I'm going to do a thorough review of this in a few moments, but please take a look at the suggestions automatically generated by the peer reviewer for a start. At the moment, from what I can see, the lead is under-referenced.
Thanks for undertaking this review N. The Lead, as a starting point, has a few things I need advice on. I will check the referencing; an editor has suggested reducing the statistics but I need guidance as to which might be put elsewhere; it seems long, but I'm not sure what to leave out, the four paragraphs are within WP guidelines, but it actually lacks a summary of the history section so there is potentially more to go in. It also raises the issue of galleries. I will, of course, abide by WP policy but wonder what you think about this? The galleries in this article were inserted in innocence on the assumption that they would both interest and assist the reader - that multiple pictures can be really informative and, in fact, often speak louder than the words. Animals and plants especially seem appropriate for galleries, rather than just a sample pic or two to decorate the article. Anyway, the Lead is where this problem first arises, as the gallery gives the reader a "taste" for familiar island views and operations. I'll get on with the references ...Granitethighs05:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a go at condensing the lead and moving the detail elsewhere, and have disbanded the lead gallery. I still think a few sentences summarizing the history should be put in. --99of9 (talk) 07:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article could do with a thorough copyedit. There's a noticeable over-capitalisation of nouns and an overuse of semicolons. I will do one myself after finishing the general review. Done
Resolved.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
For the layout, take a look at this guideline. While this article is obviously a little bit different, it might give you an idea about how to order the sections. Done
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Still under-referenced. As a rule, if a paragraph does not end with a citation, that's a red light. This applies to the distance and area figures and any claim that may be reasonably contested. One particular point that I personally would challenge is the attribution "dependency" (since I'm faily certain it isn't one and the article linked doesn't mention it).
I am not sure how to deal with citing heights, distances etc. I have had a quick check of other articles (e.g. citation for the height of Everest) and they do not seem to be given. I am not sure how to deal with this - I'm not a geographer - any ideas? Also I'm having difficulty in determining LHI's exact constitutional status. I suspect that, like Norfolk Island, this is contentious (see Norfolk Island). Any help? Perhaps the issue does not have to be addressed head on? Beyond this I'm not sure what needs referencing. For example, do you want the statement that the Admiralty Group consists of 7 islands referenced?Granitethighs23:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll have a look. I'm not much of a lawyer but based on definitions on WP, LHI could pass as either a "protectorate" or "dependency", the legal status of these does not seem to be discussed. Perhaps the latter is the way to go - what do you reckon?Granitethighs 01:22, 20 August 2011
Nichols calls the island a New South Wales "dependency". I've cited this statement and until someone proves to the contrary I suggest we stay with it.Granitethighs04:53, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Dependency is a legal designation. Since it's not legally given this designation under Australian law, it shouldn't be used. In the infobox, it says it's an unincorporated area of New South Wales, similar to the Far West Region. I think this designation should be easy enough to verify.
Except for this one point, the lead is okay as long as the content is then sourced in its appropriate section. For the sections (in this case the Geography one), obviously not everything has to be referenced, but I would like to see a source for the statistics.
I am out of my depth here but would suggest that although Lord Howe Island is not a (legal entity) Dependent Territory (what in common parlance is called a "Territory", like Norfolk Island or the Northern Territory) it is nevertheless a "dependancy" which is not a legal entity. I realise this is in part semantic, but I need convincing to the contrary.Granitethighs07:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, a dependent territory is any territorial entity that is legally under the sovereignty of a state but is outside the legal boundaries of that state. In Australia, the term officially used is "external territory" (in the UK it's "overseas territory"), and Australia has seven. A map of these can be seen here. When an act (any piece of federal legislation) is passed it will say where it applies: if it only applies "in Australia" then it does not apply to any in these territories (with one exception that isn't relevant here), but it will apply to Lord Howe Island because that is considered part of Australia. To cite an analogy, New Caledonia is a dependency of France, but Réunion (in the Indian Ocean) is not, because it is considered part of France. Does that make sense?
In checking on the flag I came across this site Flag which refers to LHI as a dependency of the state of New South Wales. This is the point I was making earlier - perhaps you are not convinced?Granitethighs11:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, it's probably because my area of editing on Wikipedia is mostly in politics that I'm being so picky with the legal content. While any website or author is free to apply whichever terminology they deem the most appropriate, we don't have that freedom. For us to say that this entity is a dependency, a protectorate, etc, we would need something solid (a piece of legislation, a government document, or failing that something from a legal scholar)—i.e., sources of exceptional quality, since it would fall outside the normal definition of a dependency. A website on flags and a self-published source do not qualify. It falls under the state's Constitution. The Lord Howe Island Act states that all the land is New South Wales land. For local government purposes, it is officially classified as an unincorporated area. Jurist M. White wrote, "The formal administrative structure is that Lord Howe Island is part of the New South Wales electoral district of Port Macquarie. ... It is anomalous that an offlying island such as Lord Howe Island should be part of a State, and in this regard it is like Macquarie Island which is part of Tasmania. It would probably be preferable that it be a Commonwealth offshore territory, like its island neighbour Norfolk Island." But it isn't.
I'm not convinced that the word "dependency" really does carry a legal obligation with it as you imply - it seems to be used legitimately in a general sense quite frequently. However, I confess to knowing little about politics and less about law so I will willingly defer. Would you accept what I have put in there now?Granitethighs02:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine. I'm going to cap this off as resolved.
So far as the detail is concerned, the first paragraph delves a bit too much into topography. I'd suggest summarising sentences 3 to 7 into one (e.g., "Most of the population lives in the north, while the south is dominated by forested hills rising to the highest point on the island, Mount Gower".) Then squeeze in a new second paragraph with major points on history. And I'd take out the last (single-sentence) paragraph.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This section is fantastic! I was actually interested (let it be known that I'm almost never entertained when reading encyclopaedia entries). Minor points of pickiness: First Fleet, HMS Supply (1759), Lady Penrhyn (ship) are all linked multiple times in the same section. I've also removed a couple of links to common English terms (goat, pig). Done
I says when it was claimed as a British possession, but (unless I've missed it) it isn't stated when the island passed to Australia, which could be seen as a vital point. Other than that, this section is comprehensive and everything is well-sourced.
I'd guess that it was administratively included in NSW from discovery, and when Australia became a Federation in 1901, it simply rolled along with NSW. --99of9 (talk) 05:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have been surprised how much of the history has loose ends. It's a good point: I'll check what I can but this might not have a neat answer.Granitethighs23:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Australia has never fought a war of independence and is still, in a (surely legal) sense, British (it has a British Governor General). Lord Howe Island was British in the same way that New South Wales was British. Inevitably, I would suggest, its official administration came initially from New South Wales. I think the wording is OK - or perhaps someone could give it a little word tweak to remove any ambiguity.Granitethighs07:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From White, who I referenced above: "The island was, of course, under the British Crown but in 1855 it came under the administration as part of the Colony of New South Wales." Here's the link at Google books (p 305).
The book looks great but, frankly, I find this sentence (which is the only really pertinent one) clumsy and ambiguous. What does "under the administration" mean? Does in mean the British administration or the administration of NSW? I assume it means it came under the administration of NSW. But this really needs a backup citation. Was there a legal or other document, an official statement, or some other vehicle for declaring the island to be under NSW administration - and, if there was one, did it come from Britain or the settlement in NSW? In short, agree with you that if we quote a date when LHI fell under any form of external administration then it will need clear documentation. I do not think this sentence does the trick, and I'm still not convinced that such an official date must exist. I suggest it is left as is, no?Granitethighs13:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that this is the year that it officially become part of New South Wales, as defined under the Constitution Act.[1]Nightw16:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean the source, I mean adding the date to the history section. At the moment, it reads that Ball claimed it as a British possession in 1788. The next mention of a sovereign authority is when three men left the island after a land dispute with the NSW government. There's no mention of when ownership of the island was transferred.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There is maybe one more issue. The sentence about the ousted administrator returning to observe Venus could be seen as wandering from the point of the section. It isn't related to how the islands were/are administered.
I agree - I have put it in brackets to indicate that it is a side issue. It does account for the name of a geographic feature of the island. If you still think it is a red herring then please delete it. Granitethighs12:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a big deal.
Please check through this section for unsourced pieces of information. The ministry's duties looks like a quote; I recently just touched it up, but we could still be liable to copyvio unless we either reconstruct the sentence or make it clear that it is indeed a quote. Done
The claim made in the caption of that flag, especially, needs a citation. Done
Done. I've also added a tag where a statement was attributed to a source that didn't contain anything even remotely similar. This is not the first instance I've seen of this in this article, so I will need to do a thorough check through the citations before passing this. Since I don't currently have access to any of the literary sources, I can only assume in good faith that these sources have been cited more carefully. Nightw14:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. slips like that are not acceptable of course. Its replacement is a "library"-type entry too - perhaps I got the wrong library ref ... Granitethighs02:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please do a thorough review of the sources included here and check whether the sentences which don't have citations attached are in fact sourced at the end of the next sentence.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This entire section needs renovating. At the moment, the content of the tourism section isn't related to the economy. Yes, it's about tourism, but it doesn't touch upon how tourism impacts on the local economy or how it's being developed. Instead, it reads like a pamphlet summarising the sights and activities on the island.
Moved to own section. DoneGranitethighs 23:07, 23 August 2011
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The tone could do with a bit of an adjustment here. At the moment, it reads a bit like a pamphlet. Done
I also have no idea where the information comes from since most of it is cited to the homepage of this website which doesn't mention anything of the sort... There are major gaps in sources elsewhere in the section as well.
This isn't done. In fact, it hasn't even been touched. I'll add some tags if that makes it easier. I'd also advise that you be careful when citing this site in this section, since it obviously contains some less-than-impartial claims and peacockery. Try using another source if you have one.
Without a map, the list of walking tracks is useless, and I wonder if anybody would actually read it through. Names are just names, they don't describe anything about where the trails go. Is there some way this can be summarised?
It indicates how many walks are available, the time they take, and their degree of difficulty, all of which might be of interest. However, I'm not fussed, reduce it to a sentence if you like - something like "There are many walks available on the island" or somesuch.Granitethighs11:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've just removed the grades, since this is a local grading system.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Reads fine from a brief glance over, but a lot of the content is under-referenced. As I said above, obviously not everything has to be referenced, but I would like to see a source for the statistics.
Please insert where you think citations are needed ... otherwise DoneGranitethighs 10:07, 22 August 2011
I've added the tags.
I've added citations that satisfy the bulk of those sentences, but I've left the tags because there are some details that aren't in my refs. --99of9 (talk) 11:49, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are still a couple of tags in the Climate section.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
From a quick glance over, this section does not appear to be adequately sourced. I will check this more thoroughly later, but please take a look at this yourselves when you have time.
That little table looks a bit odd on its own. I'm just putting it out there, it's not a cause for this nomination, ...but there may be a better way of presenting that information.
Have been through citations. Please insert citation tags like before if you think they are needed and I'll fix it up. The table could be put into words but is mch simpler as it is - could the text be wrapped around it? Otherwise Done
Okay, added tags. Don't worry about the table so much.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Done a quick copyedit. Please reduce the familiarity of the tone here. For an exmaple, "it is so tame that it will climb into your lap" would sound more academic to a reader written as "are relatively indifferent towards the presence of humans". Some sentences may need shortening. From a quick glance over, the section appears to be well sourced. I will check through more thoroughly later. Done
As I've mentioned below, I recommend reducing the size of the gallery in this section.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
A number of sentences here read like original research and indeed aren't attributed to any source. This includes several sentences in the second, fourth and last paragraphs, and the first sentence in the sixth paragraph.
I think the tone needs to be adjusted here. A lot of statements are fairly non-commital or brief in detail. A succession of sentences say that something "has now been" done and things "have been" done in the past, a date for these is important. An example is the recovery program for the woodhen—a year needs to be added for that program otherwise the sentence is meaningless.
Another sentence states something "probably cannot be eradicated but others can be effectively checked", which reads like it's pasted directly pasted from a conservationist's report.
This has been copyedited to address these issues but please check to see if now satisfactory - otherwise. DoneGranitethighs 23:09, 23 August 2011
Added some tags to indicate where the remaining problems are. Also added a year for the population change in the woodhens.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I only see one link in the See also section worth listing. There shouldn't be citations in this section, or any information needing a citation.
Please adjust to taste then Granitethighs 23:11, 23 August 2011
I've removed the citation and the extra info. It's not an issue of taste, it's a MOS issue.
A couple of the citations could do with more detail. Some are written out in full (e.g. refs 1–8), but others (e.g. 47, 55, 57, 58, etc) are simply links with the author and an access date. Consider adopting a citation style consistent with the bibliography section, which is perfect. Also try to write obscure acronyms out in full (e.g., ABS → Australian Bureau of Statistics).
Some of the items in the bibliography section aren't being used or aren't currently attributed to any specific piece of information. Unless you want to just remove them, you should move these to a "Further reading" section.
Take a look through the external links given. Alot of them are subpages of lordhoweisland.info, which is fine, but they should be bulleted underneath the main link to that website. Descriptive names like "Maps" and "Rodent eradication" are okay, but you should also indicate the publisher or name of the website.
It may be just my end, but I can't open the link on "Maps" (checklinks doesn't pick it up as dead).
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I see your point about the galleries. I personally don't mind them in articles, and since this is not a nomination for featured content, it won't impact much on the article passing GA criteria. 99of9 has already dispersed some of them and the remaining ones under the "Plants" and "Animals" sections I think classify as a good use of galleries.
However, the plants and animals sections both contains two galleries each. They should each have one, maximum. Also, I'm currently on a laptop and at this resolution I see a line of 5 images on top and then a second line with one image on its own. Given this, I'd suggest reducing the number of images from six to five.
Thanks for combining them. However, I strongly suggest reducing the number of images in each gallery. A maximum of eight images (four on each line) won't clutter it too much and you'll still get the desired illustration of the variety of species.
I see most images in the article already have alt text in their markups. A few of them don't; that needs to be corrected. I removed one instance of wikilinks in a file's alt text markup. Please check to make sure that none of the others have this.
Done
