New Zealand edit
Toolbox |
---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it is close to Featured Article standard and is obviously of high importance to the project. The most recent country article I found that had passed the criteria was Israel in September 2007 and that has since been delisted. Australia and Canada have both recently been up for review so would probably provide the best set of standards, even though they didn't pass with flying colors. At least one non-New Zealand editor would be useful to identify any Kiwi-isms etc. New Zealand editors would be useful in identifying any content lapses. The requirements for passing country articles seems high so I welcome a thorough and critical review.
Thanks, AIRcorn (talk) 02:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Comments by Chipmunkdavis edit
Country articles are extremely difficult to do, so good luck. Just as an overall, it seems to be very well sourced, so well sourced that in places it may go into slightly more information than necessary!
Points dealt with
|
---|
Etymology
History
Politics
Environment
Economy
Demographics
Culture
|
Good article, hopefully shouldn't take much. I'm watching this, so if there's any confusion about anything I've said just ask under the bullet! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- That was fast... You make some excellent points. I will work through them elaborating or changing anything I think relatively uncontroversial and making comments of my own if necessary. Cheers AIRcorn (talk) 07:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'll give it another run through when I have the time, have a better look at the sections I skimmed. Sorry if my ignorance of names has caused such an issue, although coming off that it might be worth noting that many official names must be dual names in the languages section. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, dual names can be a minefield. Many people seem to have strong opinions on the subject (see e.g. Talk:Mount Taranaki/Egmont). You weren't to know, though.
- I've now mentioned dual names in the Language section. --Avenue (talk) 13:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'll give it another run through when I have the time, have a better look at the sections I skimmed. Sorry if my ignorance of names has caused such an issue, although coming off that it might be worth noting that many official names must be dual names in the languages section. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- That was fast... You make some excellent points. I will work through them elaborating or changing anything I think relatively uncontroversial and making comments of my own if necessary. Cheers AIRcorn (talk) 07:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Take two edit
- "New Zealand is notable for its geographic isolation" Not sure if this is encyclopaedic, maybe a better idea to simply detail its isolation.
- History
- "New Zealand was one of the last major landmasses settled and concluded a long series of voyages through the southern Pacific islands." I would prefer this reworded slightly, perhaps saying "was the concluding point" or "was the last point" instead of "concluded". I just read it and wondered how New Zealand managed to make such a voyage, although that's probably me being weird.
- "The resulting Musket Wars encompassed over 600 battles between 1801 and 1840, killing between 30,000–40,000 Māori." Clarify that these wars were inter-Maori.
- "and Hobson moved the capital from Okiato to Auckland" This can probably be deleted, it doesn't add and Okiato comes out of nowhere. If not deleted, it should be reworded, explaining the dates of each establishment.
- If anything significant has happened since 1973, perhaps that can be added. A concluding sentence quickly bringing the section to the present day would help wrap it up nicely.
- Politics
- "with a parliamentary democracy[52] although its constitution is not codified." add a comma after Parliamentary democracy.
- "whom she appoints on the exclusive advice of the Prime Minister" Exclusive advice?
- "The Privy Council in London was the final court of appeal until 2004 when it was abolished and replaced with the Supreme Court of New Zealand, now New Zealands highest court" The privy council was not abolished, it still exists. The "now New Zealands highest court" is redundant.
- " (Head of State, Governor-General, Prime Minister, Speaker and Chief Justice)" "Speaker" should be clarified, perhaps Speaker of the House (as I assume Speaker of the House of Representatives is too long)
- "In 1951 New Zealand joined Australia and the United States in the ANZUS security treaty, while the United Kingdom became increasingly focused on its European interests." It would probably be better to flip these two statements, noting the UK's change in policy first.
- "A large proportion of New Zealand's aid goes to the islands and many migrate to New Zealand for employment." "goes to these countries" may be better, and an average number of islanders who work in New Zealand per year would be nice, if available.
- The Five-Power Defence Arrangements may be better noted in the military section? ANZUS information too now that I think about it.
- "During the Pacific part of World War II" I think "Pacific part" is a bad way to put this. "During World War II" would suffice.
- Strange white space in the administrative divisions box between the Chatham and Kermadec islands (pedantic, I know).
- There's also white space between Niue and the Ross Dependency. These spaces are intentional, and are meant to help distinguish different types of jurisdictions. See the comments added in this edit for details. --Avenue (talk) 11:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe these distinctions should be made clearer through footnotes or something similar. --Avenue (talk) 13:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
- Something to explain would be a good idea. Now that I've seen that edit difference, I completely understand the spacing, and it seems like a good idea. However, to me at least it wasn't immediately obvious, so a footnote would be very helpful. With a footnote added, it may actually be worth increasing the size of the white spaces slightly. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- Environment
- "The country has extensive marine resources, with the fifth-largest Exclusive Economic Zone in the world, covering over 4 million square kilometres (1.5 million square miles), more than 15 times its land area." Long sentence, break?
- "The island's north is a flatter area, once covered by huge kauri trees." This still seems out of place. Are the kauri trees that important?
- This is just me, but I feel that perhaps the Tuatara deserves its own sentence. It's a classic example of unique fauna.
- I've added a sentence on living fossils that gives tuatara and NZ wrens as examples. --Avenue (talk) 14:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
- Economy
- Move the mountain picture up into the main section.
- Give a mile length for the road network.
- Any numbers for total railway length? Highest speed on the railways?
- Length added. I haven't found an overall maximum speed, although freight trains can exceed 100 km/h on favourable stretches. The NZ record speed is 125.8 km/h, according to our NZR RM class (Vulcan) article. --Avenue (talk) 11:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
- Does information about happiness and quality of life belong here? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
- Personally I don't think the "8th happiest" factoid adds much to the article. I'll remove it and see if anyone complains. Quality of life doesn't fit perfectly anywhere. It could fall under a broad view of economics, but since it is talking about specific cities, I'll try moving it to where cities are mentioned under demographics. --Avenue (talk) 11:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
- Demographics
- "The term Pākehā" Maori term? Moriori term?
- Considering that the Moriori were important enough to mention in History, information about them should be added to demographics.
- In 2006, 942 people identified themselves as Moriori descent (0.15% of all Maori descendants). AIRcorn (talk) 08:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- My feeling is that the Moriori are important in historical and anthropological terms, but not demographically important enough to rate a mention in the overall NZ article. Worth a mention in Demographics of New Zealand though, given their recent rapid increase. --Avenue (talk) 12:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- If they're not worth mentioning in demographics, are they worth mentioning in History? My concern is not about importance, but the way information in the article comes together. Seeing their specific culture mentioned in the History section made me expect further information in later sections. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- Added a mention about the fate of the Moriori under history "The Moriori population was decimated between 1835 and 1862, largely due to Māori invasion and European diseases. In 1862 only 101 survived and the last known full-blooded Moriori died in 1933." It will fit in better there and will hopefully explain to the general reader why they are not a significant part of New Zealands current demographics. AIRcorn (talk) 06:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- If they're not worth mentioning in demographics, are they worth mentioning in History? My concern is not about importance, but the way information in the article comes together. Seeing their specific culture mentioned in the History section made me expect further information in later sections. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- My feeling is that the Moriori are important in historical and anthropological terms, but not demographically important enough to rate a mention in the overall NZ article. Worth a mention in Demographics of New Zealand though, given their recent rapid increase. --Avenue (talk) 12:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- In 2006, 942 people identified themselves as Moriori descent (0.15% of all Maori descendants). AIRcorn (talk) 08:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- Ditto with the Moriori language, if it's very important.
- Culture
- "Early Māori developed their own distinctive culture based on the Polynesian culture." Not sure if this is the right way to put it. Distinctive version of the polynesian culture? Offshoot?
- "Māori culture was suppressed by the attempted assimilation of Māori into British New Zealanders." When did this stop?
- "Literature, driven by debates amongst the countries poets in the fifties, has moved from a nationalistic agenda to a more inclusive version of New Zealand and a desire to obtain international audiences." I am unsure of what this is trying to say.
- I tried re-writing it and couldn't get it to sound right so I removed it. I don't think the article loses anything
- "many of these genres given a New Zealand and Polynesian interpretation." Perhaps say a unique New Zealand interpretation, and a polynesian interpretation? It seems obvious New Zealand Music would have a New Zealand interpretation.
- Removed the polynesian interpretation and added unique in front of New Zealand
- Overall
- Standardise percent and per cent. According to Wikipedia:PERCENT British is per cent, and I assume New Zealand follows.
- Ah, the pace of modernisation. Standardise other way then, and perhaps consider noting NZ english on the style guide page. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
- Split the notes and references into two separate level two sections.
- I originally used this formatting as it doesn't full the TOC up, but you are not the first editor to suggest changing it. Have left Bibliography as a subheading of References for now as they are linked together using Harvard style short footnotes. AIRcorn (talk) 04:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)