Talk:Monarchy of New Zealand/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Chipmunkdavis (talk · contribs) 09:14, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I will be reviewing this article for GA. Apologies that this page had to wait so long for a reviewer. A few initial points. The lead has a few sources not used elsewhere in the article, which often indicates information present only in the lead. Comparing the lead to the table of content, there are some topics that seem important enough to have warranted their own section/subsection in the article, but are not mentioned in the lead. There are a few places which are clearly unsourced, such as paragraphs ending without sources and the List of Monarchs section. There are a few harvref errors that should be addressed. Best, CMD (talk) 09:14, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: Many thanks for taking on this review. I appreciate the initial suggestions. I will address the areas for improvement in the next couple of days. Thanks again. --Hazhk (talk) 19:27, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Hazhk, I'm afraid I think this article is a fair bit from passing at the moment. In addition to the above points, looking closer at the sourcing (criteria 2b, 2c) I found a number of other issues. Some examples: the first paragraph of the titles section goes to a primary source without any of the interpretation, and the first sentence of the second paragraph seems not to reflect a conclusion within that source. Much of the first succession paragraph doesn't appear supported by the cited sources. The second appears only to have a single primary source. The Finances section seems a bit outdated and only based on competing claims of two campaign groups. The first sentence of Representation of the State doesn't seem supported by its source. There are also a couple of shortrefs that don't lead anywhere (Elizabeth II 1983 and Elizabeth II 1990), and Cox, Noel (2008) isn't used. On criteria 1b, in addition to the lead items mentioned above, there are quite a few short paragraphs and sections throughout the article.

The prose (1a) is decent and consistent throughout, with no copyright issues found (2d). The article is focused on the topic (3b). In terms of breadth (3a), the article seems complete as well, comparing favourably against Monarchy of the United Kingdom (the only "Monarchy of X" FA, albeit one likely to go to FAR soon). The article is stable (5), and appears to be broadly neutral (4). Files are either freely licenced or in one case is a low resolution image with an applicable non-free-use tag. Overall, this is a decent article, but the sourcing concerns are as such that I believe it would take longer than a week to deal with them. I do hope that work continues on this article, and as noted before the only article in this category with reviewed status may lose it soon. There appear to be a few useful books with accessible google previews, eg. [1][2] which would help cover some of the areas that seem to lack sourcing and/or mostly use primary sources. Please feel free to message me for further discussion on the article in the future. Best regards, CMD (talk) 10:35, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: Thank you taking time to consider. I understand why you have decided not to proceed with the review at this time. I appreciate the feedback and I'll try to improve the article with other contributors. --Hazhk (talk) 18:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC)