Talk:Kae Miller/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Passed. simongraham (talk) 06:20, 7 February 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: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 16:10, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This looks an interesting topic, and is listed as part of Women in Green having been worked on by GRuban, Ipigott and SusunW. I will start a review shortly. simongraham (talk) 16:10, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you simongraham. I have a bunch of newspaper clippings that were e-mailed to me by her grandson. Total luck to find his web page and he was very helpful with finding both sources and photographs for the article. If you think you will need them, I am happy to send them if you drop me an e-mail. SusunW (talk) 16:13, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SusunW: Thank you. That sounds very helpful. Please feel free to upload them to mailbigfile and post the link here. simongraham (talk) 17:01, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

simongraham I am not remotely technical and have no idea how to do that. SusunW (talk) 17:18, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SusunW: Would a site like this help: https://filetransfer.io? I think it allows you to upload files and then share a link. simongraham (talk) 17:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No idea if that worked, but the link it gave is here. We'll need to delete when the review is finished. SusunW (talk) 17:47, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SusunW: That worked perfectly. Please feel free to expire the file. simongraham (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to change the expiry date, but the website says the link will die 22 February 2023. SusunW (talk) 20:56, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SusunW: Thank you. I believe that is sufficient for this review. simongraham (talk) 06:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Review[edit]

This is a stable and well-written article. 99% of authorship is by SusunW. It is currently assessed as a B class article.

The text is clear and concise.
It is written in a summary style, consistent with relevant Manuals of Style.
The article is short compared with many Good Articles, with 2,160 words of readable prose, and no tables.
The lead is of appropriate length at 333 words.
There is no evidence of edit wars.
Earwig's Copyvio Detector identifies a 17.4% chance of copyright violation, which is therefore given as unlikely.
Text seems to be neutral.
The images seems appropriate and relevant.
The images Kae Miller - Landscape (cropped).jpg and Kae Miller - Porirua landfill lodge.jpg seem to have appropriate Creative Commons license tags. However, it is noted that they need to be reviewed by an administrator or reviewer to confirm that the Creative Commons license is valid.
Citations seem to be thorough.
References appear to be from reputable sources.
Spot checks of both online and offline sources (e.g. Gerlach 2000, Ots 1994 and The New Zealand Herald 1928) confirm that the documents are consistent with the article.

Comments[edit]

I only have one suggestion so far:

Suggest adding a comma in the lead, thus "Through her efforts, the View Road Park and Reserve (Te Rae Kaihau Park) was developed to conserve the natural environment."

Done SusunW (talk) 17:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SusunW: Another excellent article. Please see my comments above, which are mainly suggestions, and ping me when you would like me to look again. simongraham (talk) 17:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SusunW: Excellent. Have you had a chance to look at the images licenses? simongraham (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

simongraham As I said, the technical aspects elude me. Max, her grandson posted the photographs from his private archive as instructed by GRuban. GRuban is a magician and always helps me with uploading. Perhaps if you have questions, he can answer, but basically Max uploaded them here with a release of copyright. SusunW (talk) 18:34, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:License_review is not the fastest of processes, but I'll ~~lean on~~ politely ask a fellow reviewer to stamp the files. --GRuban (talk) 18:57, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Took two polite requests, as the first person I asked was busy, but User:Tuvalkin has stamped the images, and said nice things about the GA.

--GRuban (talk) 18:51, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much GRuban. I do appreciate your persistence. simongraham do you need us to do anything further? SusunW (talk) 20:41, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help a great article! Having the copyright holder publish a licencing statement in their own venue along with the media in question is faster and more transparent than going through the hoops with OTRS! -- Tuvalkin (talk) 20:51, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tuvalkin I truly appreciate your help. The complex instructions of adding photographs confuse me, but George was kind enough to walk Max through the process, and you were kind enough to review them, so that the article could have images. It truly takes a village to create articles and I am very thankful. SusunW (talk) 20:55, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, GRuban, SusunW and Tuvalkin. That is excellent work and I believe is sufficient. I will start the assessment now. simongraham (talk) 06:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment[edit]

The six good article criteria:

It is reasonable well written.
the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;

it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

all inline citations are from reliable sources;

it contains no original research;

it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism;

it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.
It is broad in its coverage
it addresses the main aspects of the topic.

it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
It has a neutral point of view.
it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.
It is stable.
it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

I believe that this article meets the criteria to be a Good Article.

Pass simongraham (talk) 06:20, 7 February 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.