP:FUR):  Done 6: Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:  Done Check for image relevance (WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE):  Done Check for Images for the lead (WP:LEADIMAGE):  Done Check for suitable captions (WP:CAPTION):  Done

As per the above checklist, there are no issues with the article and it’s a GA. Thanks, ColonelHenry, very much for your diligence in writing such great articles.

Promoting the article to GA status. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 23:33, 26 February 2014 (UTC)