Talk:Culture of the Cook Islands/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ColonelHenry (talk · contribs) 18:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look forward to reviewing this article within the next few days. --ColonelHenry (talk) 18:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ColonelHenry:, thanks look forward to seeing it!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologise that it took me a few days longer than expected to attend to this. Real life obligations, unfortunately. However, here are a few comments getting started... --ColonelHenry (talk) 04:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria assessment

CRITERIA 1:

1a The prose is excellent and fascinating, the article provides a very adequate introduction to this rich cultural heritage. I didn't see any glaringly obvious errors of spelling or grammar in my read-throughs of the article, but I will do a copyedit to catch any minor ones that I may have missed. I will perform an in-depth random spotcheck to search for copyvio/paraphrasing. Standby.
1b Article complies with the relevant MOS guidelines listed. No action necessary.

CRITERIA 2:

WP:V / WP:OR - The article is well-sourced, however several statements of fact in the article are not sourced. Some action required.
2a Reference section included, and section comply with policies and guidelines. No action necessary regarding layout.
2b As stated above, several sentences (most at the conclusion of paragraphs) that present facts within the article should be sourced, unless there is a valid rationale for not providing a citation. Some action required.
2c I do not see any indication of original research or synthesis, the subject is presented in a factual manner, and interpretation of the facts is conservative and directly connected the sources and the nature of the facts.

CRITERIA 3:

3a Article adequately addresses main aspects of the topic.
3b Article provides an excellent introduction to the cultural heritage of the Cook Islands and does so balancing sufficient detail while remaining a cogent summary.

CRITERIA 4: - There is no evidence of bias or POV, the matter poses no controversy, and the facts are treated fairly and neutrally.

CRITERIA 5: - I do not see any indication of any issues concerning the article's stability

CRITERIA 6:

6a Image check to come (below).
6b Article has relevant images with appropriate captions per MOS.

Image check

Source spotcheck

Minor issues

The finest performances of the Ura are put on in Rarotonga.[14] - It might be appropriate, since this is Stanley's opinion, to state that "Travel writer David Stanley asserts that..." as a preface to the sentence.

Agreed, added. Please let me know which statements you wanted cited!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you'll indicate which statements need citations, I'd be glad to follow-up. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:31, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Blofeld:, @Rosiestep: - I stated above..."several sentences (most at the conclusion of paragraphs)"...some of the paragraphs end with a fact that needs to be sourced. --ColonelHenry (talk) 03:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I asked Caponer to take over the rest of the review, as real life obligations have me hamstrung right now.--ColonelHenry (talk) 03:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added/improved several refs. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Blofeld:, @Rosiestep:, it looks like you all have beautifully crafted yet another incredible article! I will conduct a more thorough review of the article and of the Colonel's comments and suggestions within the next few days. Even though I too am hamstrung in my real life, I would never miss an opportunity to review a Dr. Blofeld and Rosiestep collaboration! Thank you for your patience in advance! -- Caponer (talk) 03:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

@Dr. Blofeld:, @Rosiestep:, upon my more thorough review, I found that this article meets all the criteria for passing to Good Article status. I shared some of the Colonel's concerns mentioned above, and it looks like you all have more than adequately addressed those. With that said, it is my pleasure to pass this article to GA status! Thank you for all your tremendous work on this article! -- Caponer (talk) 23:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Caponer!♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]