Talk:Wharves in Wellington Harbour/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Chocmilk03 (talk · contribs) 23:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this nomination, and look forward to the read! I'll add further comments below. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 23:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Well-written

The article is well-written and generally compliant with relevant MOS requirements. I have the following very minor comments:

• In the second paragraph of the lead, I think "This includes large wharves" should be "These include large wharves", because this/these is referencing "20 wharves". fixed
• In the Early private wharfs section, "Hickson wharf was also known as Ridgway's Wharf, Will's Wharf and Houghton Wharf" should technically use the terms Hickson's Wharf, Wills' Wharf and Houghton's Wharf based on the source (I did say some of these comments would be very minor!). fixed
• In the second paragraph of that section, the quotation would benefit from a brief introduction to note the source so that the reader is not required to check the citation. For example, something like "An article in the Dominion newspaper in 1930 described the wharf as follows:". fixed
• In the third paragraph of that section, 'Captain' William Barnard Rhodes gave me a brief pause. Is there doubt over whether he's entitled to that title? If so, is it best just not to include it? agreed, irrelevant so I removed it.
• A few times in the article there are references to "as of 2024" or similar. These dated statements may require updating in future, per Wikipedia:As of. I suggest using the "as of" template (e.g. {{As of|2024}} or {{As of|January 2024|lc=y}}).<removed/reworded.
• In the Queens Wharf (1862) section, first paragraph, "ships got bigger" reads as a little informal. Maybe "ships increased in size"? I'm not too fussed about this if you prefer the existing wording.reworded
• In the last line of that paragraph, "and addition of a steam crane and goods sheds" should be "and the addition". fixed
• Final paragraph of that section, "Paddy's many friends" is a bit unencyclopedic and makes the sentence a bit too close to the source wording; I'd probably say "it was paid for by Wellingtonians" or "paid for by people who knew Paddy". fixed
• In picture captions, where "ca" is used, you could instead consider using the template {{circa|yyyy}} which returns for example "c. 2000". It's a small thing but a benefit of this template is that it doesn't put a line break between c. and the date. Nice! Good to learn about a useful template.
• In the Kings Wharf (1909) section you could consider combining the second, third and fourth paragraphs to avoid having several short paragraphs in a row. done
• In the Clyde Wharf (1910) (etc) section, "Its location and purpose were controversial at the time," makes the reader wonder why. Could a brief explanation be added, maybe as a parenthetical? expanded

Verifiable

I've completed a review of the sources and I have identified no major sourcing issues. I have also done a Earwig copyvio check which picks up nothing of concern (mostly short unobjectionable phrases like "the eastern side of the harbour").

Minor comments:

• In the Early private wharfs section, "Von Alzdorf died in the 1855 earthquake" does not appear to be supported by the source [1] (unless I have missed it?). removed because this is actually irrelevant to the wharf.
• "By the late 1850s many of these small private wharves were needing repairs and were no longer suitable for serving the larger ships that had begun visiting Wellington." This sentence requires a citation at the end of the line, which I think would be [2]. However, technically this article only says that "in all probability" many of the wharves had fallen into disrepair, so this would need to be sourced or reworded appropriately. found some specific mentions of dilapidated wharves. Also, the other source mentions marine worms.
• Sometimes page references to The Harbour Board Collection are given and sometimes they aren't (Fixed), similarly the references to [3] don't have page references. It's a really minor point but it's helpful for someone wanting to check the exact sourcing to have a page reference, if possible. This may only apply to a diligent GA reviewer. :) page numbers added.
• In the Queens Wharf (1862) section, "was the port’s main wharf until the advent of container shipping in the 1970s"; it isn't clear from the source that the advent of container shipping was in the 1970s. added source.
• The first couple of sentences in paragraph 4 of this section (starting "In 1989 the Harbour Board was disestablished", ending "was handed to Wellington City Council") don't have an in-line citation, so one should be added.added citations
• In that same paragraph, "The events centre, now known as TSB Arena, still operates and hosts music concerts, sports and other events" needs an up-to-date source, and this should probably be a "still operates as of 2024". added source
• In the Taranaki Street Wharf (1906) section, the final section of the second-to-last paragraph (beginning "As of 2023, Taranaki Street Wharf is part of a waterfront public area") feels like it needs an in-line citation. added citation
• In the Clyde Wharf (1909) (etc) section, the reference to the new overseas passenger terminal being "effectively obsolete at the time of opening" isn't quite supported by the source, which says it was put to good use early in its life and at least for the first 10 months. Probably just needs to be "effectively obsolete soon after opening" or "within a few years of opening". reworded
• In the Pipitea Wharf (1923) (former) section, the citation for the second-to-last paragraph ("Pipitea Wharf was also the berthing place for passenger vessels bringing assisted migrants from Britain to New Zealand in the 1960s") provides evidence of one passenger vessel only.. Agreed - have reworded and added sources.
• The source for the first sentence in the Kaiwharawhara Wharf (proposed) section isn't clear to me. added sources.
• In the Point Howard Wharf (1930) section, the first sentence of the second paragraph ("The tee at the end of the wharf was removed in late 2013 or early 2014 due to deterioration") doesn't seem to be supported by the in-line citation, which is from 1999 (although it does evidence that there was deterioration to the wharf over time). Can a source be added? This is funny. I was going to add Google Earth photos as a source but have just found a new item on a website which is much better.
• This article in The Post, linked in the Matiu / Somes island section, says the current wharf (to be replaced) was built in 1938. The article currently suggests it was built in 1908. Could this be checked? I found a map which shows plan of new wharf in 1948. I suspect the recent Post article is incorrect.
• In the Flying boat jetty (1951) section, I can't access this forum link or find an archived version. Also not sure a forum link is going to meet verifiability requirements. Is there possibly a better source for the end of the flying boat service? yes, found a better source.
• Is there a source for the last sentence of the Seatoun Wharf (1901) section? ("Their new electric ferry was too large to use Seatoun Wharf"). I remember reading at the time that it was the new electric ferry that was too big, but I can't find a source now so have deleted this sentence. Previous sentence states that only one ferry can use the wharf in all tides.

Have to stop for now, but will add more comments as I go and feel free to address these in the meantime or await the full review. :) So far I'm only picking up very very minor things, which is great. And as a Wellingtonian, I am learning a lot about our wharves! Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 00:05, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Images

The article is beautifully illustrated by images which are relevant to the content and have suitable captions. Items are tagged with copyright statuses or are public domain. (Wainuiomartian, wonderful work on the photos you've taken yourself!)

Conclusion

I have completed a detailed review, and only the minor points above need to be addressed/clarified. The article has clearly been subject to an impressive amount of work and is in great shape. It is worded neutrally, it is broad and comprehensive in coverage, and it is stable. In terms of focus, while it is on the larger side, the section for each wharf is manageable, and XTools estimates just over 6,000 words, which isn't WP:TOOBIG. I'm comfortable that it will be appropriately readable and focused for the average reader, who will likely be interested in specific wharves anyway.

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

I'll update the rest as I finish review of those aspects. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 03:39, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Now on hold pending the writer's review of the above minor points. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 03:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@Chocmilk03 Thank you, I will get on to addressing the points you have raised. Wainuiomartian (talk) 05:14, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@Chocmilk03: Hi, I've gone through and made changes and added citations as you suggested, and believe I've covered all your points. And I've learned about a couple of new templates. Thank you very much for reviewing the article. Wainuiomartian (talk) 04:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

@Wainuiomartian: perfect, you've addressed all my concerns. I'm satisfied that the article meets the good article criteria. Thanks for your patience with my review, and for your fabulous work! Chocmilk03 (talk) 06:54, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Wainuiomartian (talk) 23:59, 2 March 2024 (UTC)