Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Catlins

The Catlins

Self-nom. Over the course of the last month, User:Avenue and I have taken this from a tiny stub to its current size, ably assisted by User:AndyZ's help at Wikipedia:Peer review. New Zealand is underrepresented in FA - its geography more so (there have only been ~~two~~ three NZ featured articles, ~~both~~ two biographies and a bird). The Catlins is a fascinating gem of an area that is not widely known outside New Zealand, and I believe that it represents the diversity of New Zealand's history and natural wonders well, as much as I believe that the article represents a fine addition to Wikipedia. Grutness...wha? 02:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support, looks very good and informative. Lots of nice references.--Adam ^(talk) 03:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Wonderful article, very nicely done. My only comment is that there are several one- or two-sentence paragraphs that could perhaps be merged into longer ones. There are a few run-ons you may want to look at, such as "Several small lakes are found in the Catlins, notably scenic Lake Wilkie close to the Tautuku Peninsula. Catlins Lake, near Owaka, is actually the tidal estuary of the Catlins River." A little confusing. Nope, that was my mistake. If you could address the small paragraph issue, I'd change my vote to support. Thanks! And now it's just right. Air.dance 03:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - hopefully the paragraphs are a bit better now. Grutness...wha? 03:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Well done that man, um, those men, (assuming they're all guys). Moriori 03:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments 1) Use non-breaking spaces for °C & °F too. 2) Shouldn't it be =Transport=? 3) A single subsection (Climate/Shipwrecks) gives a very lopsided ToC. Either merge with parent or promote the heading level. 4) Could the =Economy= section be expanded. Figures etc. added? =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1, 2, and 3 done, though I'm not convinced by the raised header for shipwrecks and it's too large a section to easily merge with the History one. Working on 4. Grutness...wha? 05:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- on completion of 4. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made a start on 4 - Avenue added quite a bit more. Hopefully it's up to speed now. Grutness...wha? 13:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Though filling out Economy could only make this better. Staxringold 14:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice article. Should the references be moved above the external links though? Cvene64 14:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I wondered about that, but thought it made more sense to put them next to the notes, since it's far easier to see the full titles of the books noted. If there are other objections about it then I wouldn't object to swapping the order. Grutness...wha? 02:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC) skip that - Avenue's already moved them! :) Grutness...wha? 02:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was NormanEinstein, not me. -- Avenue 03:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Minor niggle, there were several species of moa, unless you know which species was in the region you should decapitalise the word. Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- Avenue 23:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - but would suggest mention of some of the extreme (due to conditions) surfing events which have taken place there - don't know enough about them to add them myself. dramatic 20:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've now described the big-wave scene at the end of the Geography section. I wasn't quite sure where to put it. Hopefully this is okay. -- Avenue 23:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Nice effort. Papeschr 22:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support—good one. Tony 00:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Outstanding work.-gadfium 04:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, though I do think Shipwreck should be under of some other section, not top level like it is now. -- Zanimum 17:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done; see under AndyZ's comment below. -- Avenue 02:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, looked through it again and it looks good. I echo Zanimum's suggestion that shipwrecks be merged into some other section (probably history) against the suggestion by Nichalp. Another thing, history stops short at around 1875, did anything notable of importance happen in the area since then? AndyZ _t 00:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the shipwrecks information into the History section, and the lighthouses into Geography. I've also tried to make the History section end less abruptly by adding a little information from the Economy section, although it would still benefit from adding some more recent events (if we can find any of importance). -- Avenue 02:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I extended the history section a little into the mid-20th century, but the area was a rural backwater from about the 1920s until the 1990s, so fleshing it out any further may not be easy. Grutness...wha? 10:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]