Talk:Veiqia/GA1

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.

---

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

Nominator: Lajmmoore (talk · contribs) 09:18, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 15:28, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

This looks an interesting article and, on a cursory inspection, seems to be close to meeting the Good Article criteria already. I will start a full review shortly. simongraham (talk) 15:28, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• Overall, the standard of the article is high.
• It is of substantial length, with 2501 words of readable prose.
• The lead is relatively short at 148 words. Suggest it is worth considering adding more.
• The lead is two short paragraphs. Suggest combining them to help mobile readers.
• Authorship is 93.7% from the nominator with contributions from 14 other editors.
• It is currently assessed as a C class article.
• Please confirm that all the recommendations from the WiG minireview have been completed.
• Although not a GA criteria, suggest adding ALT text for accessibility.

Criteria

The six good article criteria:

1. It is reasonable well written.

   the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;

   • The writing is clear and appropriate.
   • Consider "once again" rather than "once more" in "Regional variation was once more a factor".
   • Please reword "Regardless of location the process was highly ritualised, in another example for young girls in Naboubuco they could not be menstruating, had to fast for 24 hours, spend a night fishing for freshwater shrimp and bring their own lemon thorns to make the tattoing implements."
   • | believe "sting ray" is one word. Please also add a wikilink if it is appropriate.
   • Please check the instances of "whilst".
   • Please review the sentence "In 2015 curators Tarisi Vunidilo and Ema Tavola, alongside artists Joana Monolagi, Donita Hulme, Margaret Aull, Luisa Tora, and Dulcie Stewart (great-great-granddaughter of Bu Anaseini Diroko who was tattooed in the early twentieth century), undertook a research project to greater understand veiqia and its personal significance for them" for clarity.
   • I can see no other obvious spelling or grammar errors.

   it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.

   • It seems to comply with the Manuals of Style.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

   • A reference section is included, with sources listed.
   • Roth 1933 is duplicated (reference 2 and 12).
   • Some citations have page numbers and some do not. Suggest including the page numbers in the citation for the journals for consistency.

   all inline citations are from reliable sources;

   • Please confirm The Spinoff and The Fiji Sun are credible sources.
   • Please confirm Communities engaging with digital collections meets WP:V, particularly in terms of the author (the URL denotes it as a blog).

   it contains no original research;

   • All relevant statements have inline citations.
   • Spot checks:
     • Roth 1933 states that the author has been told that veiqa takes place at first menstruation but "this point is one which requires further enquiry", which does not quite support "Veiqia was marked onto young women's bodies at the time of puberty, or sometimes at the onset of menstruation."
     • Hage et al 1996 states that the tatooists are women (p.339) and mentions Hinatuafaga (p.347).

   it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism;

   • Earwig gives a 0% chance of copyright violation, which is very impressive.

3. It is broad in its coverage

   it addresses the main aspects of the topic.

   • The article is compliant.

   it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

   • The article goes into a reasonable amount of detail and is compliant.

4. It has a neutral point of view.

   it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.

   • The article seems generally balanced.

5. It is stable.

   it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.

   • There is no evidence of edit wars.

6. 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;

   • TFiji Museum in Suva.jpg is an image from Flickr that has an appropriate review and has an appropriate CC license.
   • All the remaining images are tagged as public domain.
   • Veiqia design.png and Veiqia design (complete).png and Unknown Fijian woman with qia gusu (mouth tattoos), Vanua Levu, 1910-12.png Samoan tatau - tattooing circa 1895 - photo Thomas Andrew.jpg Nundua, Fijian widowed, tattooed with veqia and qia gusu.png Laniana and a map of her back tattoos, 1875-1876.png lack a US PD tag.

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

   • The images are appropriate.

@Lajmmoore: Thank you for an interesting article and for enabling me to do this review. Please take a look at my comments above and ping me when you would like me to take another look. simongraham (talk) 20:22, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks so much @Simongraham - I've made the changes recommended in criteria 1 and criteria 6 and will ping you when I've sorted the tasks from criteria 2 and the overall comment. Many thanks for starting a review so quickly! Lajmmoore (talk) 09:19, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Just a note on the queries about whether The Spinoff, the Fiji Times, and the "Commmunities ..." article are RS:

• So The Spinoff seems to be a well regarded social and arts publication in NZ and seems to have a range of creditable writers working for it. I checked WP:RSP and the archive has a little discussion about BLP (here and here). My judgement is that it is a RS.
• For the "Communities ..." article - this is a blog post, but its published by the University of Queensland and the content is written by Dulcie Stewart who is one of the Veiqia project team. For me this falls under WP:SPS BUT in the parameter of acceptance i.e. the university is an authority and the author is "subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications"
• I think rather than the Fiji Sun, the paper that is referenced is the Fiji Times which is the national paper of Fiji - there's one note in the WP:RS archive about it (here) but no other mention. I don't think one false claim on a very specific topic is enough to not give credence to its reliability

Lajmmoore (talk) 21:16, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

• I was referring to the Fiji Sun, but agree that, for the topic, both sources can be considered reliable. simongraham (talk) 13:31, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Simongraham I can confirm I've worked through the suggestions and think they are all complete. I previously attended to the WiG mini review points and have expanded the lead. Please let me know if I've missed anything Lajmmoore (talk) 21:34, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

{ping|Lajmmoore}} That all seems to be excellent work and sufficient for the purpose. I believe that this article meets the criteria to be a Good Article.

Pass simongraham (talk) 13:31, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

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.