Talk:Culture of the Cook Islands

Culture of the Cook Islands has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: April 22, 2014. (Reviewed version).

New Zealand Low‑importance

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Polynesia: Cook Islands Mid‑importance

	Oceania portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Polynesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Polynesia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolynesiaWikipedia:WikiProject PolynesiaTemplate:WikiProject PolynesiaPolynesia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Cook Islands (assessed as High-importance).

Culture

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CultureWikipedia:WikiProject CultureTemplate:WikiProject Cultureculture articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Culture of the Cook Islands appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 26 October 2013 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the culture of the Cook Islands includes the traditional quilting art form of tivaevae (pictured)?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2013/October. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Culture of the Cook Islands.

Wikipedia

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Culture of the Cook Islands/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ColonelHenry (talk · contribs) 18:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look forward to reviewing this article within the next few days. --ColonelHenry (talk) 18:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ColonelHenry:, thanks look forward to seeing it!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologise that it took me a few days longer than expected to attend to this. Real life obligations, unfortunately. However, here are a few comments getting started... --ColonelHenry (talk) 04:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria assessment[edit]

CRITERIA 1:

1a The prose is excellent and fascinating, the article provides a very adequate introduction to this rich cultural heritage. I didn't see any glaringly obvious errors of spelling or grammar in my read-throughs of the article, but I will do a copyedit to catch any minor ones that I may have missed. I will perform an in-depth random spotcheck to search for copyvio/paraphrasing. Standby.
1b Article complies with the relevant MOS guidelines listed. No action necessary.

CRITERIA 2:

WP:V / WP:OR - The article is well-sourced, however several statements of fact in the article are not sourced. Some action required.
2a Reference section included, and section comply with policies and guidelines. No action necessary regarding layout.
2b As stated above, several sentences (most at the conclusion of paragraphs) that present facts within the article should be sourced, unless there is a valid rationale for not providing a citation. Some action required.
2c I do not see any indication of original research or synthesis, the subject is presented in a factual manner, and interpretation of the facts is conservative and directly connected the sources and the nature of the facts.

CRITERIA 3:

3a Article adequately addresses main aspects of the topic.
3b Article provides an excellent introduction to the cultural heritage of the Cook Islands and does so balancing sufficient detail while remaining a cogent summary.

CRITERIA 4: - There is no evidence of bias or POV, the matter poses no controversy, and the facts are treated fairly and neutrally.

CRITERIA 5: - I do not see any indication of any issues concerning the article's stability

CRITERIA 6:

6a Image check to come (below).
6b Article has relevant images with appropriate captions per MOS.

Image check[edit]

Source spotcheck[edit]

Minor issues[edit]

The finest performances of the Ura are put on in Rarotonga.[14] - It might be appropriate, since this is Stanley's opinion, to state that "Travel writer David Stanley asserts that..." as a preface to the sentence.

Agreed, added. Please let me know which statements you wanted cited!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you'll indicate which statements need citations, I'd be glad to follow-up. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:31, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Blofeld:, @Rosiestep: - I stated above..."several sentences (most at the conclusion of paragraphs)"...some of the paragraphs end with a fact that needs to be sourced. --ColonelHenry (talk) 03:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I asked Caponer to take over the rest of the review, as real life obligations have me hamstrung right now.--ColonelHenry (talk) 03:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added/improved several refs. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Blofeld:, @Rosiestep:, it looks like you all have beautifully crafted yet another incredible article! I will conduct a more thorough review of the article and of the Colonel's comments and suggestions within the next few days. Even though I too am hamstrung in my real life, I would never miss an opportunity to review a Dr. Blofeld and Rosiestep collaboration! Thank you for your patience in advance! -- Caponer (talk) 03:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, no copyvios, 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): 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:
· · ·

@Dr. Blofeld:, @Rosiestep:, upon my more thorough review, I found that this article meets all the criteria for passing to Good Article status. I shared some of the Colonel's concerns mentioned above, and it looks like you all have more than adequately addressed those. With that said, it is my pleasure to pass this article to GA status! Thank you for all your tremendous work on this article! -- Caponer (talk) 23:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Caponer!♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]