Wikipedia

Talk:Mau Piailug/GA1

< Talk:Mau Piailug
Latest comment: 13 years ago by Newportm in topic GA Review

GA Review

Latest comment: 13 years ago55 comments4 people in discussion

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

Reviewer: -- Cirt (talk) 10:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I will review this article. -- Cirt (talk) 10:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of September 22, 2010, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Writing quality is adequate enough for GA status, would strongly suggest additional copyediting from previously uninvolved editors, followed by a peer review.
2. Factually accurate?:
3. Broad in coverage?:
  • In subsection Makali‘i, I noticed the note: mention work with Kahoʻolawe Island Reserve Commission in 2004
  • Perhaps the Death subsection could be expanded upon a bit.
4. Neutral point of view?: No issues here.
5. Article stability? Edit history appears devoid of major conflicts, upon recent inspection of both article edit history, and talk page history.
6. Images?:
  • No other major image issues.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. -- Cirt (talk) 14:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

GA passed

GA passed. Nice work. Thank you for responding to my GA Review suggestions. Much appreciated. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 17:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the independent review; Wikipedia is better for it. –Newportm (talk • contribs) 21:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Replies

2. Factually Accurate?:
Re: Wayfinding and navigation subsection, removed extra sources formatted as a note and included best of the two as a reference.  Done –Newportm (talk • contribs) 00:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
3. Broad in Coverage?:
Viriditas, I don't know about the work with Kahoʻolawe Island Reserve Commission in 2004...do you have this from an offline source? Also, is it possible the claim -- Makali‘i was the first Hawaiian voyaging canoe to visit those far-flung islands and atolls and she created a resurgence of interest in voyaging among Micronesians-- properly belongs to Maisu? –Newportm (talk • contribs) 23:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Not that big of a deal, the man did a lot of things, and that was one of many. I added the note as a reminder that we should it add it. I'll try to add something tonight if I can find the source, if not, ignore it. As for the Makali‘i claim, aren't you the author of that material? The last stable edit said, "Makali‘i continued her 1999 voyage through half the length of Micronesia. She was the first Hawaiian voyaging canoe to visit those far-flung islands and atolls and she created a resurgence of interest in voyaging among Micronesians." Probably needs to be verified, like you said. Viriditas (talk) 02:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Regarding Makali‘i, resurgence of interest in voyaging among Micronesians, this is properly paraphrased and cited.  –Newportm (talk • contribs) 05:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
6. Images?:
  1. Regarding File:Mau Piailug.gif, I had trouble using the "tool" to move it to Commons, so I downloaded & uploaded, then copied the text (showing OTRS verification) to the same filename on Commons. The DYK? banner did not make it. Do I now tag the file on Wikipedia for deletion? –Newportm (talk • contribs) 22:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. Regarding File:Canoe hokulea under sail profile.jpg, I have written the photographer for CCxSA release, 2010-09-22. –Newportm (talk • contribs) 22:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I have received confirmation and have forwarded it to OTRS for the Hoku under sail image. –Newportm (talk • contribs) 02:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Talk about lightspeed. Mark thisese two tasks as   Done! Go OTRS!  –Newportm (talk • contribs) 03:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that was me. See below. You are welcome. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 03:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I will see if I can source some images from Flickr. Might take a day or two to see whether anyone's willing to release their pix to us. Kahuroa (talk) 22:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Good to see some things progressing. I deleted the local copy of File:Mau Piailug.gif, so that much is   Done for now. -- Cirt (talk) 22:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Hawai‘iki Rising
Re: Hawai‘iki Rising - a title of a publication. Is this really how it is spelt? If it is then it's a misinformed combination of the Hawaiian word Hawai‘i with the Maori word Hawaiki. Kahuroa (talk) 23:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC) Sigh - this is how it is spelt. The Polynesian linguist in me cringes. Kahuroa (talk) 05:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Is it possible that this was intentional, as a play on words? Viriditas (talk) 02:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Possibly, although the Maori word tends to get mispronounced as Hawai-iki by NZ English speakers. Not that this has much to do with this article anyway :). Kahuroa (talk) 05:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Footnote 9 about ppalu
  Resolved
Regarding palu being equivalent to doctorate, I found this link which gives a pretty good rundown about levels of navigator's skills. –Newportm (talk • contribs) 23:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't worried about whether the palu is culturally equivalent to a doctorate, that sounds entirely possible. I just think for us to state that here we need a source. At GA level the PVS website may be okay to use - what would you say Cirt? But if you want to take this to FA later, I think it would be good to back the website up with a quote from a book or journal. If you can't find a quote along those exact lines you may be able to say it with a few sentences based on a good source. Kahuroa (talk) 02:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
It was sourced, which is why I added it. Are you saying it isn't now? Viriditas (talk) 02:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok, so it looks like it no longer has a source. According to this diff it was sourced to Lewis (1978:135), however that doesn't sound right, as I thought it was Thomas (1987). I suppose I need to hunt this down again. Viriditas (talk) 02:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I text-searched Metzger's thesis for the words, "doctorate," "doctor," "doctoral," and "Ph.D." but found no illumination on this. At the link I mentioned above, Sam Low cites Lambert Lokopwe of Pollap, "an initiated navigator of the pwo grade who sailed with us from Chuuk to Satawal," who describes five ranks of navigator:
  • Paluw – a generic name for “navigator”
  • Arhe – a navigator who is experienced but not yet Pwo.
  • pwo – a master navigator
  • Rhepiniwok – which means “trunk of the mast or spear” – equivalent to a doctor of navigation in western terms
  • Mwurhulap – which is a name for the hardest firewood, a kind that burns slowly and for a long time – equivalent to an emeritus doctor of navigation (Mau's rank.)
which varies slightly from the footnoted claim. Could dialectical variation from Pollap to Satawal account for the difference? I checked Sam Low's page, cited as the source, but it does not currently have this text. I did not check the wayback machine. Good luck with finding this needle in the haystack, thanks for looking.  –Newportm (talk • contribs) 19:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I found this source by Mr. James Naich, Deputy Chief of Mission for the FSM Embassy in Washington DC. He is from the outer island of Pollap in the Northwest region of Chuuk State. He reminds that Pollap was homebase of the Weriyeng school.  –Newportm (talk • contribs) 20:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
You've demonstrated that the statement is likely true, but not precise. And I've previously stated it comes from Lewis or Thomas. Until I find the exact source, I prefer to remove it at this time. I'm sure we'll see it back in the article with a good source soon enough. Viriditas (talk) 02:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Further reading and resources
Cirt, your edit here was totally unnecessary, as the WP:LAYOUT guideline says explicitly, "This section may be substituted by a "Further reading" section". More importantly, these are not "recommended websites" but potential sources to be used in the references and notes section. I realize that your preference may be to use external links sections, but I do not use them at all. Viriditas (talk) 02:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
It is the standard format for article layout. Especially so, for something purporting to wish to attain GA quality status. -- Cirt (talk) 02:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Cirt? Not sure where you got that idea, but I just explained above why that isn't true. Did you read what I said? I'm not going to revert you at this time, but the previous layout was perfectly fine according to the guideline. Viriditas (talk) 02:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
This is most interesting. The GA nominator, Newportm (talk · contribs), and another user, Kahuroa (talk · contribs), are both comporting themselves in a polite, and dare I say it, kind demeanor, on this GA Review subpage and in all other interactions. It'd be nice if all other users did so, as well. -- Cirt (talk) 02:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm perfectly polite, Cirt. As I just finished saying, the previous version was perfectly acceptable according to WP:LAYOUT. Please take a moment to read it. I realize that you personally prefer external link sections, but as a reviewer, it's good to ask questions about the preferences of other editors rather than enforcing your own upon them. I hope that explains where I'm coming from. Viriditas (talk) 02:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Language including "was totally unnecessary", and "not sure where you got that idea", and the general overall attitude of resistance and fighting helpful recommendations, during an ongoing GA Review, is not appropriate or conducive to a positive and collaborative environment. -- Cirt (talk) 02:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
The previous version was fully supported by WP:LAYOUT. When you changed it, you claimed in your edit summary, "formatting, per WP:LAYOUT". As I have previously said several times now, the WP:LAYOUT guideline notes this as a matter of preference, as either is acceptable (see "This section may be substituted by a "External Links...Further reading" section). Therefore, your edit was a matter of preference. And, as I'm saying here, it conflicts with my own. As a reviewer, I think it helps to be cognizant that there is a certain amount of leeway allowed in layout and structure, and that is explicitly stated in the guideline. The preferences of a reviewer may be instrumental and helpful, but should not override the preferences of contributing editors. Viriditas (talk) 02:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, Viriditas (talk · contribs), for deferring to the suggestions of the GA Reviewer. Much appreciated. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 02:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not deferring, so I don't know why you are saying that. I'm saying, a little bit of flexibility in your approach could go a long way. Please accept that other editors may take a different approach to LAYOUT that is both allowed and acceptable. Viriditas (talk) 02:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Nod, it is also a two-way street, a little improved tone in your approach, would go a long way, as well. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 02:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
You're right, of course. My apologies. Viriditas (talk) 04:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. That is most appreciated. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 02:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Image update

I went ahead and took the initiative to check the OTRS Ticket for this, to speed up the process for you, instead of waiting for some random OTRS volunteer to come through the queues, which are backlogged. I confirmed this image per OTRS. This is now   Done. Hope that is alright with you. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 02:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

SWEET!  –Newportm (talk • contribs) 03:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Legacy
  Resolved

 –Newportm (talk • contribs) 05:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Newportm, you added this link, but do we really need that as a ref? Holoholo.org isn't exactly the best source for us, and the statement about Shorty is already cited to Finney 1979, pp. 206-207: "...Yet, Mau has only one really apt pupil, Milton Bertleman...One of the few crewmen with any sailing experience before signing on the canoe, Shorty has chosen to be Mau's understudy and personal servant...Shorty watches Mau's every move, trying to absorb in the island style of nonverbal learning all he can of our navigator's knowledge and skill...The gang believes that they are the true followers of Mau...Boogie [said]..."We Hawaiian members of the crew really respect Mau and follow him. We know he has had thirty to thirty-five years of experience at sea and we respect him. We wish that you others would follow him." Viriditas (talk) 03:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

You betcha we don't really need it as a ref. In working on this I just learned that the Star Bulletin folded in June 2010 and it makes me sick. But that's a whole 'nutha subject. I'll delete the holoholo ref. –Newportm (talk • contribs) 03:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Citation needed
  • Sometimes spelled ppalu or paluw. The training required to become a palu is culturally equivalent to a doctoral program in Western culture. This is tagged as citation needed (it, itself, is inside of a footnote, so just pointing it out, here.) -- Cirt (talk) 02:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
    • As I commented above, it is sourced to either Lewis (1978:135) or Thomas (1987). Needs verification. Viriditas (talk) 03:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Verification needed

In subsection, Makali‘i, tag present of "verification needed" - this will need to be addressed. -- Cirt (talk) 02:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm working on it!  –Newportm (talk • contribs) 03:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Another one   Done –Newportm (talk • contribs) 03:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Legacy

In this section, paragraph two, the "citation needed" marker seems to be asking for reference which the next few paragraphs explicate. Do we need further citation here? If so, I'm sure I can find it. What I'm asking is whether on second glance, this is understood?  –Newportm (talk • contribs) 03:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

It's ok, I added Finney 1994, which will do fine. All of Chapter 1 and part of Chapter 2 are devoted to this question. Viriditas (talk) 03:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Nicely done. Is there anything else I can do to help.? –Newportm (talk • contribs) 03:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I noticed we have an in-print reference and another online reference to the same source for Finney's Sin at Avarua and don't know if that is good or not. –Newportm (talk • contribs) 03:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
It's ok for now. We want to make it clear that the online web content is based on reliable print sources. My preference would be to remove the online site and merge the link into the book ref, not in the URL field, but after the ref, noting that excerpts are available at the PVS site. Not an emergency at this point. Viriditas (talk) 03:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
How best to provide a general reference?

Woodward provides thorough, detailed information on Carolinian navigational techniques. Would it accomodate readers looking for resources on this if we provide reference to his work in the text of the techniques section (we cite his work on Google Books). Is this the manner in which to offer this:

For more information on these techniques, see {{sfn|Woodward|1998}}. (Showing wikitext)

Or is it sufficient to annotate the first footnote reference to the work? This begs the question of scope because this material could support (an) / article(s) of its own and there are many sources for serious students. Also, is it necessary to archive a Google Books asset with WebCite?  –Newportm (talk • contribs) 19:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

That's what the "Notes" section and "Further reading" are used for in this article. Whichever one you choose is a matter of style. If you notice, I've been adding references to primary sources as a "see also" in the notes section, while the text itself is referenced to content about Mau. Personally, I use the further reading section for material that has the potential to become a reference in the future. Viriditas (talk) 00:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mau_Piailug/GA1&oldid=389240975"