Jump to content

Talk:Wellington Botanic Garden/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA review

[edit]

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.


GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Nominator: Wainuiomartian (talk · contribs) 22:04, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Jonathanischoice (talk · contribs) 03:27, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Happy to review this, looks pretty good so far; I will probably not get much chance before this weekend, however. — Jon (talk) 03:27, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for reviewing the article. I've attended to most of the comments, and rewrote/expanded the first part of the history section. I could go through looking for alternatives to WCC articles (primary sources) but I believe they are all basic and non-controversial, and in the case of the management plan, relevant. Please let me know what else needs doing. Wainuiomartian (talk) 04:21, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Wainuiomartian: I think this is meeting all the criteria, with only one point left, about the early British colonial gardens' connection with Kew. I don't have the history book to hand, but this paragraph in the Hector book on p. 78 seems relevant:
“During the 1870s and ’80s, the Wellington Botanic Garden’s connection with the Royal Botanic Garden at Kew made it part of a network of botanic gardens in British possessions around the world. This led to it becoming an active participant in the international exchange of plants, which became particularly intense during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. During Hector’s time the trade was not one way. Hector had become a personal friend of the Kew director, Joseph Hooker, after agreeing to host Hooker’s son when he came to New Zealand for the benefit of his health. Hooker subsequently took an interest in the development of the garden, advising Hector on how to use some of the difficult sites, suggesting plants to grow, and sending seed of rhododendrons from Sikkim. In addition, Hooker wrote about and sent sketches of the pinetum—a plantation of pine trees and other conifers—he was developing at Kew.”[1]
Amusingly, there's also this quote on p. 71, “In 1866 Joseph Hooker, the director of B&W Gardens in London, wrote that he was ‘glad you [Hector] have started the museum at Wellington’ because ‘there is nothing like a museum and gardens to screw money out of the public for science’”! Thoughts? — Jon (talk) 02:52, 14 March 2025 (UTC) Jon (talk) 02:52, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Review criteria

[edit]
Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. Good prose, conforms to specified NZ English.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. lead ok; watch words ok; layout ok; fiction n/a; lists n/a.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. References conform to layout guidelines.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). RS ok; coverage ok.
2c. it contains no original research. No original research, spot check ok.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. The Copyvio report returns 24% and matches are mostly proper nouns.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Coverage ok.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). No over-detailed sections.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. No evident controversial or biased content.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. No evident current controversies or disputes.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. All images are on Commons with appropriate licenses.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Images are good, relevant, with captions.
7. Overall assessment.

Comments

[edit]

Book now in Wikidata.[2]

Lead/introduction
  • Too many ands at the end: The garden is managed by Wellington City Council, and features protected native forest, conifers, plant collections and seasonal displays and an extensive rose garden. Suggest: "...plant collections, seasonal displays, and an extensive rose garden." (I'm an Oxford comma fan, but MOS:OXFORD is optional. For GA, whichever list comma style is used needs to be used consistently throughout the article). fixed
  • Plural acre unit used, It was later established as a botanic garden on a 5.3 ha (13 acres) site in 1868. When using units as an adjective, e.g. "a 3 metre (10 foot) pole" this is just a matter of using |adj=on with the {{convert}} template.[3] fixed
History
  • Watch word (criterion 1b) "however": However, the land was subsequently vested in the City of Wellington, with the passing of the Wellington Botanic Garden Vesting Act 1891. Suggest simply "The land was subsequently..." or re-wording e.g. "In 1891, with the passing of the act..." see MOS:EDITORIAL. It might also be worth mentioning here that clause 11 of the 1891 act set aside "no more than 6 acres" for the Governor to proclaim as Crown land for the observatory.  Done
  • Watch word "but" (MOS:EDITORIAL): but returned some of it in 1847. Suggest "returning some of it in 1847." Are we sweeping the colonial treatment of Māori and land, etc. under a rug here? Is it worth expanding here how and why that happened? (I genuinely don't know, but I found a possible source.)[1]
  • There is no mention of the connection of early British colonial gardens with Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew as detailed in Shepherd & Cook's book, and alluded to in a published review of same. It could help provide context for the early history.[2][4]  Done I added a sentence or two, since I did the legwork anyway 😀 Jon (talk)
Features
  • The word "current" is not needed here: the current rose garden was then established from 1950 to 1953, see MOS:RELTIME. fixed. (It was there to distinguish it from a previous rose garden at the soundshell, but I agree, not needed)
  • Not required for GA, but it would be cool to add what £300 in 1949 is worth now with the {{Inflation}} template, e.g. £300 (equivalent to $13,900 in 2024).  Done
  • Use of "now" (MOS:RELTIME): Some of these species are now endangered in their natural habitats – suggest something non-relative, like "Some of these species [planted in 19th C.] subsequently became endangered in their natural habitats" or similar. fixed
Visitors and tourism
  • Watch word (criterion 1b) "often": often rating in the top five visitor attractions Suggest expanding to use given ref examples, e.g. "rated in the top five attractions in the 2024 Lonely Planet guide" or similar. (It's also the fourth thing on Trip Advisor, but I'm not sure if they're a WP:RS?) See MOS:WHATPLACE. done
References
  • Duplicate references:
  • Use of WP:QUESTIONABLE sources:
    • Wellington City Council and Wellington Gardens websites are primary sources, which are only admissible when used to source basic, non-controversial factual information about the subject. To support the prose, ideally secondary (news) or tertiary sources can be used instead or as well.  Done The remaining WCC refs are only used for basic facts.
    • Wellington City Council press releases via Scoop (refs 57, 68) are primary sources and WP:NIS (non-independent). In context, providing non-controversial and easily verified information, this may not matter, see also WP:SKYBLUE.  Done Replaced 57 with a different source. 68 is backed up with another source.
    • Sandra's Garden (ref 32) is a personal WordPress blog. Per the WP:BLOGS guideline, these are usually ineligible but can be used in some situations, e.g. by considering the notability and expertise of the author in their field. Author is a journalist who has written a gardening column for a long time, but I have found other sources instead.
    • Masters theses (ref 14) are often ineligible due to lack of peer review.  Done This reference is only used for basic facts about garden features and assets.
  • Dead links in refs 6, 14, 58,65. Refs 6 and 65 can be fixed by adding |url-status=dead; ref 14 is fixable using the Vic URL instead of using Core (which complains that the original was deleted); ref 58 can use this Archive URL.  Done Replaced ref 65 with a Stuff article instead of WCC item.
  • Use of issuu: a published print journal article via issuu should have |via=Issuu field, not the work, website or publisher field. Ref 42 lacks the journal, issue and page details (The Botanic Gardiner, issue 53, p 60–65).  Done fixed I think?
Not required for GA, but while we're about it
  • I added Wayback Internet Archive links to most refs using the IABot, although there are some that will need to be manually added. I will add those myself since I already have them noted.
  • Refs 17, 22, 23, 33 that use the Wellington City Council's "Archives Online" site ought to have |publisher=Wellington City Council for clarity.
  • NZ Tree Register links (refs 45, 55) ought to have specific titles from the tree identifier and/or species, e.g. |title=WTR/0372 Pinus pinea and |title=WTR/0379 Sequoiadendron giganteum
  • New Zealand Herald article (ref 52) is missing author info: |first1=Vita |last1=Molyneux |first2=Nick |last2=James
  • Birdwatching Guide (ref 50) should have |publisher=Wellington City Council
  • Zealandia Kākā page (ref 51) should have |publisher=[[Zealandia (wildlife sanctuary)|Zealandia Te Māra a Tāne]]

References

  1. ^ a b Winsome Shepherd; Walter Cook (2008). "Planting for Prosperity". In Simon Nathan; Mary Varnham (eds.). The amazing world of James Hector. Wellington: Awa Press. p. 73-82. ISBN 978-0-9582750-7-1. Wikidata Q133105219.
  2. ^ a b Winsome Shepherd; Walter Cameron Cook (1988). The Botanic Garden, Wellington: A New Zealand History 1840–1987. Wellington: Millwood Press. ISBN 978-0-908582-79-2. OCLC 21271594. Wikidata Q133247623.
  3. ^ See template documentation: Adjective
  4. ^ E. C. Nelson (February 1992). "SHEPHERD, W. and COOK, W. The Botanic Garden, Wellington. A New Zealand history 1840–1987. Millwood Press, Wellington: 1988. Pp 396; illustrated. Price: none stated. ISBN: 0-908582-79-X". Archives of Natural History. 19 (1): 132. doi:10.3366/ANH.1992.19.1.132A. ISSN 0260-9541. Wikidata Q96149067.
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.