Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/New Zealand/archive2

< Wikipedia:Peer review | New Zealand

New Zealand

edit
Previous peer review
Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

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)[reply]

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
  • First off, rename Stewart Island / Rakiura to just Stewart Island, the title doesn't need both names. It messes up the New Zealand lead slightly.
    • I'm not sure if I'm following you correctly, but if you mean that the article itself should be be moved, I think that would at least need some prior discussion on the article's talk page. The relevant naming convention says that the dual name should be used as the title if it "has usage beyond mandatory official usage", and it seems to me that it does. See e.g. [1], [2], [3]. If you're just meaning that the NZ article should link using the Stewart Island redirect, then I agree. --Avenue (talk) 20:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Interesting naming convention. Anyway, per "Links to the article need not use the dual name" the NZ article should just link to Stewart Island, and probably should appear as just Stewart Island when it is mentioned in Geography too. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 00:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Changed link to Stewart Island. AIRcorn (talk) 07:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • "Need not" does not mean "should not": why should the island be referred to as "Stewart Island"? "Stewart Island/Rakiura" is the name of the island, it's been that way for over 12 years now. Same with Aoraki/Mount Cook. There are some contexts in which "Stewart Island" is perfectly fine, but in the lede of the main New Zealand article (and throughout)? Personally, I think not. – Liveste (talk • edits) 14:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • The island has a dual name. That means that official documents must use the dual form, but we are not producing official documents, so we can choose whichever form (Maori, English, or dual) suits our needs best. The English name seems most accessible to a general English-speaking audience (i.e. including international readers). Together with its dominance in current English usage, that's why I think the English form is best for the New Zealand article. (Aoraki / Mount Cook is different, in that current usage is more mixed.) Why do you believe that the dual form of the island's name would be best? --Avenue (talk) 17:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fix the Britain wikilink. Current one is a redirect, but I'd recommend directing it to British Empire, to get the historical picture.
  • "plays a leading role among Pacific Island nations" how so?
    • I reworded this slightly to "strong political influence", but it is probably still not ideal. Will try and elaborate on this within the Foreign relations section. AIRcorn (talk) 07:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, explaining this would require more detail than desirable in the lead section. I've shortened it to simply claim "close ties" as with the countries listed earlier. --Avenue (talk) 14:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being a "Founding member of the UN" isn't that special, neither is being a member of the UN really.
    • The last couple of sentences snuck in between my submission and your review. I will remove them, although there may be some merit in tying the lead off with a sentence about New Zealands current state. AIRcorn (talk) 07:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It would be useful to finish the lead with a summary of current international status, as that seems to be common. I'm not personally sure what would be most relevan for New Zealand though. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology

  • "The use of the term to describe the whole country only occurred post-colonially and it is now commonly used in New Zealand English" That sentence needs clarifying somehow, I think it is saying that the former name for North island is now applicable to the whole country?
  • "The New Zealand Geographic Board discovered in 2009 that the Islands were never officially named and is seeking to formalise the names North Island and South Island." I'm pining for more information here. Does it mean that they never received official name under law?
    • Yes, they were not officially named by legislation or by the more common method of gazetting by the NZ Geographic Board. That's not uncommon, but it is a bit surprising for such major features. --Avenue (talk) 17:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The board is also looking for alternative Māori names" Alternative Maori names? If it means alternative to English, then simply "Maori names" would suffice.
    • Alternative names are different from dual names. The cited source[4] explains the distinction fairly clearly. But we do not make the distinction clear, so I agree dropping "alternative" is probably best. --Avenue (talk) 17:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History

  • If there's one thing most FA country articles have in common, it's a short simple undivided history section. I'm not going through this whole section for now, but I think there's a bit too much detail in areas such as Polynesian migrations. Information such as "Busby...did oversee the introduction of the first national flag on 20 March 1834" seems somewhat trivial.
    • I gave this a trim last night before the internet died. I am not sure how confident I would be taking too much more out. There might be some potential in trimming and combining the third and fourth paragraphs. I am wary of removing the justifications of the early Polynesian arrival times, most of the evidence agrees with the figure, but there are some researchers with differing opinions. I don't think they carry enough weight to be mentioned in this article (there is a mention in the History of New Zealand) and I don't like the idea of using "most evidence" or something equally ambiguous. AIRcorn (talk) 03:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Politics

  • "The Parliament of New Zealand is the supreme legislative power" Supreme could go there, it doesn't really add anything and the situation is explained in the next sentence.
    • Changed to The Parliament of New Zealand holds legislative power
  • "The House of Representatives is democratically elected" Democratically is probably unnecessary, I would assume an election is democratic unless stated otherwise.
    • Would The House of Representatives is elected by New Zealand citizens work. It doesn't read right if we just remove the democratically.
      • Not as it stands, because permanent residents can also vote. "[...] citizens and permanent residents" would probably work; I presume we don't need to specify "adult". --Avenue (talk) 10:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cabinet, led by the Prime Minister, is the highest policy-making body in government and is formed by most of the ministers" Most of the ministers? A bit more information would be helpful. Additionally, state somewhere what exactly the Cabinet is. This sentence is the closest I can see that explains it, and from reading the article I'm still not exactly sure.
    • All members of cabinet are minister, but not all ministers are members of cabinet (Ministers outside of Cabinet). Removed "most of" as formed by ministers covers this and the details are probably best left to the main article. My take on cabinet is that it basically makes all the big decisions, but they are not law so the individual ministers or Prime Minister do not have to follow them, but if they don't then they run into trouble. I added a sentence and expanded another to try and make it clearer, but welcome anyone else to tighten it up.
  • "Where she goes, we go; where she stands, we stand." Clarify she means Britain somehow, I understood it, but I'm not sure it's immediately clear.
    • I think the rest of the sentence makes this clear enough already. We could expand the quote ("[...] we range ourselves without fear beside Britain. Where she goes, we go. Where she stands, we stand."[5]), but this seems unnecessary to me. --Avenue (talk) 17:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first paragraph of the Local Government section confuses me. It carefully explains how New Zealand went from provinces to a highly centralised state, then states in the last sentence "Since 1876, local government has administered the various regions of New Zealand."
  • "New Zealand is part of the monarchy" I don't understand what this is trying to say.
  • Is there a reason to italicise free association? I don't see what it adds.
  • Mention that all those in the realm have New Zealand citizenship, even citizens of the Cook Islands and Niue
  • "The Ross Dependency is New Zealand's Antarctic territory" I'd add "claimed" before Antarctic territory, as antarctic territories are generally unrecognised.

Environment

  • First time I've seen an article that places Geography under Environment, instead of the other way around. I think just make the Geography section the level two subsection.
  • Are the comparisons with other countries sizes necessary? I don't see any value.
  • Stewart Island/Rakiura again.
  • "Chatham Islands (named Rēkohu by Moriori)" The Maori names for everything don't need to be given throughout the article.
    • And they aren't (e.g. Aotea/Great Barrier Island and Rangitoto Ki Te Tonga/D'Urville Island, in same sentence). Rēkohu is Moriori, not Maori. I think it deserves a mention, as the indigenous name for that people's homeland. But it does get mentioned earlier (in the History section), so I've removed it here as redundant. --Avenue (talk) 17:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The island's north is a flatter area, once covered by huge kauri trees." Once being? What happened?
    • Short answer: people came. Much was burnt off by Maori, both before and after European contact, and almost all the rest was logged during the 19th century. I'm looking for good sources, but haven't found much on Maori impacts yet. --Avenue (talk) 17:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The latitude of New Zealand corresponds closely to that of Italy in the Northern Hemisphere, but its isolation from continental influences and exposure to cold southerly winds and ocean currents give the climate a much milder character." Another seemingly irrelevant comparison.
  • Move the kiwi photo up to the top of the biodiversity section.
  • "220 islands larger than 5 hectares were marked as possible sanctuaries by 2009." 2009 has come and gone. What happened since then?
    • Well, that statement seems to have been incorrect in the first place. The source cited actually says that "The Department of Conservation now manages or has an interest in more than 220 islands larger than 5 hectares." DoC manages a lot of land that hasn't been marked as a possible sanctuary. I've replaced it with a broader statement. --Avenue (talk) 11:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Economy

  • "New Zealand has a relatively high standard of living, comparable to that of Southern Europe." Again, not immediately obvious how this helps the article. I'm not sure a reader will know how high the standard of living is in Southern Europe, and standards vary throughout southern europe.
  • The last paragraph of trade seems...not to be about trade. I'm not even sure it's needed in this article, seems like too much detail.

Demographics

  • The last paragraph in the ethnicity section seems not to be about ethnicity. Just move it above the ethnicity section, under the main demographics header.

Culture

  • I like this section, but the art subsection seems excessively long. It may be worth combining the first and third paragraphs. The fourth paragraph seems like it would be better suited as a standalone Literature section.
    • Seperated Literature paragraph.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)
    • "Speaker of the House" makes me think of the American position. Perhaps "Parliament's Speaker" would work, although just plain "Speaker" reads better to me. It's not ambiguous in a unicameral system like NZ's. --Avenue (talk) 10:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "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)[reply]
    • Maybe these distinctions should be made clearer through footnotes or something similar. --Avenue (talk) 13:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
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.
Economy
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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
          • 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)[reply]
  • Ditto with the Moriori language, if it's very important.
    • It's essentially extinct, from what I gather. There are some efforts to revitalise it, but these are much less advanced than the achievements made with te reo Maori. Sorry, but I don't think it's worth including in this article. --Avenue (talk) 13:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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
  • Split the notes and references into two separate level two sections.

Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/New_Zealand/archive2&oldid=1090659592"