Talk:Meralda Warren

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleMeralda Warren has been listed as one of the Language and literature 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 26, 2014Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on December 17, 2013.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Meralda Warren and several children on Pitcairn Island wrote the first book published in both English and Pitkern, a South Pacific creole language?
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on June 28, 2017, and June 28, 2019.

consider[edit]

Is the importance of Meralda Warren as 'artist' really so great that she qualifies for a wikipedia entry? or is it because she happens to be worldfamous in Pitcairn. I am sure there are other small communities who have an artist who is at least as qualified as Meralda Warren. That Warren had criticism on the sexual abuse is a known fact, but many had, either pro or contra. Are they all getting a Lemma? What she had to say abt it was her personal opinion and could easily be countered by the fact that the court decided that British law alsways had been law on pitcairn. Apparently Warren herself - as witnessed by this very lemma- that there was underage sex. That she had no problem with it doesnt mean other girls had no problem with it. One of her critics is Brenda Christian, a former Mayor who took office after her brother Steve Christian and the prior mayor, was arrested for child abuse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.159.130.241 (talk) 21:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


I don't know about artist, but the verse of hers that is quoted pretty much proves she isn't a poet. Aredbeardeddwarf (talk) 22:17, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Add to Lead[edit]

Rework Lead to put what is most significant earlier in it - the first book in Pitkern and English. If she is most recognized as an artist and poet, that should be emphasized.Parkwells (talk) 13:52, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Meralda Warren/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Seabuckthorn (talk · contribs) 00:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator: ColonelHenry (talk)

Hi! My review for this article will be here shortly. --Seabuckthorn  00:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]


1: Well-written

Check for WP:LEAD:

  1. Check for Correct Structure of Lead Section:  Done
  2. Check for Citations (WP:LEADCITE):  Done
  3. Check for Introductory text:  Done
    • Check for Provide an accessible overview (MOS:INTRO):  Done
    • Check for Relative emphasis:  Done
    • Check for Opening paragraph (MOS:BEGIN):  Done
      • Check for First sentence (WP:LEADSENTENCE):  Done
        • Meralda Elva Junior Warren (born 28 June 1959) is an artist and poet of Pitcairn Island, a remote British Overseas Territory in the South Pacific.
      • Check for Format of the first sentence (MOS:BOLDTITLE):  Done
      • Check for Proper names and titles:  Done
      • Check for Abbreviations and synonyms (MOS:BOLDSYN): None
      • Check for Foreign language (MOS:FORLANG): None
      • Check for Pronunciation: None
      • Check for Contextual links (MOS:CONTEXTLINK):  Done
      • Check for Biographies:  Done
      • Check for Organisms: NA
  4. Check for Biographies of living persons:  Done
  5. Check for Alternative names (MOS:LEADALT):  Done
    • Check for Non-English titles:
    • Check for Usage in first sentence:
    • Check for Separate section usage:
  6. Check for Length (WP:LEADLENGTH):  Done
  7. Check for Clutter (WP:LEADCLUTTER): None
 Done

Check for WP:LAYOUT:  Done

  1. Check for Body sections: WP:BODY, MOS:BODY.  Done
    • Check for Headings and sections:  Done
    • Check for Section templates and summary style:  Done
    • Check for Paragraphs (MOS:PARAGRAPHS):  Done
  2. Check for Standard appendices and footers (MOS:APPENDIX):  Done
    • Check for Order of sections (WP:ORDER):  Done
    • Check for Works or publications:  Done
    • Check for See also section (MOS:SEEALSO):  Done
    • Check for Notes and references (WP:FNNR):  Done
    • Check for Further reading (WP:FURTHER):  Done
    • Check for External links (WP:LAYOUTEL):  Done
    • Check for Links to sister projects:  Done
    • Check for Navigation templates:  Done
  3. Check for Formatting:  Done
    • Check for Images (WP:LAYIM):  Done
    • Check for Links:  Done
    • Check for Horizontal rule (WP:LINE):  Done
 Done

Check for WP:WTW:  Done

  1. Check for Words that may introduce bias:  Done
    • Check for Puffery (WP:PEA):  Done
    • Check for Contentious labels (WP:LABEL):  Done
    • Check for Unsupported attributions (WP:WEASEL):  Done
    • Check for Expressions of doubt (WP:ALLEGED):  Done
    • Check for Editorializing (MOS:OPED):  Done
    • Check for Synonyms for said (WP:SAY):  Done
  2. Check for Expressions that lack precision:  Done
    • Check for Euphemisms (WP:EUPHEMISM):  Done
    • Check for Clichés and idioms (WP:IDIOM):  Done
    • Check for Relative time references (WP:REALTIME):  Done
    • Check for Neologisms (WP:PEA): None
  3. Check for Offensive material (WP:F***):  Done

Check for WP:MOSFICT:  Done

  1. Check for Real-world perspective (WP:Real world):  Done
    • Check for Primary and secondary information (WP:PASI):  Done
    • Check for Contextual presentation (MOS:PLOT):  Done
 Done

Check for WP:BLP:

  1. Check for Writing style (WP:BLPSTYLE):
    • Check for Tone:
    • Check for Balance (WP:COAT):
  2. Check for Reliable sources:
    • Check for Challenged or likely to be challenged (WP:BLPSOURCES):
    • Check for Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material (WP:GRAPEVINE):
    • Check for Avoid gossip and feedback loops (WP:BLPGOSSIP):
    • Check for Avoid misuse of primary sources (WP:BLPPRIMARY):
    • Check for Avoid self-published sources (WP:BLPSPS):
    • Check for Further reading, external links, and see also (WP:BLPEL):
  3. Check for Presumption in favor of privacy:
    • Check for Avoid victimization (WP:AVOIDVICTIM):
    • Check for Public figures (WP:PUBLICFIGURE):
    • Check for Privacy of personal information and using primary sources (WP:DOB):
    • Check for People who are relatively unknown (WP:NPF):
    • Check for Subjects notable only for one event (WP:BLP1E):
    • Check for Persons accused of crime' (WP:BLPCRIME):
    • Check for Privacy of names (WP:BLPNAME):


2: Verifiable with no original research

 Done

Check for WP:RS:  Done

  1. Check for the material (WP:RSVETTING): (contentious)  Done
    • Is it contentious?: Yes
    • Does the ref indeed support the material?:
  2. Check for the author (WP:RSVETTING):  Done
    • Who is the author?:
    • Does the author have a Wikipedia article?:
    • What are the author's academic credentials and professional experience?:
    • What else has the author published?:
    • Is the author, or this work, cited in other reliable sources? In academic works?:
  3. Check for the publication (WP:RSVETTING):  Done
  4. Check for Self-published sources (WP:SPS):
 Done

Check for inline citations WP:MINREF:  Done

  1. Check for Direct quotations:  Done
  2. Check for Likely to be challenged:  Done
  3. Check for Contentious material about living persons (WP:BLP): NA
 Done
  1. Check for primary sources (WP:PRIMARY):  Done
  2. Check for synthesis (WP:SYN):  Done
  3. Check for original images (WP:OI):  Done


3: Broad in its coverage

 Done
  1. Check for Article scope as defined by reliable sources:
    1. Check for The extent of the subject matter in these RS:
    2. Check for Out of scope:
  2. Check for The range of material that belongs in the article:
    1. Check for All material that is notable is covered:
    2. Check for All material that is referenced is covered:
    3. Check for All material that a reader would be likely to agree matches the specified scope is covered:
    4. Check for The most general scope that summarises essentially all knowledge:
    5. Check for Stay on topic and no wandering off-topic (WP:OFFTOPIC):
b. Focused:
 Done
  1. Check for Readability issues (WP:LENGTH):
  2. Check for Article size (WP:TOO LONG!):


4: Neutral

 Done

4. Fair representation without bias:  Done

  1. Check for POV (WP:YESPOV):  Done
  2. Check for naming (WP:POVNAMING):  Done
  3. Check for structure (WP:STRUCTURE):  Done
  4. Check for Due and undue weight (WP:DUE):  Done
  5. Check for Balancing aspects (WP:BALASPS):  Done
  6. Check for Giving "equal validity" (WP:VALID):  Done
  7. Check for Balance (WP:YESPOV):  Done
  8. Check for Impartial tone (WP:IMPARTIAL):  Done
  9. Check for Describing aesthetic opinions (WP:SUBJECTIVE):  Done
  10. Check for Words to watch (WP:YESPOV):  Done
  11. Check for Attributing and specifying biased statements (WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV):  Done
  12. Check for Fringe theories and pseudoscience (WP:PSCI): None
  13. Check for Religion (WP:RNPOV): None


5: Stable: No edit wars, etc: Yes

6: Images  Done (None)

Images:
 Done

6: Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:  Done

  1. Check for copyright tags (WP:TAGS):  Done
  2. Check for copyright status:  Done
  3. Check for non-free content (WP:NFC):  Done
  4. Check for valid fair use rationales (WP:FUR):  Done

6: Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:  Done

  1. Check for image relevance (WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE):  Done
  2. Check for Images for the lead (WP:LEADIMAGE):  Done
  3. Check for suitable captions (WP:CAPTION):  Done


As per the above checklist, there are no issues with the article and it’s a GA. Thanks, ColonelHenry, very much for your diligence in writing such great articles.

Promoting the article to GA status. --Seabuckthorn  23:33, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]