Talk:Foveaux Strait

GAN

User:Marshelec and User:Cloventt. I have submitted this article as a nominee - it would be nice if a NZ Wikipedian would review it - I definitely don't want this article to be in a similar situation with the Aoraki / Mount Cook National Park article where it's been waiting for 4 months, any further comments and contributions to the article is appreciated. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 08:10, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

The first thing I notice while reading it is "The". I don't normally hear Foveaux Strait with the definite article when people mention it. Is this a Wikipedia house style thing? Daveosaurus (talk) 08:54, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the article as it stands today, I think it would not meet Criteria 1 of the Good Article criteria at WP:GACR. Significant work is required to achieve the quality of prose that is expected for GA quality assessment. There are several ways of proceeding from this point. One is to withdraw the GA nomination, and submit the article to the Guild of Copy Editors at WP:COPYEDITORS. However, there is a backlog, and there might not be any response from the Copy Editors for several months. Another option is to work with another editor, perhaps in a series of online meetings, to gradually work through the text line-by-line to discuss and implement necessary improvements. If you think this is a sensible approach, please consider inviting someone to take on this role to support you in getting the article to a standard where it would have a reasonable chance of passing a GA assessment. One point of feedback apart from prose is that usually, a Good Article will have an Infobox. For examples see Cook Strait and Bosporus._Marshelec (talk) 08:56, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Panamitsu made some helpful contributions to the article this eveining... I realized that the Cullen 1967 ref is ideal for the geology section, and I also realized that I mistakenly said it was the Turnbull book citation, so ignore that. Both sources are great for this article. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 10:16, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

As per WP:GACN, infoboxes are not part of the criteria for a GA, but it doesn't hurt to add one.

I think the prose generally does meet the criteria in that it is clear and concise with correct spelling and grammar. A quick skim reveals some possible words to watch, but I don't think it would fail GAN on Criteria 1. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 22:38, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Marshelec has made some necessary improvements on the article today. Also, if your interested in reviewing this article, please consider getting back to me. Thanks. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 02:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Marshelec is currently reviewing Vic Square for me. I'm treating that as a learning experience on how thorough the process needs to be, given he has lots of experience in this area. So once that is done I'll try to find some time for your two nominations. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 10:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Great, I appreciate that. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 10:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Lede improvements

In order to get this article up to GA status... we will need a concise lede that summarizes the content well. I will improve content in the lede today - could be expanded, feel free to add and improve content. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 12:11, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Wildlife section

Hello everyone, I'm worried that the wildlife section isn't well-written and is up to a professional standard, which a good article should have. Someone may trim or improve the content that's there already because it's worth covering. I'll improve this section a bit more since we now have the McClellan 2020 ref. Feel free to help. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 05:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I will happily have a go at improving this section. Marshelec (talk) 06:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Shipwrecks and tragedies at sea in Foveaux Strait

I think that this article is not complete without a list of the more notable tragedies at sea that have occurred in Foveaux Strait. As one example, the sinking of the fishing boat, The Easy Rider, on 14 March 2012 caused the loss of 8 lives, making it New Zealand's worst maritime disaster since the sinking of the Wahine.[1], [2]. I suspect that there are many, and if so, that a table or list might be better than prose. Is someone willing to search across various sources and build a list ? _Marshelec (talk) 06:43, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I will work it on my sandbox first before implementing it to the article when suitable. Chapter 12 of Bain (2010) citation has a dedicated section to shipwrecks, which is a good repository to find them then cite more sources about it. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 07:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done, I have insterted a wikitable in the article with notable shipwrecks, feel free to add something I've missed. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 09:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

According to New Zealand Shipwrecks 1795-1975 by C W N Ingram, 5th Edition 1977, the following shipwrecks have occurred in Foveaux Strait (those without fatalities have been struck): 1836, Unidentified wreck; 1864, 'Jack Frost'; 1870, 'Laughing Water'; 1877, 'Halcyon'; 1879, 'Helen and Jane'; 1881, 'Arrow'; 1883, 'Lillie Denham'; 1884, 'Marie Ange'; 1885, 'Champion'; 1888, 'Nellie'; 1892, 'Camille'; 1898, 'Philadelphia'; 1899, 'Aparima'; 1913, 'Iris'; 1923, 'Moana'; 1930, 'Mararoa'; 1937, 'Black Cat'; 1942, 'Horouta'; 1954, 'Sea Mew'; 1955, 'Te Konini'; 1959, 'Reo Moana'; 1960, 'Madge'; 1967, 'Cascade'; 1971, 'Seabird'; 1973, 'Waimanu'; 1974, 'Malibu'.

That's just the index entry for Foveaux Strait. For Waipapa Point the index is: 1843, 'Lunar'; 1876, 'William Ackers'; 1881, 'Tararua'; 1892, 'Star of Erin'. There's another list for Bluff, listing 26 wrecks including 1939, 'Waikouaiti'.

There's a short article on each wreck. I can add each of these to the article, or only those with fatalities (including those with assumed fatalities like the wreck of 1836), or this may be sufficient information to look these up yourselves. I also have the 3rd edition of the book, 1961, which I'm happy to post to anyone who wants it.-Gadfium (talk) 03:47, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Done for those with fatalities, including some from the next edition of NZ Shipwrecks, which I don't have but was summarised in a Southland Times article. I haven't looked at ones indexed under "Bluff".-Gadfium (talk) 05:06, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

@Gadfium: Thanks for your research and offer - that is greatly appreciated as we work to improve this article. I seek your opinion - is it now best to create a new list article for the shipping losses and fatalities, leaving just a summary and/or most notable points in the main article, or do you think it would be OK to expand the list in the main article and include all the additional shipwrecks you have noted ? Tragedies at sea are a big part of the full story of Foveaux Strait, but I wonder if greatly increasing the length of the list might unbalance the article in terms of readability. Your thoughts ??_Marshelec (talk) 06:14, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

The table is already more than 10% of the article. I haven't yet looked to see which of the wrecks listed above resulted in fatalities, but it seems likely that would at least double its size, and I agree that's too much for this article. There is no Shipwrecks in New Zealand article, but there is a table at List of shipwrecks of Oceania#New Zealand. I suggest that I add the content anyway (probably starting tomorrow), and we decide what to do with the table when we look at it in its expanded state.-Gadfium (talk) 06:51, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, that is a sensible approach. We can move the list to a new article when the table is further developed. Creating a summary might be a challenge because it could be hard to know what to focus on. I will wait to see the full table, and then have a go at a short narrative summary._Marshelec (talk) 06:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

The table is now over 15% of the article. One option would be to collapse it once you've written a summary.-Gadfium (talk) 05:12, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Cheers Gadfium for the work on shipwrecks.

There were fatalities in the wreck of the Wm. Ackers (I always see the name abbreviated, not spelt out in full, but don't have the shipwrecks book handy), their names may be in a later report.

I know of two sets of fatalities from capsized or wrecked whaleboats at Orepuki a few days apart - three men were lost in March 1875 and another seven were lost from another boat while searching for the bodies in April 1875. The reports are in Papers Past https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ST18750324.2.7 and https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ST18750409.2.8 . Daveosaurus (talk) 02:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

@Daveosaurus@Gadfium Thanks, I have added two rows for the two whaleboat wrecks and fatalities in 1875._Marshelec (talk) 03:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

The lead

There is still more content worth adding to the body of this article. As one example, more work is needed on Transport, and the impact of Foveaux Strait and the ferry services on the economy of Stewart Island. It is often the case that content in the body needs to be well-developed before it is clear what is worth including in the lead, so it may be best to hold off work on the lead until the current round of expansion is complete. I suggest we plan on reviewing the lead, so that it only covers the most important and notable aspects of the topic. There is useful guidance here: MOS:INTRO. With regards to the length of the lead, there is guidance here: MOS:LEADLENGTH. The article is currently under 2,500 words of readable prose, so the guidance indicates just one or two paragraphs._Marshelec (talk) 03:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Fair point, Marshelec. We also need to make it written up to a professional standard. I will work on the body of this article - wildilfe section could be better. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 04:42, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Sure, but I am also happy to contribute to that section as well, to fulfil my commitment. :) I have been distracted by other things, but might be able to work on this tomorrow. Let's see what we can come up with :)._Marshelec (talk) 06:09, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate that. This article has had some really good progress this past week. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 06:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Other names

It briefly being called Tees Strait, or the proposal to rename it to Kupe Strait (and other renaming proposals?) could perhaps be mentioned. (https://gazetteer.linz.govt.nz/place/20969) toweli (talk) 00:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Seems good, do you think a toponymy section is notable of being included here or merged into the history section? Alexeyevitch^(talk) 01:19, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

 Partly done, I'm not sure where Kupe Strait should be mentioned, maybe at the bottom of the history section since that was in 1968? Alexeyevitch^(talk) 09:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Proposing FA

User:Marshelec, I propose we get this article up to "Featured status", this is a genuinely good article but still has some way to go. I was mesmerized by looking at the criteria, and I truly think we can get this article up to FA status. Thanks for your valued contributions. Please reach back out to me if your intereseted or have any suggestions. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 00:53, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

It is great to have a bold and audacious goal 😃. If and when this article is assessed as meeting the GA standard then I would be willing to continue work towards FA. I have only been involved in helping one article towards FA. That was Kereru. The standard required for FA is extremely high. Achievable only with significant efforts probably over several months. In the meantime, there is still work remaining to be done to expand content for GA assessment. I have found many useful sources about the history of the ferry services and will try to develop that later today.

On a personal note, my last 24 hours have been difficult. My rather valuable road bike was stolen from outside a cafe yesterday when a thief cut the cable lock. I reported to the Police, and was delighted to get a phone call late last night that they had recovered my bike and arrested a suspect. I picked up my bike this morning, so it has been a turbulent 24 hours ! Marshelec (talk) 01:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm glad that you recovered your bike. :-) I realized that a FA takes substantial amount of work to get the article up to a professional standard, the Kererū article is exceptionally well-written and meets the criteria. I think if this article would be a successful GA it would be a good exemplar to other strait articles (e.g Cook Strait). I will continue improving this article before moving on to the Cook Strait article needs to be significantly improved. Thanks. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 01:50, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Transport section - proposed migration to other articles

I propose to migrate all detailed content about transport from this article into Stewart Island, leaving just a short summary and link in this article to the new Transport section I propose for the Stewart Island article. I will also migrate some of the content about air services to Invercargill Airport and Stewart Island Flights as appropriate, and some content about ferry services into Bluff Harbour. The rationale is that the services are fundamental to Stewart Island and the services are typically named Stewart Island or Rakiura. It seems likely that readers would expect to find detailed content about transport in the article about the island, rather than having to link to this article. However, I propose to retain summaries here with links. I will continue to add further content about transport across Foveaux Strait here for the meantime, but please comment on this proposed migration before I go ahead._Marshelec (talk) 19:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

@Alexeyevitch, Gadfium, Cloventt, and Panamitsu: I have now expanded the section on the Ferry service, and will soon start on expanding Air services. However, I am keen to get feedback on whether or not to migrate the detailed content of these sections to Stewart Island, leaving only a summary and link in this article. I am uncertain, and would appreciate your input. Thanks _Marshelec (talk) 08:37, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

My opinion is that because the travel is mainly to/from Stewart Island, as you mention, I agree that the more detailed content should be on the Stewart Island article, as you propose. I do however think that it is important that we cover at least some transport in this article though. ―Panamitsu (talk) 08:57, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Panamitsu. Detailed coverage at Stewart Island, brief mention here.-Gadfium (talk) 09:06, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, we need to trim/summarize the content in that section and have a more engaging prose. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 09:12, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Proposed fish farm in Foveaux Strait

@Alexeyevitch. I think a small section is needed about proposed large scale fish farms off the Stewart Island coast in Foveaux Strait. Here is one source about the application being declined, but there will be lots of other sources, including some we have already cited.[3] I think further proposals for aquaculture are likely. Perhaps a project like this might be pushed through using Fast Track Approvals ?? Would you like to write up a short section - perhaps to go beneath Bluff oyster fishery ? Marshelec (talk) 23:47, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay, this deserves a breif mention but I don't want to go too off-topic per WP:WIAFA, under the Bluff oyster industry seems appropriate. Can you also please help me work on the prose of the article? good progress has been made so far but I feel like it could be a bit more engaging. We've done a good job today on the Fauna section, I will improve the refs this afternoon, adding archives and maybe finding a sligtly better source for one of them. Thanks. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 00:38, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Another closely-related topic that needs some coverage is fishing in Foveaux Strait (other than for oysters) - both commercial and recreational. Here are some sources: [4], [5], [6], [7] (marginal). Would you like to write up something ?_Marshelec (talk) 03:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Good idea - I have started work on this section. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 05:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Early history - sealers and whalers

@Alexeyevitch I think it would be useful to have a bit more content in the History section about sealers and whalers operating in Foveaux Strait - perhaps a solid paragraph about sealing and some expansion about whaling. The article mentions the Solanders, but I presume there were significant bases for whaling and sealing in other locations that were inside the area we have defined as Foveaux Strait. The list of citations shows many works that appear to be about the history of sealing and whaling, but we don't have much factual content about those topics in the article at present. I have seen in the National Library catalogue that they have a book: Early Days in Foveaux Strait [8]. This book is already cited in the article, but it is only used at present to support a sentence about geography, not history. This seems odd. I may be able to get to the National Library during the week to view their copy. I will also try to get access to some of the other sources, with the aim of finding something useful to support some expansion. If you have access to some of the other sources, perhaps you may also be able to find something useful to add. On a different matter - but still related to sources, can you please check out the DOI given for Jacomb et al (2010) Review of the archaeology of Foveaux Strait, New Zealand. The doi link brings up an error for me._Marshelec (talk) 09:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I just managed to get access to a full text copy of Jacomb et al (2010), via the Wikipedia Library. I will begin there. Marshelec (talk) 09:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello Marshelec, I am interested in expanding and improving content related to that, I read one of the sources and the American whaleships seemed like an interesting fact/important to add, more could be added it will need to be relatively concise and well-sourced. I will be able to work on some content here tomorrow, today... I was adding Māori history content to Christchurch neighborhoods that previously had no mention at all! with the help of my "Beattie (1945) Maori Place Names Of Canterbury" book, it's great. In the Foveaux Strait article, I think the geography section should be above the history section, is this a good proposal or not?

I apreciate the work you've done, especially on the fauna (IBA) and fishing, I didn't realize that muttonbirding were as important as the oysters in the strait, it is significant to Ngāi Tahu, I acknowledge that. I also think the current prose of the article is better then before, which is good.

I wanted to get a copy of the Early Days in Foveaux Strait (2020) book likewise, I tried to find a copy online but no luck, seems like a great source to use in this article.

I realized I am getting the same error, I originally got the source from here see: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259834341_Review_of_the_archaeology_of_Foveaux_Strait_New_Zealand I think it's a typo from them, correct the doi if I am wrong. I personally use Research Gate far more then using news sources, it seems easier to find encyclopedic content on there. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 09:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I just realized that it generally shouldn't be used so... I'll find a better ref for that, although I have seen featured articles in the past use it as a citation. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 10:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

That's been published in the Journal of the Polynesian Society, which is peer reviewed according to its website, so it should be fine. ―Panamitsu (talk) 10:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Order of sections

@Alexeyevitch I have created a Scope section to describe the extent of Foveaux Strait, and added this as the first section. I think it is helpful to have the Toponymy and History sections immediately adjacent because of the connection between the content, and also for Geography to be followed by Sea conditions. However, some small expansion in Geography is needed that gives a bit more background to why the waters are so rough. I will try to find something useful. I looked at article templates for some guidance about section order. There aren't many templates, and most are not particularly relevant, but I did find Template:Article templates/River has History first, then the course of the river. Template:Article templates/Park has Description and then History. Template:Article templates/City has Entymology, then History, then Geography. So there is little consistency. See what you think._Marshelec (talk) 20:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay, looks reasonable. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 21:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

What's missing ?

@Alexeyevitch As is usual with work like this, the most difficult thing when you get to this stage is identifying what is missing. Does it provide the reader with good coverage of the topic (sufficient to clearly meet the criteria in Wikipedia:Good article criteria).? It is easy to critique and review what is written, but much harder to work out what is not there, but should be. At present, I think that the coverage is now close to meeting the GA #3 criteria (hopefully it is not far off from the "comprehensive" standard required for FA. However, the early history section still needs some expansion. More can be taken from Jacomb et al (2010) on the evidence of early Maori occupation around the shorelines, and for sealing and whaling, it would be useful to include some of the major "stations" on the shores of Foveaux Strait, if we can find suitable sources. I will take a break for a day or two to reflect and see if I can come up with anything else that should be covered._Marshelec (talk) 05:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't able to find any more info in Jacomb et al (2010), this: https://docs.niwa.co.nz/library/public/NIWAis76.pdf is a good source to use for whaling info, I think we already cover the multiracial communities between sealers and Kāi Tahu, I think the prose is engaging in the history section at the moment. I was able to find a Te Ara source that may be useful to you see:https://teara.govt.nz/en/map/20100/whaling-in-foveaux-strait-1820s-to-1840s about the "stations" may be mentioned, seems like whaling is more notable than sealing, since the sealing industry was no longer economically feasible (which is a major fact IMO). I think the American whaleships in the Solanders is paticulary notable and should be kept, I think this article does a good job covereing Māori currently. The prose looks pretty good, but could be tweaked slightly so it's more engaging. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 06:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I will analyze this article tomorrow - a bit of copyediting in the history section and I will need to decide where the SS Tararua image is appropriate, currently it might need to be replaced with more relevant media. I plan to attend an edit-a-thon on Saturday and will focus on other articles throughout the day. Hopefully someone is willing to review it soon. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 06:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I have looked at several other articles about Straits, and identified a gap in this article. We need something brief about shipping, cruise vessels, tankers etc using Foveaux Strait. Here is one source: [9]. With regards to getting a GA review done, this may take a considerable period. My perception is that people volunteering to undertake GA reviews will (understandably) select articles that have been written/nominated by editors who already have a good track record with a substantial number of successful GA nominations, and/or have completed a substantial number of GA reviews. This means that your nominations may be passed over by many potential reviewers because they will see this is your first. I might be wrong in this assumption, but it seems likely to me. I suggest an alternative to just waiting ... that once we are both satisfied with the state of the article we approach some NZ-based editors individually and ask them if they would be willing. I know of a few that could be tried._Marshelec (talk) 08:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, I am satisfied. And... if you think likewise then I propose we will reach out to some Wikipedians in the near-future. Thanks. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 09:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I still have a few small additions in mind, including a sentence or two about shipping through Foveaux Strait. Then it will be time to thoroughly review the lead to ensure that it adequately covers the most important points in the article as a whole, without being overly long. The article is now 3,800 words, and based on MOS:LEADLENGTH, the lead can have three paragraphs. I will have a go at revising the lead over the next few days. Then it will be worthwhile to approach a few editors individually to see if they are willing to volunteer to undertake a GA review._Marshelec (talk) 20:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay, seems reasonable. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 21:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

@Alexeyevitch Look what I just stumbled across after seeing a boundary line mark on a chart ! Part of Foveaux Strait is within the Catlins Coast Marine Mammal Sanctuary, designated under NZ law.[10] Plus, I have also found that the whole of Foveaux Strait, and a large area surrounding Stewart Island has been declared as an Important Marine Mammal Area (IMMA) by the international Marine Mammal Protected Areas Taskforce. [11]. I will prepare some content to include this new information._Marshelec (talk) 05:08, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Whānau

The fishing section has the text In 2023, whānau associated with Ruapuke Island applied for a mātaitai reserve surrounding the island, in response to excessive harvesting by recreational fishers that has caused a decline in the local stocks of finfish and shellfish. I was unsure what "whānau" means in this context, and went to give a clarification, but having looked through the two provided sources, I still do not understand what it means. Does anyone want to provide a clarification? ―Panamitsu (talk) 05:16, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

@Panamitsu My interpretation of the two sources cited is that the term relates to the groups who are the (collective) owners of Ruapuke Island. This is supported by section 4 of the application document: [12]. I note that including this brief section is a bit marginal because the application has apparently not been decided as yet. Any suggestions for how to clarify this or express it better ? _Marshelec (talk) 06:23, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

That's interesting. I've found this source (which is by Sanford, which probably isn't a good source) which says ... Ruapuke Island which is highly valued for its titi population and owned by whanau of Ngai Tahu. As for clarification, I can't immediately think of anything that we could do. ―Panamitsu (talk) 10:08, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Chance

In the whaling section we have the text In February 1875, the American barque Chance left Bluff Harbour, and spent months whaling primarily in the Solanders. She arrived back to Bluff on 21 May with 360 barrels of whale oil. At first glance I felt as if it was not that useful, but did not know if I was right (because I have no knowledge of whaling/boats/fishing/voyages), so I added the importance tag in the hope that another editor could comment on the matter. Instead, Alexeyevitch removed the tag with no explanation, but rather "I disagree" and "fix it yourself", which does not get us anywhere (by the way, I had made several fixes in that session so I don't know why you've said "FIY"), so I've come here to ask for another editor to address my concerns. ―Panamitsu (talk) 10:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I recognize your concerns. I would assume you were criticzing our work because you've done so in the past putting failed verification tags... (note: that not all books are available to read "free" online. And... I realized that I put the wrong reference NOT that I was intentionally adding improperly sourced info) I apologize for this confusion. Also I think that sentence has some encyclopedic value.

Also, please stop criticizing/confronting my work, you've done it a few times this month, editing WP is starting to become an unpleasant experience. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 11:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

1) Adding failed verification tags (or any other inline template) is not a form of criticism, but instead a form of peer review. Adding these tags is a way to signify that there is work to be done in that area of text, not a to cast aspersions. I did not accuse anyone of intentionally adding unsourced text.

2) You are welcome to continue this discussion on my talk page, as this is not related to Foveaux Strait.

3) My initial concerns about Chance have still not been addressed. ―Panamitsu (talk) 12:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Why did you mention me, if you were expecting another editors comments? If there is a problem with the text then you may attempt to edit it yourself.

I don't like this conflict that you are inflicting here, and I will avoid further discussions with this user since these conversations are unengaging and not constructive. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 12:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

List of shipwrecks - feedback request

@Gadfium@Alexeyevitch I seek feedback about next steps with the list of shipwrecks in this article.

I knew that the existing list was probably incomplete, and I have now found a source from Stuff,[13] that gives a lot more entries that can be added. The Stuff article cites the book: New Zealand Shipwrecks. Over 200 years of disasters at sea. The Stuff article lists shipwrecks under sub-headings: Bluff, Stewart Island, and Foveaux Strait. The question now is how best to proceed with this article and the new information from this source. Some options are:

1. add a notice above the list, noting that it is incomplete, and take no further action
2. add the additional entries from the Stuff article just from the Foveaux Strait sub-heading into the existing list in this article, and provide additional citations wherever possible
3. create a new list article, possibly List of shipwrecks in the Southland Region, create three sub-headings as used in the Stuff article, merge the existing list of Foveaus Strait wrecks, and include all the wrecks listed in the Stuff article, and provide additional citations wherever possible. Remove the list from the Foveaux Strait article, leaving just a summary narrative and a link to the newly created list article

Discussion:

• Looking at the top level article Lists of shipwrecks, creating a new list article about wrecks in just one part of New Zealand would not be consistent with what has been done for list of shipwrecks by location in other countries (apart from the US, where there are articles for several different states). However, if a list of shipwrecks in the Southland Region was created, it could be merged into a List of shipwrecks in New Zealand at a later date. (I am not keen to take on Shipwrecks of New Zealand - that would be a rather large project. The cited book apparently lists 2200 wrecks !).
• Another possible issue is assigning the wrecks to the sub-headings Bluff, Foveaux Strait or Stewart Island, since boundaries are not entirely clear. There is a Bluff Harbour limit shown on Chart NZ681 so I could use that as a guide if there is sufficient detail in sources.
• However, the Bluff harbour limit is itself somewhat abitrary, and clearly extends into the region that ordinary readers would consider as being Foveaux Strait. If I only develop the list of Foveaux Strait wrecks and exclude those classified as Bluff Harbour, this might not provide a sufficiently comprehensive account.
• I also note that the Stuff source does not mention the wreck of SS Tararua at Waipapa Point in 1881 (the worst civilian shipping disaster in New Zealand's history). I find this surprising. My work on the Foveaux Strait article to date has indicated that Waipapa Point has been treated as one of the eastern boundary points of Foveaux Strait.[14] So my inclination is to include SS Tararua in the list of wrecks in Foveaux Strait, particularly because it involved such a large loss of life, and is indicative of the difficulties and dangers of Foveaux Strait in the early days.

Please review and comment, thanks Marshelec (talk) 22:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I think creating 'List of shipwrecks in Southland' would be appropriate, and perhaps some of us can then also work on 'List of shipwrecks in [region]' articles. I am temporarily at an editing lull while I wait for 2023 census results for SA2 areas, due in October, so I would be happy to start work in this area. Alternatively, I can add the shipwrecks indexed under 'Bluff' into this article.-Gadfium (talk) 22:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

@Gadfium Thanks. I have gone ahead and made a start with a draft list article: Draft:List of shipwrecks of Southland. So far, I have copied across the existing list of Foveaux Strait shipwrecks, and added all the entries for Stewart Island shipwrecks from the 2012 Stuff article. I will next aim to add the Bluff shipwrecks. Then I will seek additional citations - particularly for the incidents where there was loss of life. I would be keen for any feedback about the draft as it stands, before I go any further. Marshelec (talk) 05:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm looking at the shipwrecks at Bluff, and am up to 1875, but none of them appear to have any human fatalities. I'll continue, probably tomorrow. I see in the Stuff article there were fatalities in 1880.-Gadfium (talk) 06:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Side question: Does copying from lists like this count as copyright infringement? I'd like to help out with adding shipwrecks if there's any extra work to be done, but creating a whole list using one source (such as that Stuff article in the draft) makes me worried. ―Panamitsu (talk) 06:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Maybe source the shipwrecks to contemporary reports in Papers Past and just use the Stuff list as a check to make sure you've caught all of them?

I have a vague recollection that the second whaleboat lost at Orepuki in 1875 was called the "Antrim" but can't find a source for that. I had a copy of the Shipwrecks book once, unfortunately it got borrowed and... you can guess the rest.

Otherwise it's probably important to define Southland somewhere in the article - for example there was a shipwreck at Big Bay in 1878 which was then thought of as being in Otago, but which has since 1989 been in Southland.Daveosaurus (talk) 06:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm using New Zealand Shipwrecks, which gives a few paragraphs to each wreck, and all we use is date, ship name, location, fatalities and a very few words of description. I add a contemporary news report if I can find one. Stuff is a check as Daveosaurus says.-Gadfium (talk) 09:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. For many rows in the table of wrecks currently categorised as Stewart Island, I have not been able to find an online source other than the Stuff article (which cites New Zealand Shipwrecks). So my next step is to visit the National Library and get access to one of several shipwreck books they have (their open shelf section includes: New Zealand shipwrecks: 195 years of disaster at sea / originally compiled by C.W.N. Ingram. (1990) and Shipwrecks of New Zealand / Lynton Diggle (2009)). Hopefully, these will help fill in at least some gaps in this section. Marshelec (talk) 09:53, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Anna was wrecked in 1880 with the death of three people. That's the only wreck resulting in fatalities at Bluff (up to 1975), and I'll add that when I get time. There's the strange case of Loyalty, which sank in 1925 due to the use of explosives intended to float the body of a fisherman, but there were no fatalities in connection to Loyalty.-Gadfium (talk) 21:26, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I was able to get to the library one lunchtime this week and perused their copy of Shipwrecks (the 2007 edition). It has a narrower definition of Foveaux Strait than this list seems to be working on (e.g. it does not include the "Tararua", or the "Ino" wrecked in Toetoes Harbour 4/3/1886) and seems to be mainly listing actual wrecks and not capsizes (e.g. the Orepuki whaleboats). It does however have an index by location and its Foveaux Strait entry includes wrecks not yet in this article as follows: "Cutter No. 2", 1864; "Halcyon", 1877; "Helen and Jane", 1879; "Arrow", 1881; "Lillie Denham", 1883; "Camille", 1892; "Aparima", 1899; "Moana", 1923; "Black Cat", 1937; "Horouta", 1942; "Te Konini", 1955; "Madge", 1960; "Cascade", 1967; "Seabird", 1971; "Waimanu", 1973, "Malibu", 1974; "Zephus", 1977; "Capri", 1978; "Venus", 1980; "Manaroa", 1981; "Linda Marie", 1983. It also lists "Aoleamu" instead of "Aoteama" which may be an error in the index (or the compiler may have been working from notes in handwriting as bad as mine...) because Papers Past does mention a ship "Aoteama" (although no report of its wreck) but nothing at all under "Aoleamu". In the 1875 entries in the book are no mention of the Orepuki whaleboats but there is a mention of the "Flying Eagle" which left Port William (north of Horseshoe Bay) for Invercargill on 26/10/1875 and was presumed lost with 4 crew. For the Orepuki losses I found a source but don't know if it's good enough for Wikipedia purposes. New Zealand Society of Genealogists cemetery trancription No. 243/84 (1984) as published in the New Zealand Cemetery Records microfiche (No. 423) lists after some Riverton post office death registration entries "The above 6 together with several others were drowned at Orepuki by the founding [sic] of the Boat Antrim - Called "The Coffin"". Daveosaurus (talk) 23:57, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Foveaux Strait/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Alexeyevitch (talk · contribs) 08:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 17:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article using the template below. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask them here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

• I see that a couple of editors have been collaborating closely on this article; you both should feel free to respond to comments and make changes during the review! —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:37, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

  Okay. I will add a message on his talk page. He also contributed significantly here. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 13:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Noting that I should be able to wrap up the initial review by tomorrow evening after some travel-related delays. —Ganesha811 (talk) 03:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

No worries Ganesha811. I'll be more active on Wikipedia next week so should respond relatively quickly to additional comments. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 03:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• This article now meets the GA standard - it's not at FA standard yet, but it's in great shape. Congratulations to the nominators (Alexeyevitch and Marshalec) and anyone else who worked on it. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:16, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	In its early days which days were these? Very vague - specify. Some suggest that he did discover who are these "some"? Specify if possible. Also, what would have been his policy reasons for hiding the existence of the strait? From an organizational standpoint, I'd recommend that both the shipwrecks and the lighthouses section be moved into 'History' as subsections. Shipwrecks in the Foveaux Strait region are unfortunately not just a historical problem, with 8 people drowned in an incident in 2012, and on-going incidents that could lead to fatalities. My opinion is that a separate topic is warranted, given the reputation of the strait as "one of the roughest and most unpredictable stretches of water in the world". Note: for transparency, I want to advise that extensive work has been undertaken on Draft:List of shipwrecks of Southland, including all the shipwrecks currently described in this article. In due course, I propose that the Shipwrecks content in the Foveaux Strait article will be greatly reduced to a covering paragraph and a link to the new list article (once published). However, I remain of the view that shipwrecks warrant their own top-level heading, and do not need to be nested beneath history. The lighthouses are a current feature of Foveaux Strait (although I note that the current text could make this clearer). Given that Foveaux Strait is an important navigable waterway, that it is used by many small vessels, and that it has notoriously bad conditions at times, lighthouses still have a role. They are maintained by Maritime New Zealand, despite the ubiquitous use of GPS navigation systems. There is an interesting history associated with the lighthouses, but in my view, their history is better kept together under a topic heading, as a feature of Foveaux Strait that is far more than their history alone. I also note that moving the two sections Shipwrecks and Lighthouses into the history section may make that section a bit large.Marshelec (talk) 03:15, 24 July 2024 (UTC) Both fair points - I'd also support changing the shipwrecks coverage from a list to prose. However, I don't think it's inaccurate to place them under 'History' - history sections generally include everything right up to the present. It would be good to (as you say) include a sentence or two more about the current set of lighthouses. Alexeyevitch, what do you think of these comments? —Ganesha811 (talk) 03:37, 24 July 2024 (UTC) I agree with both of you but I also think the lighthouse section might need a trim. I will do some more work here. Alexeyevitch(talk) The issues discussed above can be modified as needed, but I trust that in either prose or list form that the prose will meet GA standard ; all GA articles need to be kept up. Pass on prose after my tweaks.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	No major issues, pass.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Nothing not already discussed in 2b. Pass.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Cites #4 and #8 (Taylor, lore and history) are identical and should be combined. Please check for other duplicates as well. Is Cite #12 (Howard, Basil) actually several cites combined? I'm confused about how it's formatted and described. Cites #11 and 14 (Place name detail) are effectively identical and should be combined. Where missing, please add ISBNs or other identifiers (ISSN) to books and journal articles. For instance, Wises New Zealand guide, 1979, seems to be missing an ISBN and an author or publisher. This appears to be complete by Marshelec... Let me know if there are any more missing and I will add it. Thx. Alexeyevitch(talk) In #22 (Southland Murihiku) I don't think there's a need to italicize the name of the Ministry. For #25 (Grady), is the publisher Reed or Methuen or both? I can't see any connection between the companies - did they merge at some point? The publisher name appears to be "Reed Methuen" (see this and this) Thx. Alexeyevitch(talk) What's the case for shipwrecklog.com being a reliable source? It may be, I'd just like some more detail about it. Seems like it's just summarizing some other sources without adding anything. Could you expand on this? It just appears to be a blog. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC) I have removed all citations to shipwrecklog.com. Marshelec (talk) 22:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC) For #115 (Seabird prioritization), same thing as above - no need to italicize the name of the Ministry. Reformat. For #117 (Wildlife Management International), the Ministry of Primary Industries should be given in the cite as the hoster (via) or sponsor in some way. I may have more sourcing comments later but will leave it there for now. Overall, it's well cited and almost all the sources are reliable, so it's just a bunch of tweaks to go through. —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC) There's a few more cites where a publisher or sponsor is given as a website name, resulting it being italicized. I just fixed Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa in one - please check through and address the others remaining (Radio New Zealand, Department of Conservation, Ministry of Primary Industries, etc) If there is a more independent source re: the Stewart Island Ferry and RealNZ, that would be preferable, but the current source is acceptable if no others are available. Similarly with Rakiura Shipping and Stewart Island Flights. I have added further citations from independent sources that provide coverage of Rakiura Shipping and Stewart Island flights.Marshelec (talk) 06:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC) Is Newsroom a reliable source? It's quite new and I see there have been a couple controversies about their coverage in the past. Further comment: This sentence: Smith had been in Sydney Harbour with Eber Bunker from whom he probably learned of the eastern seal fishery contains information not found in any of the three citations for that or the following sentence. Where did this information come from? It's crucial that the sources actually support the sentences they are given for. I acknowledge that. Deleted the unsuported content. Alexeyevitch(talk) Thanks Marshelec for the work so far - I will continue work on this today. Alexeyevitch(talk) Note: not all issues yet addressed here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC) In general, when a source is repeated multiple times, but simply with a new page #, it can be added to the References section and cited from there - this was done for some sources (Ingram, Richards, etc) but not others (Taylor, lore and history). Not yet done Cites #46 and 47 (Lying for the admiralty) are a bit odd, the first appears to be multiple cites combined into one, the second a repeat of one of the cites contained in #46. I'd separate them all out and combine the duplicate cites to the same book review. —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:52, 25 July 2024 (UTC) I have combined the Taylor reference and split the other cite. Alexeyevitch(talk) Great work on references from both of you. The last one I think that needs merged is the two cites to "Early days in Foveaux Strait" and then we should be good to go on references! Y Alexeyevitch(talk) What's the page number for the Esler cite on the whaling? —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:08, 26 July 2024 (UTC) Fixed. Marshelec (talk) 21:55, 26 July 2024 (UTC) Issues all addressed, pass on sources. Probably some more work needed on consistent formatting to get up to FA level, but good for GA.
	2c. it contains no original research.	#147 (fisheries legislation) seems like mild OR, citing a law directly. It's not a severe issue, but if you can find a secondary source discussing this regulation, that would be preferable. The two citations #147 and #148, taken together, support the text of this section, and provide a reader with useful links to provide further information. I do not see that any part of this section is original research. However, I have found an independent source that I will add as a further citation.Marshelec (talk) 22:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC) Issue addressed, pass.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig finds nothing of concern, but hold for manual spot check. This paragraph (Murihiku Māori who settled around Foveaux Strait were mostly ... hunted forest birds including weka, takahē, kererū, kākāpō and kākā is far too closely paraphrased from the source (1). It's functionally identical, with just a few changed words. While lists of birds are ok, the rest should be more extensively rephrased into our own words, or (if there is no way to rephrase elegantly) converted into a few choice direct quotes. I attempted yesterday to reword to sentence and add some new content. Hopefully it's okay now. Alexeyevitch(talk) Issue addressed, nothing else found by manual spot-check of 6 sources I can access.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Not finding anything else of significance to add. Broad coverage. Pass.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	There might be a few trims to come in prose review, but there are no significant areas of overdetail or loss of focus. Pass.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No issues of neutrality. Pass.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Work done on it between nomination and review, but no actual stability issues or unresolved problems. Pass.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	File:Smith's Straits by OF Smith.tif is described as the "own work" of the uploader, which clearly it is not. The copyright tag should be updated to describe its actual author and that it is now in the age as an unpublished work from a very long time ago. I noticed that aswell. I have removed it for now and will look for alternatives. An image of Mr. Bunker is OK here. Alexeyevitch(talk) 23:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC) Issue addressed, pass.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Pass, generally good, any minor tweaks to captions can be made as I finish prose review. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:07, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
	7. Overall assessment.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.