Talk:Foveaux Strait

Foveaux Strait is currently a Geography good article nominee. Nominated by Alexeyevitch^(talk) at 08:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Anyone who has not contributed significantly to (or nominated) this article may review it according to the good article criteria to decide whether or not to list it as a good article. To start the review process, click start review and save the page. (See here for the good article instructions.)

Short description: Strait separating the South Island and Stewart Island

New Zealand High‑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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in New Zealand English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, analyse, centre, fiord) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

GAN[edit]

User:Marshelec and User:Cloventt. I have submitted this article as a nominee - it would be nice if a NZ Wikipedian would review it - I definitely don't want this article to be in a similar situation with the Aoraki / Mount Cook National Park article where it's been waiting for 4 months, any further comments and contributions to the article is appreciated. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 08:10, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first thing I notice while reading it is "The". I don't normally hear Foveaux Strait with the definite article when people mention it. Is this a Wikipedia house style thing? Daveosaurus (talk) 08:54, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the article as it stands today, I think it would not meet Criteria 1 of the Good Article criteria at WP:GACR. Significant work is required to achieve the quality of prose that is expected for GA quality assessment. There are several ways of proceeding from this point. One is to withdraw the GA nomination, and submit the article to the Guild of Copy Editors at WP:COPYEDITORS. However, there is a backlog, and there might not be any response from the Copy Editors for several months. Another option is to work with another editor, perhaps in a series of online meetings, to gradually work through the text line-by-line to discuss and implement necessary improvements. If you think this is a sensible approach, please consider inviting someone to take on this role to support you in getting the article to a standard where it would have a reasonable chance of passing a GA assessment. One point of feedback apart from prose is that usually, a Good Article will have an Infobox. For examples see Cook Strait and Bosporus._Marshelec (talk) 08:56, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Panamitsu made some helpful contributions to the article this eveining... I realized that the Cullen 1967 ref is ideal for the geology section, and I also realized that I mistakenly said it was the Turnbull book citation, so ignore that. Both sources are great for this article. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 10:16, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:GACN, infoboxes are not part of the criteria for a GA, but it doesn't hurt to add one.

I think the prose generally does meet the criteria in that it is clear and concise with correct spelling and grammar. A quick skim reveals some possible words to watch, but I don't think it would fail GAN on Criteria 1. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 22:38, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lede improvements[edit]

In order to get this article up to GA status... we will need a concise lede that summarizes the content well. I will improve content in the lede today - could be expanded, feel free to add and improve content. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 12:11, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]