Talk:Potiki

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.

---

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

Reviewer: BennyOnTheLoose (talk · contribs) 01:29, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	I reviewed the top matches found using Earwig's Copyvio Detector. No issues. Matches were either titles, attributed quotes, or text acceptable per WP:LIMITED e.g. "want Māori to be "treated as a foreign language in its own country" and "published as a Penguin Classic in". No issues found during the review of offline sources for spot checks etc.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Reception section is reflective of sources that I've seen.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	FUR in place for the cover image.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Cover image is clearly relevant. There is a CC image of Grace available, but it isn't great quality and I guess many readers here are likely to see it at Grace's article anyway.
	7. Overall assessment.

I'm always happy to discuss, or be challenged on, my review comments. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:29, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks heaps for picking this one up! I'll start working gradually through your comments as they come in. So far, really great suggestions and all appreciated. :) Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 20:17, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

From an initial read, the article looks to be close to meeting the good article criteria.

• Lead is fairly short - is there any key information from "Reception" or "Legacy" that could be added?

• Have expanded this a bit, see what you think?

• The exemplars at MOS:WAF that are still featured articles all have a background section before the plot summary, but I looked at a dozen or so good articles and not all of those did. I'd suggest thinking about splitting out a background section from "Background and themes" and moving it to before Plot summary; but if you decide not to then it's not a blocker to GA status.

• Good suggestion, thanks! Have done.

• I have always taken "After the initial mention, a person should generally be referred to by surname only" to mean within the lead and separately within the body of the article, so would suggest "Patricia Grace" in "In 1985, Grace received a writing fellowship", but feel free to disagree. (I see, for example, that Grace's article itslef has "Grace" at the first mention in the body.)

• Thanks, done.

• Generally, there are quite a few short paragraphs. Can some of these be combined? At the moment we have some examples of consecutive parargraphs with similar starts, which it would be better to vary: "The novel"/"The novel's"; "Potiki was"/"Potiki came"; "The novel"/"The novel" and "In 2006"/In 2016"/"In 2020".

• Have endeavoured to address this a bit; see what you think?

• Spot check on "The novel is set in a coastal community resembling Hongoeka, Grace's hometown, which is north of Wellington, New Zealand" - no issues
• Spot check on "He is also sometimes described as a Jesus Christ-like figure" - no issues
• Spot check on "as academic Roger Robinson notes, Toko's birth parents are called Mary and possibly Joseph" - no issues. Could perhaps be reworded to make it clearer that it is unknown whether Joseph is the father, not that the father is known but his name uncertain.

• Ah yes, agree that's a bit ambiguous. Is this clearer now?

• Spot check on "remains both a popular success and a reference point for discussion of Māori writing and international postcolonial fiction" - no issues
• Spot check on "In 1994 it received the LiBeraturpreis [de] award in Germany" - I couldn't see this supported in the cited source.

• Thank you for catching this! Now fixed.

• "typed up the work on a portable writer" - can "writer" be equivelent to "typewriter" in New Zealand English?

• Woops, my error! Now fixed.

• Spot check on "On taking up the fellowship at Victoria she had access to a computer" - no issues, but probably worth expanding on this slightly (per the source, which mentions the manuscript was transferred to computer, if I'm reading it right.)

• Yes, this kind of left things hanging oddly didn't it? Have hopefully addressed.

• "It is one of very few New Zealand books, and the only New Zealand book by a Māori author, to be translated into Portuguese" - maybe add an "As of 2021..."

• Done!

From what I've seen in sources, I think the breadth and depth are fine for a GA. I'll put the review on hold - happy to allow more than a week for responses if required. Thanks for your work on the article. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@BennyOnTheLoose: Thanks heaps for your helpful review! I've had a stab at addressing the points, happy to keep reworking anything as needed (I always struggle with lead sections in particular). Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 03:38, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm satisfied that the article meets the GA criteria, so I'm passing it. Nive job, Chocmilk03! Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:30, 5 February 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.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by PrimalMustelid talk 18:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that despite the novel Potiki being about the impact of land development on an indigenous community, author Patricia Grace did not mean for it to be seen as political? Source: [1] "The book was described as political. I suppose it was but I didn’t realise it. The land issues and language issues were what Māori people lived with every day and still do. It was just everyday life to us, and the ordinary lives of ordinary people was what I wanted to write about, so I didn’t expect the angry reaction from some quarters."
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Vanessa Weenink
  • Comment: The QPQ linked was a multi-article DYK; the specific article I reviewed for it was Grant McCallum. Alas, I've already used the fact about there being no glossary of Māori words in a DYK for Grace's article, otherwise that would be a great hook.

Improved to Good Article status by Chocmilk03 (talk). Self-nominated at 22:13, 5 February 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Potiki; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• Article is totally presentable. New enough: promoted to GA earlier on the day of the nomination. Long enough: >7000 chars of prose. Neutral, no BLP issues, and no copyright violation, although Earwig gives a false positive based on the quotes. The "Plot Summary" section needs citations on the two latter paragraphs, but that's probably the same source as the first paragraph.

The given hook represents the source well and is interesting, but it's a bit clunky. I would tighten it up like this:

• ALT1... that Patricia Grace did not mean for her novel Potiki, about the impact of land development on an indigenous community, to be seen as political?

There's those two nitpicks to address, but aside from that it looks good. Apocheir (talk) 18:54, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

@Apocheir: Thanks very much for the review! I'm happy with your suggested tweak to the hook, that's much better. I hadn't added citations to the plot summary section in reliance on MOS:PLOTSOURCE; the work itself is the primary source. I did think that a secondary source was needed for the statements in the first paragraph about the meaning of potiki and who it refers to, so that's why those statements are cited. Is that OK? Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 04:11, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I wasn't aware of MOS:PLOTSOURCE. Stick a fork in 'er, for ALT1. Apocheir (talk) 19:01, 25 February 2024 (UTC)