Talk:Abel Tasman Monument/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Passed. Ppt91 ^talk 02:35, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

Reviewer: Ppt91 (talk · contribs) 19:46, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking forward to review this interesting article on a public monument in New Zealand! I hope to have the review ready within the next seven days and will keep you posted in case of unexpected delays. Thanks so much. Ppt91 (talk) 19:46, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Schwede66 Wanted to let you know I just finished the first cycle of the review and the review is on hold as I await your response. I'll leave a comment under the GA hold notice on your talk in addition to the ping. Really fascinating article and I look forward to hopefully finishing the process soon! Ppt91 ^talk 22:38, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ppt91. Appreciate your efforts. My work life has just become "a bit more busy" but I hope that I'll be able to get onto this soon. Schwede 66 00:06, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Right; I've got some time to get going on this. I'll comment within your text to keep things simple and will use green font to identify my words. If, by chance, you are colour blind, please say and I'll do something different. Schwede 66 04:13, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

I've tried to streamline the prose and copy edit throughout for the sake of clarity and precision. I hope it's helpful, but feel free to protest if you disagree with some of my wording. Also, I am known to WP:OVERLINK, though if I suggest a link it is usually is because I believe a given link will help guide the readers within the context of the article, notwithstanding MOS guidelines. Kindly mark each comment when done.

Link memorial Done
Link monument Done
Remove “300 years later” Done
Link tercentenary Done
Link prime minister *winking at the American audience* Done

Prose edit suggestion starting with “Originally referred to…:

"The monument, originally referred to as the Abel Tasman Memorial, was designed by the Austrian architect Ernst Plischke and consists of a large concrete monolith painted in white, which is meant to symbolise a sail." Done apart from the word "Austrian", which I don't think is relevant. I haven't wikilinked "sail" as it's too common a word.

Link bluff Done
Link holiday resort On reflection, I've removed some text including holiday resort; Pōhara has too much of a permanent population for that term to be justified.
Should it be “had been gifted” in this case? I don’t want to make tense inconsistent, though. The process of gifting the land, whilst obviously previously arranged, happened on 18 December 1942. Hence, the tense as shown is appropriate.

Prose edit suggestion starting with “The dignitaries…: My goal here has been to expand a bit upon the "European perspective" and provide specific anchors as far as the history of New Zealand is concerned. Having read the description, it does sound like colonialism should be explicitly mentioned, though I am curious to hear what you think of this edit. We could discuss whether we want to give more context in the body. For the lead, I'd like to keep it simple.

"The Abel Tasman National Park and the monument officially opened to the public on 18 December 1942. Preceding the era of decolonization and the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act of 1947, the original inscription on Plischke’s sculpture had largely overlooked the plight of the colonized Māori people and instead privileged the historical narrative of Eurocentrism."

Note suggestion:

The following be included as a note: "The area holding the monument is part of the national park, although physically separate from it." It’s relevant information though a detail nonetheless and I wonder if it makes sense to include it in the lead. Up to you. I've removed that detail from the lead.

More to follow Ppt91 ^talk 22:47, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Schwede66 First batch of comments! More to come soon. Ppt91 ^talk 20:54, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. I've dealt with everything; please let me know whether you are satisfied with my decisions. Schwede 66 04:21, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Schwede66 Thanks for your thoughtful reply--color coding as is works great for me! I think that the lead reads well.

One thing I wanted to note: We could discuss whether we want to give more context in the body. For the lead, I'd like to keep it simple. I see your point and agree that my alternative was a bit too heavy, though I think it could still be more precise; might I propose a compromise and that you just include the term "Eurocentric"? For example, "As was typical for the 1940s, the original inscription was influenced by Eurocentric views and overlooked the Māori perspective." or something along those lines; my reasoning behind it is that it would help the unfamiliar reader link right away to the concept of "European perspective" in historiographical terms.

What do you think? And, of course, I very much like your idea of discussing this in more detail in the article. The feedback for other sections is ready, so feel free to proceed whenever convenient! Ppt91 ^talk 18:44, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems another editor has already made an edit along those lines. Schwede 66 01:49, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Context[edit]

General comment: My suggestion would be to change section heading name to “Historical context” and the next section to “Commission” to be more precise. It also feels more in line with several other GA pages on historical monuments. Done

Link “cannon” Not done It's too common a term for my liking.
This section is very detailed and offers a good overview of the historical context to those unfamiliar with the history of New Zealand. I do think, though, that it needs a few short words to keep it focused that will guide the reader more in the context of the monument. Something along the lines of “The monument is located near the site of where Abel Tasman first encountered New Zealand…” And in the same vein, I’d think about a connection between this one and next paragraph, as it ends with a museum that’s not part of the monument. Maybe it could say “Golden Bay Museum in Tākaka, which is located … away from the monument, has a permanent display…” I've worked your suggestions into the prose.
I also think it should say more about Abel Tasman, at the very least that he worked for the Dutch East India Company and a few words about what the company did on behalf of the Dutch; If you want to use content from its en-wiki with attribution it can be “The first multinational corporation, the Dutch East India was had quasi-governmental powers, including the ability to wage war, negotiate treaties, and establish colonies.”) I've added something along those lines.

Thanks a lot; those were really good suggestions! Schwede 66 01:49, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

“Tasman's two ships had anchored some four kilometres (2.5 mi) north of the Tata Islands, which are located at the western side of Wainui Bay.” I would move this sentence to the preceding paragraph as it seems like a good thing to mention as soon as you introduce the historical context.
Can we think of an alternative to “popular spot”?

All done. Schwede 66 02:06, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Schwede66 Thanks! I've changed the second header to "Commission" per your response above. Re: It seems another editor has already made an edit along those lines. I just saw and happy to keep it this way, as long as the wording works for you. Looking forward to your thoughts on the remaining sections feedback. Ppt91 ^talk 18:08, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Design and construction[edit]

Link “unveiling” Not done This seems too common a term and there doesn't appear to be a good article to link to anyway.
Link “socialist” Done
I would include a few more words about Plischke, especially from the modernist standpoint. From what I was able to find on his work, it seems that the simplified and geometrical design of the monument fits into his architectural oeuvre more broadly. Here is one suggestion: "Plischke, whose other commissions in New Zealand included the modernist Sutch House in Wellington, was recognized for 'open, spatial planning that integrated the surrounding landscape and architecture.'" Hirschberger, Karin., Beyerle, Tulga. A Century of Austrian Design: 1900-2005. Germany: De Gruyter, 2013, P. 106 I wasn't convinced about the Sutch House but haven't closed my mind to it; please tell me more if you wish. I agree that more could be said about Plischke and have added something about his international reputation as a modernist architect. Having looked at the Plischke article for inspiration, I've noticed that "Frankl House" was wrong, fixed that, and added something about it in the article for Otto Frankel.
To that end, one or two drawings of the monument would be helpful. I’d suggest: http://www.ernst-a-plischke.at/de/03Werke/03Oeffentliche_Bauten/03TasmanMemorial/03_AbelTasmanMemorial_Plan5.shtml (useful to understand construction), http://www.ernst-a-plischke.at/de/03Werke/03Oeffentliche_Bauten/03TasmanMemorial/03_AbelTasmanMemorial_Plan2.shtml (to show the plan of the area and specific location of the monument), https://digitalnz.org/records/23165811 (a really nice later watercolor by another artist, which shows how the monument is incorporated into the surrounding natural space, something very much in line with modernist architecture). I believe these can all be used under non-free rationale for the article only, specifying the uncertain copyrights as mentioned in digitalnz) There's no way that those drawings would be out of copyright given that Plischke died in 1992. Rather than going the non-free rationale route, what do you think about adding these to the external links section? With regards to the water colour and the "uncertain copyright status" as reported by digitalnz, there is nothing uncertain about it. It's under copyright and the only reason why it says "uncertain" is because it says that under the vast majority of their items; they are totally under-resourced and just don't have the capacity and the staff to give a correct statement. It's the source of a lot of frustration by the New Zealand Wikimedia community because the put the "uncertain" statement under items that are clearly not under copyright...
Link “tablet” Not done I've had a look for a suitable target article and the best I could find is stele, which I didn't think was close enough. What do you think?
link “land donation” Not done This seems too common a phrase and there doesn't appear to be a good article to link to anyway.
Link “cement” Done
Might this also be a good moment to say more about the mention of it being Eurocentric in the lead? I am wary of WP:SYNTHESIS and proposing this because it was mentioned earlier and does seem important to address. I’ve found this source Pool, Ian. Colonization and Development in New Zealand Between 1769 and 1900: The Seeds of Rangiatea. Germany: Springer International Publishing, 2015. where the following quote seems useful “But, we can virtually ignore the only other definite one, the fleeting earlier visit of Abel Janszoon Tasman in 1642, ending abruptly after a ‘violent clash’ with Maori. The major longterm impact of his voyage were mainly negative.” page 153. Happy to try and look for more! I'll think about this some more.

@Schwede66 second batch. More to come soon! Ppt91 ^talk 19:23, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly resolved but there are a couple of questions and I have to get my head around your last bullet point. Schwede 66 08:59, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Schwede66 Thanks!

links look fine and happy to concur with your decisions
regarding your own photograph, I love a good birds-eye view! If you'd like to add it, I think it will work very well
as for Plischke's work as an architect, I'd only add a word or two about integrating the surrounding landscape and architecture as something key for modernist architecture which I think readers would find very helpful, but I will leave the final decision as to how much you want to include up to you :-)
your points about copyrights are well taken and this was my main worry; however, I am quite convinced that at least one of them as fair-use would be warranted and be a welcome addition to enhance the visuals of the article; Plischke's work doesn't seem much covered on en-wiki and this is very much relevant to the design you describe in detail; would you be willing to consider one out of the three options I sent as low-res non-free rationale image?
I am looking forward to your thoughts on the last bullet point. I might be going beyond the GA requirements in this case, but I also (unfortunately) see many reviews of WP:VISUALARTS which are too rushed and I guess I err on the side of caution. I hope it's clear from my feedback so far that I see this article as very engaging and of high-quality, so my suggestions are really about driving some of the already existing points home. Ppt91 ^talk 18:51, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've added another aerial shot to this talk page taken from much further away (i.e. you cannot make out the monument at all but that could be highlighted via a label) which shows its relationship to the Tata Islands. Please let me know which one you prefer. Meanwhile, I've added a design plan to the article. Schwede 66 23:29, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Schwede66 I am drawn to how the monument, surrounded by thick trees, claims its own carved out space in the first one. Plus, the waves are a nice touch. That would be my choice, but I'll respect your decision (including being open to having both of them in). And the design plan works really well while the caption adds important context. Thank you for incorporating my suggestion! Ppt91 ^talk 15:14, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the aerial photo. Schwede 66 23:30, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unveiling[edit]

Might I suggest foregrounding the section content by starting with “The unveiling ceremony for the monument was held on 18 December 1942 with a separate opening for the Abel Tasman National Park the following day.”
Link “unveiling” Not done As per the above reasoning
Link “luncheon” Instead of linking, I have replaced the word with "light lunch" as the target section is somewhat unfocussed.
Link “afternoon tea” Done
Link “the Crown” Done

Otherwise, I think this section reads well. It is detailed and clear.

Section comment: what are your thoughts on adding a new heading "Contemporary era" or something along those lines? That I think would flow nicely if you agree to previous changes of "Historical context" and "Commission"

I've dealt with this section but I'm not sure what you mean by your section comment. Are you suggesting that there should be a new section, with content yet to be written? Schwede 66 22:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Schwede66 Not at all! Apologies for the miscommunication. It looks great. Ppt91 ^talk 23:44, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1992 Queen Beatrix visit[edit]

"A new interpretation panel was installed for the occasion and the Department of Conservation notes that it is 'interesting to compare the new and old interpretation signs, which reveal how our perspective on how Abel Tasman's visit had changed in the intervening 50 years'" I am not sure the direct quote from Dept of Conservation here works as well and might be better to paraphrase? And can more details about the new sign be added? Perhaps a picture of it, so that the reader can see the differences? And with some elements possibly highlighted in the section.

I have rethought my approach to this section and given that the main topic of the 1992 visit was to implement some changes, I've merged that with the subsequent section "Alterations". I've reworded it to address your concern about the long quote. We don't have a photo of the 1992 interpretation panel. Talking about interpretation panel, this article mentions that new ones were to be installed for the 375th anniversary in 2017. I've done a decent search but cannot find any note as to whether this happened as planned. What we have are photos of interpretation panels as of January 2022. As is usual with these panels, they are undated. I have a mate who back in 2017 worked for DOC (I've seen his name mentioned in relation to the info panel upgrade) and I can ask him whether the panels are indeed from 2017, but that would in itself not be a reliable source. Schwede 66 22:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alterations[edit]

link "pavers" Done
link "timber" Not done This seems too common a term
link "ballustrades" Done
link "brass" Done
"New Zealand would then have an internationally significant example of early Modernist architecture" this makes me even more convinced about my comments earlier to expand the section on Plischke and design

Ok, I've had a look for sources and found something relevant on modernist architecture on the Ernst A. Plischke website. This is now incorporated into the "Design and construction" section. I was wary of talking about his approach to architecture in relation to other projects as it has to tie back to this design. The source lists those elements that defined modernist architecture! Schwede 66 23:30, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Schwede66 Really impressed with these edits! Thank you for being so receptive to my feedback and finding additional sources as well as incorporating new images. As for linking "jetty" in the last section (my only remaining and a very minor comment), it is totally up to you. Also, wanted to make sure if there is anything on your end that I have not responded to/addressed so far regarding the edits above? Otherwise, I'll do a final check of references/images, though it's really a formality, and I think we should be good to go. :-) Ppt91 ^talk 23:55, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Access[edit]

link "jetty"

I've copyedited the text for it to now read "Port Tarakohe", which is the common name for the it. Schwede 66 01:11, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I still want to double check references and images just for the record. Ppt91 ^talk 22:28, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Passed[edit]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

The nominator has addressed issues discussed during the GA review and the article is in excellent shape. I am very happy to pass it. Ppt91 ^talk 02:35, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some final comments from the nominator[edit]

Two things. Firstly, I have very much enjoyed working with you and believe that the article is now significantly better through you highlighting areas of possible improvement, including digging out some sources. Whilst I haven't necessarily adopted all your suggestions, it's spurred me on to find an even better way of incorporating your suggestions.

Secondly, when Paora and I were initially working on the article in December 2021, there was one area of confusion that we just couldn't resolve. There were some references to this monument being one of the "national monuments" but we didn't know what that meant and we couldn't find an authoritative source. It turns out that the Ministry for Culture and Heritage maintains such a register, but this particular monument is not on it. Which is surprising because there are many mentions to such a status on the abeltasman.org.nz website. And the supposed 2017 information panel upgrade was being organised by this ministry, so if they have responsibility, why isn't it on the list? It turns out it used to be on that list. The Wayback Machine last shows it on the list on the 31 May 2020 version. By the 16 August 2020, it was gone. I'll try and find out what this means. Schwede 66 01:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, easy as. I rang the ministry and got put through to the person who looks after their national monuments. The ministry transferred responsibility of the site to DOC during 2020 and in that process, it was removed from that list. She didn't think that there was anything about this process in the public domain but agreed that they should document it. The removal from the list was in error as it's still a national monument. She'll get that fixed. She'll also get somebody to write a page on what a national monument is. And when I told her that I'm a Wikipedian, she said that I may know her close friend Victoria L., which I of course do. That's New Zealand for you; only ever 2 degrees of separation. Schwede 66 01:44, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Schwede66 That's excellent news and likewise! I'll leave a longer on your page as soon as I have a moment to reply properly. :-) Ppt91 ^talk 02:46, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.