Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/North Island (Houtman Abrolhos)/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 14:12, 8 September 2009 [1].

North Island (Houtman Abrolhos) edit

Nominator(s): Hesperian 12:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

This is easily the most comprehensive account of this island, online or off. It is thoroughly researched, well-written, neutral and stable. Hesperian 12:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • agree with the statement about the article being comprehensive but a couple of small points;
  • lead needs to be expanded, with at least a second paragraph
  • images horizon lines, especially the one in the flora section are tilted.

Also the wording I'd prefer to see the use of approxiamately rather than roughly Gnangarra 12:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll see what I can do about the lead. I've fixed the images, except the fenceline one, in which the horizon probably does slope. They haven't purged through yet, so you'll have to take my word for it. I see you've changed one "roughly" to "approximately", and I've changed another to "around". I've left the last one: there's something mischievously poetic about "roughly diamond-shaped". ;-) Hesperian 12:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've expanded the lead somewhat. Hesperian 13:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support sorry for the late reply I'm happy with th changes you've made !Gnangarra 04:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Conspicuously absent is a map placing the island's location in context (i.e. showing both the island and some geographical feature, probably Australia, that would be immediately recognizable to most readers). Is there a reason for this? Steve Smith (talk) 21:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Point taken; I've added a locator map. Hesperian 05:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • What makes http://www.eneabba.net/Midwest/Island1.html a reliable source?
    <sigh> It isn't, I suppose. This is the only source I could find for the assertions that the island has a school and a pub—claims that are separately corroborated by equally unreliable sources here and here respectively. Therefore I succumbed to temptation. I've removed the claims and the citation. :-( Hesperian 23:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query - Just wondering, why are there two images in the references section? ceranthor 17:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • They are worthwhile images that I couldn't fit in anywhere else. Hesperian 23:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
  • Good-looking article; the photos do a good job covering it. Were you on vacation there?
    • No; none of those photos were taken by me. Most we donated by the good people at eneabba.net. Hesperian 11:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the population figure, you state 130 seasonal fishermen in the infobox, as of 2006. In the body of the article, you state 130 seasonal fishermen, but it refers to something published in 2003. Are these figures likely to have changed since 2006/3? Which date is the correct one?
    • It must be 2003, since it is sourced to a 2003 paper. Fixed, thanks. Hesperian 12:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The founding of a permanent camp is given in 1947, and you state that the population increased to 130 by today, but aren't those seasonal inhabitants, not permanent?
    • Yes; it is a seasonally inhabited permanent camp. Hesperian 11:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who considers it an "attractive" tourist site?
  • The Human Uses section states that the chain is "vested in Western Australia's Minister for Fisheries" ... should that be the Ministry for Fisheries?
  • The list of plants seems to be overkill. It's longer than the entire Human Uses section, and doesn't add much. I'd suggest chopping it, since you did such a good job on the rest of the flora section.
    • I think it adds an awful lot; but then, I have an interest in these things. Hesperian 11:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any fresh water on the island?
    • There must be, if wallabies can survive all year round; but you wouldn't know it from reading reliable sources. Hesperian 11:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there any structures on the island other than the lighthouse and fishing camp?
    • A trig point, and of course the numerous buildings and jetties comprising the camp. Hesperian 11:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the water depth like around the island?
    • All I know about that is in Houtman Abrolhos#Bathymetry. Unfortunately there aren't any sources that refer to the bathymetry specifically around this island, and I'm reluctant to include general Abrolhos information here. Hesperian 11:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If temperature figures are available, I suggest using Template:Infobox Weather to spruce up the climate section.
    • Raw data for the island is available, and based on that some general assertions have been published about the island's climate, but monthly averages themselves have not been published. I don't think it would be appropriate for us to synthesise averages out of the raw data. Hesperian 11:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes it a good place for lobster fishing?
    • There are lobsters there. :-) Sorry; I don't have a better answer than that. Hesperian 11:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "permanent seasonal" seems to be a contradiction.
    • The camp is permanent; the population is seasonal. i.e. at the end of the season, the crayfishers go home, but the camp remains. Hesperian 11:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Changed to "seasonally-inhabited permanent camp". Hesperian 11:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "even further to the north and south" isn't really precise.
    • Changed to "over 3 km (2 mi) to the north and south". Hesperian 11:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've got an "as of 2007" and an "as of 2006" in the article, which is a concern for an article in 2009.
    • Unfortunately, I have to work with the body of reliable sources in existence. Better to be upfront about the fact that some of this data is dated. Hesperian 11:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've gone through and given the article a scrubbing for smoothness, clarity, and grammar. If anything looks wonky, drop a note on my talk page. JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the review; much appreciated.

      I've restored a few little bits where removal might have created misconceptions or errors of fact; e.g. converting "Possible reasons for this include..." to "Reasons for this include..." results in a misrepresentation of the source. I also restored a little bit of variation in the prosody: I don't like every sentence to follow the same subject-verb-noun formula. Hesperian 11:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Comment Well researched, well illustrated and linked to a family of supporting articles in Category:Houtman Abrolhos, the vast majority created by the author. There are a few minor issues regarding wording in the following sentences:
    • Lead

"It is also used as conservation habitat for rare birds and vegetation communities"

    • 2 Geography

"Reefs that formed during the Eemian interglacial (about 125,000 years ago), when sea levels were higher than today, are above sea level, and make up the basement of the group's central platform islands: West Wallabi Island, East Wallabi Island, and North Island."

    • 6 Fauna

"it has been suggested that the island once had a native population of the introduced Tammar Wallaby"

Melburnian (talk) 09:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've rephrased all three, though in each case I'm not certain that I've addressed what you're driving at. I've assumed your points are: (1) "rare" could attach to one or both nouns; (2) horrid prose; (3) clash of "native" with "introduced. Hesperian 11:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not being specific, the section of the first phrase that to me seems NQR is "used as", though you have rightly corrected an ambiguity that I missed. Melburnian (talk) 12:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
rejiggered. Now "reserved as conservation habitatat for..." Hesperian 02:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Support

  • "North Island was discovered in May 1840..." Are we sure that (1) There is no record of Indigenous occupation or use of the island, and (2) the Dutch, Portugese etc never identified it as an island in journals or charts? I typed "Houtman Abrolhos" into Google, and clicked on the very first link, and I found "Commonly referred to as “The Abrolhos”, the islands are named after Dutch Commander Frederik de Houtman, who came across several of the low-lying, coral-reef fringed islands in June 1619. The word Abrolhos is thought to be derived from the Portuguese expression Abre os olhos, meaning “keep your eyes open”." and "The Dutch East India Company's vessels, Batavia and Zeewijk, are probably the best known of the Abrolhos wrecks. The Batavia hit Morning Reef, near Beacon Island in the Wallabi Group, in 1629 while the Zeewijk was wrecked on Half-Moon Reef in the Pelsaert Group in 1727. Eighteen other historic wrecks have been discovered in Abrolhos waters." While i recognise these remarks do not mention North Island in particular, the failure to note this background or context, and to lead in with a 'discovery' in 1840, I think creates a misleading picture.
    • The stuff you found on Google is inferior to the material in Houtman Abrolhos#Discovery and naming, which I wrote. For example, "keep your eyes open" is a popular but false etymology.

      I disagree that the article is creating a misleading picture. All the evidence, and all the sources, point to an isolated outlying island that was unoccupied and undiscovered until 1840. The fact that some islands to the south have a much longer history is irrevelant. If you want to know about the history of the Houtman Abrolhos as a whole, read Houtman Abrolhos. That fact is, shipwrecks a hundred kilometres to the south are not "background or context" for this article, and the "'discovery' in 1840" was in fact the discovery in 1840.

      The only way I could address this comment would be to write that the islands to the south were known of since the early 17th century, but North Island wasn't discovered until 1840. Since no source has made such a juxtaposition, this would be a novel synthesis that advances the position that the late discovery of North Island is surprising. Hesperian 00:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK, that being the case, I recommend the text read something like "The Houtman Abrolhos islands were first recorded by Dutch Commander Frederik de Houtman in 1619; however, the first record of North Island was in May 1840, during the third survey voyage of HMS Beagle. etc" I suggest this because one cannot prove a negative - if de Houtman 'discovered' the islands in general, i am presuming there is no way to prove that he did not see North Island, but also no reference in his journals etc that he did. I am suggesting a text that avoids making a claim either way. However, if the literature in the field does in fact suggest that a reasonable interpretation of de Houtman is that he definitely did not sight North Island, then I have no concern about the existing text. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd prefer not to include information general to the Abrolhos here. If the point is to step back from a firm claim of primacy for the Beagle, then how about a short and sweet "The earliest known sighting of North Island occurred in May 1840, during the third survey voyage of HMS Beagle, commanded by John Clements Wickham." This qualifies the claim that Wickham was definitely the first to see it, and makes a little more explicit the fact that there is no evidence of indigenous habitation or even awareness. Hesperian 02:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be happy with that, and am switching to support. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done, and much obliged: the article is better for your input. Hesperian 02:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The text should make some reference as to the islands' political geography - were the islands claimed by Britain directly? Was / is the island part of Western Australia, and when did it / they become so?
  • Under "Conservation": the reference to "finfish" may confuse a lay reader, who will wonder what sort of fish they are. The WP article fish says that "In some contexts, especially in aquaculture, the true fish are referred to as finfish (or fin fish) to distinguish them from [things like cuttlefish and jellyfish etc]" In the circumstances, i would replace "finfish" simply with "fish" in the North Island article.

This is, however, a generally impressive collection of information about an isolated location. Kudos for your research skills. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks, and thanks for the review. Hesperian 00:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review I don't think there should be images in the reference section. The images from eneabba.net are really poor quality; is there any way of getting better-quality images? Copyright status and alt text for the images seem fine, although I haven't gone into the OTRS tickets to check those. Stifle (talk) 21:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support well written article using high-quality sources YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/North_Island_(Houtman_Abrolhos)/archive1&oldid=1207933444"