Talk:Evans Bay Patent Slip

Review of article quality

@Schwede66:. Could you spare the time to review this article ? How far is this off "B class" ? Marshelec (talk) 06:50, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

It needs more wikilinks and once that's done, I suggest you put it forward for GA assessment. Schwede66 09:14, 14 January 2023 (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:Evans Bay Patent Slip/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sammi Brie (talk · contribs) 05:03, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

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:
· · ·

Welcome to GAN! Almost there, but some things can be improved. Mostly copy tweaks. There's also a source that might need better reparaphrasing/rewording. 7-day hold to Wainuiomartian (ping me when ready). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:03, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi and thank you for reviewing this article. I have changed the commas as requested - thank you for the good explanation. The only place I haven't added one is "and by May 1863 the slip was in operation" because I don't think a comma is appropriate there. A comma signifies a pause and a pause after 1863 doesn't feel right to me.

I checked the Heritage New Zealand website and confirmed that the correct style is Category 1 (with a capital) historic place (no caps), so I have fixed that - I should have picked that up up before!

I have reworded a few sentences after looking at your Earwig tool.

I also added alt-text to the images that were missing this.

This is my first GAN - is there anything else I should do? Thanks for your time.Wainuiomartian (talk) 06:43, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Things are better. I still have some issues to avoid close paraphrasing in that one passage [1], particularly a great engineering feat, construction above the high tide mark was, and work underwater was far more difficult. There are definitely some unavoidable formulations (in addition to a couple of proper nouns). I'd like to see those fixed.

Your category finding, on the other hand, is going to unravel a big ball of wax. We have categories and templates that require updating...a lot of them. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:51, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for not pinging you, @Wainuiomartian. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:48, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Do I need to put your name? @Sammi Brie? Sorry if I should have done that... Wainuiomartian (talk) 03:14, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I think I've fixed that section. It took me a while to realise what you meant by my "category finding" but I realised you were referring to the Heritage NZ categories. It looks like I can't change the category in the infobox because that is a template.Wainuiomartian (talk) 03:12, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Your ping is correct. That generates a notification like that one you got. The infobox has been modified because I went to {{Designation/text}} and updated it—this change will appear on any appropriately labeled infobox! As to the category labeling (a separate item from the infobox), that's not an issue that is in the scope of this review—it's now at Categories for discussion. I will be passing this. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:04, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Copy changes

There are a lot of comma shifts I'm going to recommend. User:Sammi Brie/Commas in sentences explains most of them. If you can split the sentence and get a subject AND verb on either side, then you need ", and" with comma.

Lead

• The Wellington Provincial Council was keen to encourage shipping trade by improving facilities in Wellington Harbour, and began planning later in 1863 for the construction of a larger patent slip. remove comma
• The Wellington Patent Slip Company was formed to take over the assets and construction began in 1871. add comma after "assets"
• However, the site has been listed as a category II historic place by Heritage New Zealand Capitalize "Category"

First slipway

• A contract was let to shipwright Edward Thirkell and by May 1863 the slip was in operation. add comma after "thirkell", and then a second after "May 1863" would be good
• The slip itself consisted of two wooden "slideways" for the keel and the bilge and the low end sat in eight feet of water at low tide. Add a comma after "bilge". Consider using {{convert}} for "eight feet" as in this example: eight feet (2.4 m)
• The New Zealand Steam Navigation Company went into liquidation in 1871 and management of the slip passed to the newly formed Patent Slip Company. Add a comma after 1871
• The wooden slip was in use at least until 1873 when the new slip was built slightly south of it. add a comma after 1873, just to help readability

Patent Slip

• In December 1863, the New Zealand Government passed empowering legislation, authorising the Superintendent of Wellington to compulsorily acquire an area of land up to 20 acres (8.1 ha) at Evans Bay for the construction of a larger Patent Slip The second comma is not needed.
• the Provincial Council was unable to fund the construction, and decided to grant a concession for a slipway to be built and operated. Remove comma
• In 1866, Kennards sent hundreds of tons of machinery to Evans Bay but there was a dispute and the equipment sat there for five years Two commas needed here: after Bay and dispute
• make "2000" "2,000"
• Category 2 Historic Place Use "II" to be consistent.

Sourcing and spot checks

Earwig, our copyvio detector tool [2], does turn up a few areas to suggest rewording, particularly the machinery description: cradle ran on wheels along a set of, cogwheel winch which was powered by two.

Five sources were selected for spot checks:

• 6: Mention of land being re-conveyed to the Patent Slip Company. Y
• 7: Mention of use of the "old slip" in Evans Bay. Y
• 16: Newspaper description of how two boats could use the slip. Y
• 19: Description of incident. Y
• 20: Description of incident. Y

Images

There are nine images, all public domain or in works offered as CC-BY-SA (though also seemingly out of copyright there, too). Encouragement (not required for GA but something I suggest): Add alt text to each image for the benefit of users using screen readers.

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.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cielquiparle (talk) 16:53, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the Evans Bay Patent Slip was built in 1871 using hundreds of tons of machinery that had sat on a beach for five years? Source: "However, in 1866 a British firm had sent hundreds of tonnes of machinery to Evans Bay, where it sat for five years until locals, backed by British investors, formed the Wellington Patent Slip Company (WPSCo)." https://nzhistory.govt.nz/media/photo/evans-bay-patent-slip
  • Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by Wainuiomartian (talk) and Marshelec (talk). Nominated by Wainuiomartian (talk) at 06:01, 26 January 2023 (UTC). Note: As of October 2022, all changes made to promoted hooks will be logged by a bot. The log for this nomination can be found at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Evans Bay Patent Slip, so please watch a successfully closed nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• @Wainuiomartian: Promoted to GA status on Jan 26, new enough. Sufficient length and sourcing looks good. Hook is backed up by article and fairly interesting. This looks good to me, just waiting on QPQ. Kafoxe (talk) 16:15, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

@Kafoxe: thanks, it's my first DYK nomination so exempt from QPQ.

Ah, wasn't aware. On the other side of the coin, this is my first review. :) In that case, this is good to go. Kafoxe (talk) 21:33, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

@Wainuiomartian and Kafoxe: The article has some close paraphrasing problems. I haven't checked out the whole article, I just ran a quick comparison with this source and found the following:

Article: In 1866, Kennards sent hundreds of tons of machinery to Evans Bay, but there was a dispute, and the equipment sat there for five years until locals backed by British investors formed the Wellington Patent Slip Company (WPSCo). Source: In 1866 a British firm had sent hundreds of tonnes of machinery to Evans Bay, where it sat for five years until locals, backed by British investors, formed the Wellington Patent Slip Company (WPSCo).

Article: Ships of 2,000 tons or more could be winched up the slip, but without the expected big Panama liners, most ships were smaller and less profitable. Source: Ships of 2000 tons or more could be winched up along a rail track and into the WPSCo’s complex, but without the expected big Panama liners, most customers were smaller – and therefore less profitable.

Sojourner in the earth (talk) 12:30, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

@Sojourner in the earth and Kafoxe: Thanks for spotting that. I believe I have fixed those sections.Wainuiomartian (talk) 19:32, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll leave it to Kafoxe or another reviewer to check whether the article is good to go. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 19:48, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I'll take a look. jengod (talk) 05:09, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Length	Newness	Cited hook	Interest	Sources	Neutrality	Plagiarism/paraphrase
✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔

Long enough, good articled recently enough, hook is interested and source-verified, NPOV, and earwig is happy. I did a spot check of three sources and didn't see any other instances of close paraphrasing. Good to go. jengod (talk) 05:40, 23 February 2023 (UTC)