Talk:Tristan da Cunha/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Bryanrutherford0 (talk · contribs) 18:41, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• Beginning to review this article; I'll have a review up by the end of the day. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 18:41, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   I've copyedited the entire article. It satisfies the MoS requirements for Lead, Layout, Words to Watch, and Lists; the Fiction guidelines don't apply.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Reference 16 (Wollenberg, Ken. The Bottom of the Map.) appears to be self-published, as a previous editor pointed out with a cleanup tag; either a more reliable source should be found, or else some of that detail about particular ships touching should be cut out (maybe both). Many citations are missing, increasingly frequently as one proceeds through the article. I removed some close quotations from the History, Economy and Health sections, and now I don't see any more copyvio issues. I think all substantive and potentially questionable claims are now supported.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   More thorough coverage of the community's history is needed; the 19th-, 20th- and 21st-century sections are a bit of a grab-bag at the moment. One of the sources says that the establishment of a sigint outpost on Tristan during WWII led to great improvements to the physical infrastructure, for example; that sort of thing should be included. The "Demographics" section needs Template:Historical populations incorporated with good data and sources. The article needs some coverage of the various protected areas and conservation designations present in the archipelago, including UNESCO World Heritage Sites and Ramsar sites. On the other hand, I cut out some excessively detailed content in the Economy and Health sections. The edits and additions made now bring the article to satisfactorily broad coverage of the topic's major aspects.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   No problems with promotional or tendentious language that I detect.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Version seems stable.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The image File:Atlantisia rogersi sw.jpg doesn't look to me like it has a valid copyright status tag; someone seems to have just uploaded it and tagged it as "own work," even though it's a painting from 1927. The other images have good tags. With the unlicensed image replaced, this criterion is now satisfied.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   It's not there yet, but if the coverage is broadened and all the sourcing issues are cleared up, this article could reach the standard.- -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 23:20, 28 December 2018 (UTC) It's there!

• I haven't heard from the nominator for three days now; I'm putting this review on hold for seven more days to give the nominator time to respond, after which time, absent a response, the article will be failed.-Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 00:56, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I have replaced the File:Atlantisia rogersi sw.jpg with File:Inaccessible Island Rail (Atlantisia rogersi).jpg. JACKINTHEBOX • ^TALK 12:37, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

The coverage of the island history concentrating on the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries should be expected as the island was only permanently settled in 1810, and only few landings were made previously. JACKINTHEBOX • ^TALK 12:41, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately I couldn't find a source that showed the islands historical populations in regular intervals, but according to these references [1], [2], [3], [4] (page 295 of 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica), [5], [6] (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 3rd Edition (1970-1979)), [7]: the historical population of Tristan da Cunha of certain date include: 71 (1856) [However, the next year starvation caused many to flee leaving a population of 28 on Tristan da Cunha], 50 (1892), 64 (1897), 74 (1901), 95 (1909), 268 (1961), 271 (1969), 296 (1987), 286 (1999), 280 (2000), 269 (2008), 293 (2016). JACKINTHEBOX • ^TALK 13:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

The content in the article cited by Reference 16 includes: 'It was reported that no ships visited from 1909 until 1919, when HMS Yarmouth finally stopped to inform the islanders of the outcome of World War I'. This source published by the Tristan da Cunha Government & Tristan da Cunha Association says 'it is reported that Tristan had no incoming mail for ten years until HMS Yarmouth brought news of the armistice in July 1919'. This information is also supported by these (perhaps less reliable) links [8], [9], [10].

The rest of the content cited by Reference 16 is 'Of the few ships that visited in the coming years were the RMS Asturias, a Royal Mail Steam Packet Company passenger liner, in 1927, and the ocean liners RMS Empress of France in 1928, RMS Duchess of Atholl in 1929, and RMS Empress of Australia in 1935. In 1936, The Daily Telegraph of London reported the population of the island was 167 people, with 185 cattle and 42 horses. ... The island was also visited in 1938 by W. Robert Foran, reporting for the National Geographic Society; his account, Tristan da Cunha, Isles of Contentment, was published in November 1938.' I will try to find sources that support this content soon. JACKINTHEBOX • ^TALK 13:41, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

To be clear, my concern about broad coverage was not that there was too much emphasis on the 19th through 21st centuries; on the contrary, the problem is that the coverage of those periods is not sufficiently thorough, and the existing coverage contains a good deal of trivia while neglecting more substantive questions about the community's history. At present, much of the history section consists of noting which ships touched at Tristan and when, rather than describing what was happening on Tristan during these periods, which seems to me to be the actual topic of the article.

Likewise, my concern with the Wollenberg source isn't that it doesn't contain the article's claims, but that it is a self-published book without editorial oversight. I've swapped in the tristandc.com source for the claim about isolation during the Great War; there are still a great many remaining claims in the article without citations. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 14:22, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I have added some references that support above content (but haven't finished yet). For the two references for "and RMS Empress of Australia in 1935", an excerpt of the full article of the first reference contains the content "in 1928, RMS Duchess of Atholl in 1929, and RMS Empress of Australia in 1935", and the second reference contains "S.S. "Empress of Australia" Mail, cover to South Africa with Ty. V cachet, departed Tristan 22 March, 1935" (S.S. means 'Single-screw Steamship', and is also used as a generic term for any steam-powered ship). JACKINTHEBOX • ^TALK 12:39, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Testing template:

Historical population

Year	Pop.	±% p.a.
1856	71	—
1880	109	+1.80%
1892	50	−6.29%
1897	64	+5.06%
1901	74	+3.70%
1909	95	+3.17%
1934	167	+2.28%
1961	268	+1.77%
1969	271	+0.14%
1987	296	+0.49%
1999	286	−0.29%
2000	280	−2.10%
2008	269	−0.50%
2016	293	+1.07%
2018	250	−7.63%

That Historical population template looks great! I gather Tristan hasn't been covered by the UK's decennial census or anything like that; in that case, this is probably the best that can be done, and it's much more informative than nothing. Good work! -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 13:37, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Also for the content 'In 1936, The Daily Telegraph of London reported the population of the island was 167 people, with 185 cattle and 42 horses' currently cited by Reference 16, I couldn't find any reliable source that support this detail (most if not all sites I found with the information must have copied this content from this Wikipedia article). However from the British Newspaper Archive I found two newspaper articles which might be useful: this article [11] is titled and/or subtitled MODERN CRUSOES - CATS FOR LONELY TRISTANS - FIGHTING PLAGUE OF RATS - LIFE OF ROCKY ISLAND from the Belfast Telegraph dated Wednesday, 18 November 1936 (page 11 of 16); in the second paragraph it states "Swept by the giant breakers of the South Atlantic Ocean and lashed by winter's breath-freezing Antarctic winds the 167 plucky inhabitants of Tristan da Cunha live a completely isolated, self-supporting life, and find organised government unnecessary, wireless bothersome, the motor-car a nuisance, and disease a rarity."

The other newspaper [12], Dundee Evening Telegraph, Thursday 24 May 1934 (page 7 of 14) states "When the French training cruiser, Jeanne d'Arc, recently called at Tristan da Cunha, there were 167 inhabitants living in 40 low-built thatched cottages." This shows that the population was also at 167 in 1934. This could be added to the population template above, but which year should I use (1934 or 1936)? JACKINTHEBOX • ^TALK 13:52, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I guess I'd go with 1934, because it's earlier and therefore more remote from the (known) present, and also because of helpful details about how this information was gotten in your quotation. Great finds! -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 14:07, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done Agreed JACKINTHEBOX • ^TALK 14:17, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The reference used to cite the sentence in the article "On 10 October 1961, the eruption of Queen Mary's Peak forced the evacuation of the entire population of 264 individuals." [13] states "On the morning of 10 October 1961, a fine spring day in the South Atlantic, the 264 inhabitants of Tristan da Cunha put to sea in open boats to escape the wrath of an eruption". The reference I currently use to cite the 1961 population in the template only states "The island's population fluctuated and eventually rose to 268 before the island was evacuated during the eruption of 1961". This does not directly state the population was at 268 in 1961, but rather shows the peak population of the island (shortly) before the 1961 eruption. So I have changed the 1961 population in the template to 264 (with the correct reference). JACKINTHEBOX • ^TALK 14:11, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

It would be a good idea to include some information from this source (currently Reference 20 in the article) under the 20th century History section. It contains information about how the physical infrastructure of Tristan was improved as a result of the establishment of the 'Station' during WWII, and how the island became more connected to the outside world. JACKINTHEBOX • ^TALK 14:23, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

For the last citation in the above text (his account, Tristan da Cunha, Isles of Contentment, was published in November 1938), I copied the reference from Ken Wollenberg's Bottom of the Map (Foran, W. Robert. "Tristan da Cunha, Isles of Contentment." National Geographic, November 1938, pp. 671–94.) I'm not sure how to use a cite web/journal/book format for that. JACKINTHEBOX • ^TALK 14:43, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I have added some information about the World Heritage and Ramsar sites under the 20th century History section. Some of it might have to be moved to the 21st century section, or the whole paragraph to the Geography section. JACKINTHEBOX • ^TALK 15:12, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

The new population template looks great! I've added in some more about 20th-century development and reorganized that section a bit, and, together with the material you've already added, I feel much better about the breadth of coverage. Steady progress is being made; if sources can be added for the remaining "Citation needed" points, the article will be able to reach GA. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 14:11, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Excellent progress has been made! It's almost there; a few more sources for unsupported claims and it will satisfy the standard. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 22:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I've added another source and removed an unnecessary unsupported claim, and I've decided that the article doesn't need citations for everything in the "In popular culture" section to reach the GA standard, since these are not claims likely to be controversial. With that, the article is approved for GA! Cheers to the nominator for sticking with it through the improvement process! -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 04:34, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I was deciding to add a few more citations to the article soon, but I just saw that it has passed! Thanks JACKINTHEBOX • ^TALK 05:01, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Actually I also believed the article didn't need citations for everything in the popular culture section to reach GA standard, so I stopped searching for them, but I couldn't find a source that supported the last remaining unsourced claim with the 'citation needed' template. Now the claim has been removed.

@Bryanrutherford0: I just added some other sources I found that supported some claims in the 20th century section that was previously only supported by the Wollenberg source (from the above paragraph starting "The rest of the content cited by Reference 16 is..."). Now the self-published source only supports the sentence "In 1936, The Daily Telegraph of London reported the population of the island was 167 people, with 185 cattle and 42 horses.". Should the sentence be removed altogether so that the self-published source is no longer used in the article? (I found a source from the newspaper Belfast Telegraph from 1936 that also stated the population as 167 people, but did not mention the population of cattle or horses) JACKINTHEBOX • ^TALK 05:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Those look great! For the standards of a Good Article, I think that source can stay to support that mild a claim. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 13:02, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

OK Good. JACKINTHEBOX • ^TALK 09:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)