Talk:Napier Technical College, New Zealand

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 14:29, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that after the 1931 Hawke's Bay earthquake destroyed Napier Technical College, it was disestablished and amalgamated into its rivals? Source: https://historicplacesaotearoa.org.nz/assets/HPHB-NEWSLETTER-1-May-2014.pdf
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Frederick Kimble, Template:Did you know nominations/Bed of nails defense

Created by Panamitsu (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 2. DYK is currently in unreviewed backlog mode and nominator has 37 past nominations.

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

—Panamitsu (talk) 10:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC).

• Length, date, hook ref, close paraphrase check ok. Needs 2 QPQ though. --Soman (talk) 11:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

• @Soman: I've done the QPQs now. —Panamitsu (talk)

QPQs done, all good. --Soman (talk) 10:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

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:Napier Technical College (New Zealand)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Panamitsu (talk · contribs) 11:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Cloventt (talk · contribs) 08:05, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   I would make some adjustments to improve the flow of the prose (details below). Grammar and spelling are mostly all good. The list of notable alumni is appropriate in my opinion.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Checked 10 sources at random, all seemed good and reliable to me. Please consider using the archive-url= parameter to link to archived versions of sources, to avoid Link rot. Also consider explicitly naming references rather than using positional `:0` syntax.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The picture of the Woolworths supermarket does not really enhance the article in my opinion. Otherwise the images are great.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   This is a very good article that only just falls short of the required standard from my perspective. There are only some minor adjustments I would suggest to get it over the line.

Adjustments I would make in the lead section are:

• Include the educational level of the school in first sentence. "Technical education college" does not tell me as a reader whether this was an institute for children, teenagers or adults. I would use something like "secondary and post-secondary technical college", and preferably link to the Vocational school page.
• I would adjust the second sentence to read closer to "...and after the 1931 Hawke's Bay earthquake killed nine students and destroyed the school buildings, it was disestablished...". To me this flows better.
• The second paragraph of the lead feels disconnected from the first. The first paragraph pretty much covers the entire timeline of the school, which leaves the reader uncertain what time period the second paragraph refers to. These could be reworked into a single paragraph in my opinion.

Adjustments I would make in the History section are:

• First sentence of the History section feels a bit off. Something like "was established" instead of "started" and "to replace" instead of "which replaced" would make it flow better.
• "That year, due to regulations, a third of the board was randomly selected to step down." What regulations? Why? Was this a change in regulation, or just "business as usual"? This topic could be expanded to explain more of the context of how and why this happened.

Adjustments I would make in the Earthquake section:

• "These were taken from student Harry Pond as he was being rescued from the collapsed building." This feels like a weird detail, or is perhaps strangely phrased. Were they stripping his clothes off him as they rescued him? The source clarifies that they were "cut off him by medical staff". I would maybe clarify in the earlier clause that the uniform was damaged during the earthquake, as a result of being cut from the student as he was rescued.

(By the way, this is my first ever GA review. If I have made some horrible mistake in the process, please let me know. I'm happy for a more experienced reviewer to review my review.)

(Issues were all resolved, gets a pass from me ).

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.