Talk:Wainui Falls/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs) 20:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

My usual not-relevant-to-GA-review-so-feel-free-to-ignore comments: This is a fairly short article.

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
Is a waterfall "part of" a river rather than "in" a river?

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
I will address any "word" issues in the Original Research section.
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
"waterfalls.co.nz", "world-of-waterfalls", "1001 Best Things to See and Do in New Zealand", "nznationalparks", "seesouthisland", "Walks to Waterfalls: 100 New Zealand Waterfalls", "History of Māori of Nelson and Marlborough" - I trust that these are usually considered reliable? None of the claims in the article are particularly eyebrow raising, true.

C. It contains no original research:
Not sure I can find the location of the national park in source #1, but the claim is supported by source #2. Is Takaka 20 minutes (article, source does say 20 kilometres) or 30 minutes away (Source #2)? The footnote is not supported by the source as far as I can see. Having some difficulty finding the "Te waterfall has been a popular sightseeing destination since at least the early 20th century" sentence in Source #4, is it in Source #11? I am not seeing the pool description, snail description, or "the department of conservation maintains this" in source #8.

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Nothing on copyviotools, no undue similarity of text.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Reply to review:

1. I would say yes, a waterfall is 'part of' a river. Sources such as national geographic define a waterfall as being just another element of the river. All of the water from the river passes through the waterfall, meaning that the waterfall is part of the watercourse. macmillian dictionary lists waterfall under 'parts of lakes, rivers and streams'.

3 B. world-of-waterfalls is written by a published expert in the field (his book is listed on the article's talk page, although Wainui Falls is not in his book-I checked). Waterfalls.co.nz states the "All reasonable measures have been taken to ensure the information is true and accurate." Seethesouthisland and nznationalparks might be the least reliable of those listed, as these are essentially self published accounts of individuals visiting the falls. I have removed them as sources for the height of the falls, and now neither source is being used to cite anything controversial. Seethesouthisland is not used alone, and only to support other references, and nznationalparks is just used in the caption for the Tyree photo to state that the smaller waterfall in that photo is not the falls (a plainly verifiable claim). Both sources could be removed without any impact on GA status, though I'd rather they remained as they are good resources for those interested in the topic. The rest of the sources are published books from reputable authors and publishers, 1001 Best Things to See and Do in New Zealand and History of Māori of Nelson and Marlborough are view-able online, and I personally checked out Walks to Waterfalls: 100 New Zealand Waterfalls at the Wellington public library to read its listing on Wainui Falls.

3 C. Note: because of fixes to 3B, the sources are now numbered differently, check the original numbering HERE. As far as the "in the Abel Tasman National Park", the best source for that is source 6 (previously source #8 - Department of conservation), so I have added it to both lines where this is mentioned. For the distance to Takaka, this was an error on my part, and I have now changed it to 20 km per the source. As for "popular since the early 20th century": Source 4 has a quote from a local: “The track has always been popular. Model Ts used to drive up the trail here.”. Source 11 says "The Babu Springs, Rawhiti Caves, Tarakoehe and its cement works, Pohara Beach, Wainui Falls and Handcock's falls, have all received record attention during the past week. Every steamer, every car, brings a fresh load of sightseers and pleasure seekers, and still they come."; the source is from 1916, so 'early 20th century'. Source 8 (now source 6) says "Keep a look out for the Powelliphanta snail, amongst the largest snails in the world.", I'll add an additional source for the 'pool' bit in the lede, as you are correct that the DOC source doesn't state this outright. The bit about who maintains it isn't mentioned outright by the doc website, but I thought it was self evident given that it is one of the DOC's 'short walks', which are all maintained by the DOC; GB weekly mentions this though, so I'll source it with that too.

Thanks very much for the review! — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 21:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most issues fixed, but a) the footnote still looks like original research to me, b) source #10 is probably easier to read if you quote a whole paragraph from it and c) the problem with the snail info is that the source only mentions that the snails exist, not that they should not be handled. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:38, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

a) removed the footnote and the 7 m 'longest fall' stat. 20 m is still the most reliable total height given that Johnny T. Cheng (a published author on the subject) critically analyses the height in his listing on the falls. b) done. c) I couldn't find any particularly reliable source to back this second half of the sentence, so I have removed it. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 17:48, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now it seems ready. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:46, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]