Talk:Statue of A'a from Rurutu/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jackyd101 (talk · contribs) 09:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I have reviewed this article against the Wikipedia:good article criteria and although I am not quite prepared to pass the article for GA immediately, I don't think there is a long way to go.

I have listed below the principal problems which prevent this article from achieving GA status and I have also appended a couple of other comments which, whilst they are not essential for GA, may help in the future development of the article.

The article now has seven days to address these issues, and should the contributors disagree with my comments then please indicate below why you disagree and suggest a solution, compromise or explanation. Further time will be granted if a concerted effort is being made to address the problems, and as long as somebody is genuinely trying to deal with the issues raised then I will not fail the article.

Finally, should anyone disagree with my review or eventual decision then please take the article to WP:GAR to allow a wider selection of editors to comment on the issues discussed here. Well done on the work so far.--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Issues preventing promotion

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):

Who are "Anne Lavondès" and "Niel Gunson"? I assume they are historians/anthropologists, but they need to be introduced as such - otherwise we have no way of knowing if their opinions are informed or not.

If you absolutely insist on this, I will add these, but I strongly dislike the trend of adding "historian" (or, in this case sometimes "anthropologist") in front of every authority cited on their first mention. In each case, the specific work in which the authority made the claim is already cited inline, which gives readers some sort of idea as to how seriously they should take it. If people really want to know more about the authors, they can google for them, but just saying "anthropologist Steven Hooper" really gives very little information about how qualified that makes him to comment on A'a: Jane Goodall is an anthropologist, but is by no means expert on Polynesian art or religion. And if you introduce every authority as "anthropologist Steven Hooper, who specialises in Pacific art" it really breaks up the flow of the article. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 11:17, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I take the point, and am open to more elegant solutions, but on an open source wiki its crucial that readers can contextualise the opinions that they are reading. In academic literature a reader can trust that the writer has used and evaluated the sources based on their professional reputation. Here all I know about you is that you took GCSE Latin - thus clarity in the professional standing of the people you are quoting becomes necessary.--Jackyd101 (talk) 12:38, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* I have added descriptions of who Gunson, Lavondes, and Hooper are. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:32, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Steven Hooper argues that in fact A'a was originally created as a casket to house the bones of a revered ancestor; the small gods were only placed into A'a for ease of transport to Ra'iatea" - as above introduce who Steve Hooper is, but also, there is no mention elsewhere of A'a traveling between islands, so when did this happen? The article implies it was made on Ra'iatea, is this not the case? Also, this contradicts the notion that it was made for the missionaries specifically. This sentence contradicts quite a lot of the rest of the article without further context - I think it would help to make clear early in the article that a lot of the "knowledge" about this object is informed opinion rather than solid fact (which is why identifying who has these opinions is so important).

You are right, this is unclear. I shall attempt to amend the article when I get home and back to my sources, but A'a comes from Rurutu, another island in the South Pacific; it was taken to Ra'iatea because that was where the missionaries were based. There is no reason to believe that A'a was made for the missionaries specifically, and I can't see what in the article has given you that impression. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 11:17, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On reading this through again, I think I formed this impression because it says that it was made by Omai after he encountered the Christian God in Europe and was then given to missionaries. I conflated the two because there is no date given for Omai's journey, so I assumed that he had made it for the missionaries. If it was not made for the missionaries, then why did Omai make it, and (approximately) when? --Jackyd101 (talk) 12:38, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited this to hopefully make it clearer. What do you think? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:16, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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):

The lede is a short summary of the post-collection history of the statue, but doesn't give any real explanation of the significance of the object in question. Why is this statue particularly notable/famous? You should talk more here about the people who originally made it.

Expanded on the significance of A'a. Is there anything in particular you think should be discussed about the people who made the sculpture? The sources on A'a focus on the figure itself, and have relatively little to say about its creators... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:16, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If its not in the sources, there's nothing more you can do. Well done for looking though.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:21, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"A'a was probably made using stone-bladed tools, though if it was made after the arrival of Europeans to Polynesia in the 1760s iron tools may also have been used in its construction." - it says shortly before that the state was carbon-dated to between 1591-1647, so how can it be made after 1760 (I realise that the date may refer to the age of the wood, not the age of the carvings on the wood, but this needs to be clarified in the article itself).

This is tricky. The curators comments on the BM website specifically state that the carbon-dating suggests that the statue was carved before 1647, but the only other source on A'a published after these findings were made is the Adams/Hooper/Nuku book, which doesn't mention the carbon dating at all, and spends significant time discussing the question of whether the sculpture was made after the arrival of Europeans in the Pacific. (And does discuss other aspects of the 2015 finding, so it's not that it had gone to press before the results came out!) If you have any ideas about the best way to deal with this, I would be pleased to hear them. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:16, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, its always annoying when sources imply something without saying it outright. I don't think its a dealbreaker. I think its OK as it is in these circumstances.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:21, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article could use some more context with regard to the British Museum's collection. This is possibly the most significant Pacific collection in the world, and there is significance in A'a's incorporation into that collection. Can you say a bit more about its place within the wider collection.

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
It is stable.
It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
Overall:
a Pass/Fail:

Other comments

(These comments are not essential to passing GAN)

I debated making this essential but in the end I'm putting it here: the article relies massively on one source, the Adams, Hooper, Nuku book. I realise there may not be a lot of sources out there, but relying so heavily on a single source raises concerns for me - what if that source has made a mistake? Scholarship relies on corroboration. Can you find more sources to support the claims in the article?

@Jackyd101: thank you for taking the time to review this article. I have responded to some of your comments inline; I shall begin to revise the article to take account of your review hopefully this evening when I have time to go back to my sources. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 11:17, 19 October 2017 (UTC) @Caeciliusinhorto: Left some replies above and please take your time with this, best regards.--Jackyd101 (talk) 12:38, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jackyd101: ugh, real life has been hitting me hard recently, so this took longer to respond to than I hoped. I have begun to reply to your comments and edit the article to take them into account. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:17, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Caeciliusinhorto: No rush, hit me up when you are ready.--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:13, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Caeciliusinhorto: Just checking up on this - are you ready for me to have another look?--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:10, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jackyd101: I think we're ready for another look now. I've managed to dig up a little on A'a in the context of Polynesian art, and have responded I think to all your other comments. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Caeciliusinhorto: Good work! There appears to be a coding problem with three of the references. When these are sorted out I'd be happy to pass the article. Very good work indeed!--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:18, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jackyd101: Good spot. Fixed. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Caeciliusinhorto: Very nice work, I'll pass this now. When I saw this nominated I jumped on it - I know the statue well, even handled it a few times in a professional capacity, and I think you've done a great job here. --Jackyd101 (talk) 21:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you lucky person! I know one of the casts very well, but have only seen the original in person once. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]