Jump to content

Talk:Te Pōrere Redoubts/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

Nominator: Zawed (talk · contribs) 08:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk · contribs) 03:38, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a look at this shortly. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 03:38, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prelim

[edit]
  • Article is stable.
  • Images are correctly licensed.
  • No duplicated links.
  • Earwig reports 19.4% copyvio but this appears to be exclusively repetition of the words "the New Zealand Wars".

Lede and infobox

[edit]
  • "The Te Pōrere Redoubts were fortifications" Might be best to re-phrase this, as they still exist although obviously not in use!
  • "Māori aligned with the government—known as kūpapa" > "kūpapa Māori aligned with the government"?
  • Useful to include in the lede when the redoubts were abandoned/last used
  • The infobox caption should be drastically shortened - that's the opposite of "at a glance"!
  • The 3 March 2006 date isn't given in full in main text

History

[edit]
  • "Te Kooti perpetuated"
  • Is there a connection between Te Kooti and the Ngāti Tūwhareto? I see this is mentioned later on but could do with some specific clarification

Description

[edit]
  • "were consisted of three distinct"
  • "Rotoaira Lake" For consistency based on earlier mention, reverse the words?
  • "in practice were poorly angled" What does this mean?
  • "declination" probably not the best way of describing the loop hole phenomenon

Site

[edit]
  • "Te Pōrere is considered to be the best preserved pā site in New Zealand" by who?
  • "although not the best example" why?
  • Is the aerial photograph of the upper redoubt the best representation of the main fortification? If so it might be beneficial to crop the photo to focus more on the redoubt itself. The James McDonald sketch might also be viable for this
  • The plaque image caption needs a citation
  • I think more could be written on the significance of the site; ref. #2 speaks about the modern significance for example

References

[edit]
  • References look good. AGF for print sources.

@Zawed: Hi, that's all I have for now. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:18, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: Thanks for taking this one on, I think it is ready for another look now. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: a ping to make sure you haven't missed this one. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 08:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zawed: As per every review I seem to do nowadays, apologies for dropping off the face of the earth. I'm passing this as satisfying the GA criteria. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 23:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All good, that happens to me as well! All the best! Zawed (talk) 01:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]