Talk:Southshore, New Zealand/GA1

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.

---

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

Nominator: Alexeyevitch (talk · contribs) 22:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Voorts (talk · contribs) 21:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for the late response Voorts, I traveled to the Banks Peninsula this morning but I'm back in Christchurch. Thanks for beginning this review. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 03:38, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

I am quick-failing this nomination. I believe that the sourcing issues combined with the content and reorganization changes are so significant that they need to be addressed before another review is attempted.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   I've made some minor copy edits to the article for concision, grammar, and clarity, and I've also reorganized some things, but I didn't go through this with a fine-toothed comb so there might be some more issues.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Minor MOS:WTW issue noted below.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. 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):

   See source review below.

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Seems fine from Earwig's tool.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   See comments below.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   See comment below.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   I've identified a copyright concern with this image, which has since been replaced with two other images that have valid licenses.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Not required for GA, but some images need alt text.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments

• Preliminaries:
  • I started taking these notes before some of your intervening revisions so some of these notes might be moot.
  • Many of the following comments apply to similar text in the lead.
• Not required for GA:
  • When you cite 2 or more pages using {{sfn}} citations, you should use "pp" as the parameter instead of "p".
  • This article uses a mix of refs and (multiple) short footnotes. Generally, you should defer to the article's existing citation stytle.
• Like the rest of Christchurch, the Māori were the first settlers to the area. – Specify when they (likely) first settled the area.
• Archaeological evidence of middens in the area combined with the Māori history – "Māori history" is vague – in the area indicates a high potential for the presence of archaeology in the area. – Do you mean "artefacts" rather than "archaeology"? Addiitonally, the sources cited here are dated 1971, 2013, and 2015. Have there been any archaeological surveys since then? Is there more recent research on the archaeological findings of the area?
• In Southshore's early years, a local jogger presumably discovered a wharenui totem in the sand dunes near Tern Street, but others dispute this, as there is no documentation. – First, specify when this happened. Second, how is there evidence that a local jogger discovered the totem if nobody documented it?
• Regarding the sentence that begins There was a walking track ... and the following sentence, specify when these tracks existed.
• The "European settlement" section should be in chronological order. It starts at some point [p]rior to the 20th century, then goes to 1916, 1940–1945, 1958, 1954, 1953, the late 1940s, 1967, "a few decades ago", and the present.
• Regarding the history of European settlement, the article states: Prior to the 20th century the area was known locally to early European settlers as "Sandhills Run". As more settlers arrived, they constructed baches and established a dairy station in the suburb. This should be more specific. When did European settlers begin to arrive? When did they begin to call it "Sandhills Run"? When did the "more settlers" arrive, and when were the baches and dairy built? Also, in the lead, you link to dairy, but here you link to dairy farming. Was this a dairy farm or something else? Dairy farms tend to be in rural locations, not suburbs, so I'm a bit confused.
• There was sparse transportation and lack of facilities in the area in the early twentieth century and Southshore had very few permanent residents. – Specify what sort of "transportation" (roads? public transit?) and "facilities" (bars? restaurants? libraries?).
• A local resident between 1940 and 1945 ... – Is this verified by sources other than a local resident? What evidence is there that this occurred?
• in use of six sections – What does this mean?
• Development in the suburb was slow ... seems to be contradicted by the first sentence of the immediately following paragraph, which states Southshore grew rapidly and was heavily urbanised after World War II in the late 1940s.
• soon receiving a water supply until 1954 – Did you mean to say "receiving a water supply in 1954"? In any event, this is unclear because how could they have lived without a source of water until 1954?
• Channelling and kerbs were installed to the suburbs main road – Specify when.
• between 1000 and 2000 years ago – Specify the actual dates.
• carried southward along? the east coast of the South Island
• Christchurch has no official definition of the boundaries of suburbs, and as a result there may be inconsistencies between sources about some boundaries. A sign is also located on Caspian Street indicating Southshore's presumed boundaries. – This should be stated in the body, not in an endnote, and the various definitions should be discussed with due and balanced weight.
• Everything between It had a population of 1,041 ... and 2.3% had other religions needs a citation.
• had no formal qualifications – This is vague. Does this mean didn't finish university? High school?
• attracted an older demographic to the area. – Specify when they were "attracted" and define "older demographic" (e.g., middle-aged working people or pensioners).
• hit hard – How hard?
• Damage was caused to houses and land. – Specify how much damage.
• In August 2011, residents were informed ... – This paragraph is undue in the context of a summary article on the neighborhood rather than a more-specific article on red-zoning controversies in New Zealand (if such an article exists or ought to be written). I don't think we need tick-tock reporting of the cycles of notices, delays, and apologies.
• The first paragraph of the Transport section appears to be a bit disjointed. The first two sentences are about the Māori, and then all of a sudden there's a sentence about bridges, followed by an axed 10-year-old chain-ferry project.
• Road access to Southshore was very uneven and overgrown with gorse and lupin. – When?
• suburb of Wigram (not Hillmorton) – Why does "not Hillmorton" need to be specified?
• In European times, a longstanding aspiration of many people in Christchurch is a bridge across the estuary connecting the area of Southshore to Sumner. – Who are these "many people". (See MOS:WEASEL.)
• Absent from the discussion about how Southshore was named are the views of the Māori.

Source review (and two spot checks)

Review of just some of the references from this version. I haven't looked at all of the references.

• Rowlands, Moore & Osborn (2006) is published by the Southshore Residents' Association History Group. I have been unable to find any information about this "history group", but my educated guess would be that a local residents' history group of a 1,500 person area is probably not a reliable source.
• I have been unable to find information about Walsh (1971). Who is the author, what's his expertise, etc.?
• Comfort (M.A., 1995), Biggs (M.A., 1947), and Macpherson (1978) are unreliable per WP:THESIS.
• O'Brien (2008) is titled Memories of Pleasant Point Yacht Club, 1921–1980 and published by the Pleasant Point Yacht Club.
• Owen (1992) is published by the Christchuch City Council and has the following note in its National Library catalog entry: "Mobil Environmental Awareness. Made possible by an environmental grant from Mobil Oil New Zealand Ltd."
• Brailsford (1981) is published by a Borough Council.
• Moore Davis (2015) is unreliable because it is the affidavit of a retained expert that was filed in a formal proceeding.
• A page is still needed for this cite: Hillier 2006, pp. 45–46, cited in Rowlands, Moore & Osborn 2006.
• LINZ does not support the statement: The western side of the Southshore spit commands views of the estuary, other eastern suburbs of Christchurch, and parts of the Hillsborough spur (emphasis added). The phrase "commands views" requires a reliable source.

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.