Jump to content

Talk:New Zealand literature

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

Tasks to do

[edit]

I've tried to make a start getting this article into better shape. These are some of the outstanding tasks as I see them (very grateful to anyone else who wants to pick up some of these, or make other improvements):

  • Improve coverage of Māori/Pasifika literature, and not just in the relevant section (should be integrated into the whole of the article).
This reference https://landfallreview.com/twinned-roots/ contains information about Chinese heritage writing in New Zealand that could be included in various parts of the article. I have added some in two sections. Pakoire (talk) 07:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Improve fiction coverage. I started with the 1950s/1960s, then added in our two Booker Prize winners. There's plenty more to be covered, and I'm not sure how best to do it without the section either becoming just a massive list of notable authors or becoming way too long and unwieldy.
  • Improve poetry coverage. Again, I started with the 1950s/1960s, added in a bit from the 1970s/1980s, current Poet Laureates then ran out of steam.
  • Add non-fiction section? It springs to mind that this would include Janet Frame's autobiographies, Michael King's Penguin History of New Zealand but I'm not sure what else.
  • Add periodicals section? At the moment Landfall and Te Ao Hou / The New World are mentioned briefly at the top of the modern literature section, but there could be a section covering also Phoenix, Tomorrow, The New Zealand Listener, etc.
  • Add section on literary awards? This only needs to be a paragraph, but I think the Ockham New Zealand Book Awards, Katherine Mansfield Menton Fellowship and Robert Burns Fellowship need highlighting.
  • Add more images to the article (iconic book covers, notable writers, etc).

Obviously length is going to be a potential issue, but I think the article can still fit more coverage at the moment, as it's about 33kb (mindful of WP:LENGTH). Will keep working on this off and on but grateful for anyone else who can chip in and improve. Chocmilk03 (talk) 11:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, also, the article lead needs to be expanded. Chocmilk03 (talk) 13:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Pakoire: Hiya Pakoire, just pinging you as I see you've improved the article in the past. If you had any capacity to help with any of the above (or indeed anything else) that would be wonderful. No pressure though! Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 14:28, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping Chocmilk03. Good work on your work to date. With improvement to Māori coverage I suggest looking for sources that give agency to Māori and when I have time I will look for some too. Since the article includes oral literature the richness of Māori literature can be framed by this as well as Māori writing in English and Māori language (which is how the article is currently framed). It is also good to note that Māori had strong agency in creating a Te Reo written form rather than it being 'done for them' by the missionaries. I will look for a source for this - that the bible in Te Reo being so widely published and distributed is significant as Māori wanted to learn about the culture of the new people in Aotearoa.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pakoire (talk • contribs) 20:23, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Pakoire: Thanks very much! That's a really helpful steer and I can definitely work on those points too. (I noticed that before your recent edits the article had included a comment "As far as Māori literature can be said to exist".........!!! At least it is better than it was!) Chocmilk03 (talk) 16:29, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article looks in good shape. I suggest it gets nominated for GA review. Schwede66 19:08, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Schwede66: Thank you! That's a great suggestion; I have duly nominated it. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 23:31, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Chocmilk03: Great work on the article! I would like to add a section about literary festivals in New Zealand. Including Going West, Auckland Writers Festival, Verb and the Wellington Writers Festival, Dunedin Writers & Readers Festival etc. but am unsure while it is going through review. Is it too annoying for the reviewers to have new bits? Pakoire (talk) 09:32, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Pakoire! As the reviewer, I would say hold off a bit on adding those sections as the review is almost done. I think that will make logistics a bit easier, especially since I am going to be off-Wiki shortly for a conference I am attending, so responding to new content might drag the review on a bit too much. - Pax Verbum 17:34, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Pax85, and thanks Pakoire for the excellent suggestion. I think a section on literary festivals will be a really great addition. Happy to work with you on that when the GA review bit is over! Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 20:15, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Copy that Verbum & Chocmilk03. I will work on creating said articles (that surprisingly are missing). If I do drafts I will link in my user page @Chocmilk03: that you could add to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pakoire (talk • contribs) 11:29, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Pakoire: :) we're good to go now, happy to look at drafts at any point! Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 21:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:New Zealand literature/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Pax85 (talk · contribs) 06:32, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! I plan on reviewing the article over the next week or so. I also tend to do a bit of copy editing along the way. If you have any questions, feel free to ping me any time. As I complete each section, I will change the yellow "in progress" indicator to either on hold , pass , or fail . -Pax Verbum 06:32, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    Hah, yes, 1893; fixed! Was there anything else you were going to say about the lead? (you mentioned below you had some comments on the content?) Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 06:58, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah yes, thank you for that reminder! I will add those comments in a jiffy. -Pax Verbum 17:02, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    • Lead: Brief, and summarizes the topic well, with an appropriate length compared to the rest of the article. I do have some comments on the particular content in the lead, but I will address those in 1a.-Pax Verbum 06:00, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further lead comments: I know I said I would put these above, but I think they are better here. Overall, I think the lead is a good summary, but the more I reflect on it after spending some more time with the article, I do believe the concluding sentence/paragraph can use a bit of expansion, just a sentence or two I think. The first paragraph summarizes well the history of NZ lit., leaving the summary of the modern state of NZ lit. to the second paragraph. Good. That said, I think a general comment or two about what those writers now focus on might be helpful. Even better, perhaps a comment or two on the rise of the NZ awards and journals, which aren't mentioned in the lead at all, but do have sizeable sections in the article itself.
    Totally agree, I struggled a lot with the lead to be honest so not surprised it isn't quite there yet! I've had a go at expanding; it's difficult because I don't want to focus too much unduly on any specific writers/areas and it really is such a broad topic... but I've added an initial sentence which I hope now gives a better context. Let me know your thoughts? Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 21:21, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I just took a look at the changes, and I think that's a terrific addition! I'm mobile right now, so in a few hours I'll go ahead and wrap up this GA when I'm back at a computer. :) -Pax Verbum 23:42, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    • There is indeed a list of references that appears quite extensive, with consistent formatting of the references themselves. That said, I believe in this article the "Notes" section should be reserved for explanatory footnotes; if there are none, then that's OK - no need to list that section. Then the 83 inline citations should be listed in another section called "References", and finally the four books listed in a "Bibliography" or "Further reading" section. A decent example of this is the British literature article. Another good example is American literature, although it is done a bit differently there, combining the inline citations and explanatory notes into one section. While "Notes" is a perfectly acceptable title for this section according to the MOS, I believe for this article, the more common title of "References" should be used for this section, particularly for clarity: listing only the four books under "References" gives the impression that those are the only references when that is clearly not the case. If you prefer to use "Notes" then the section titled "References" should definitely be renamed to avoid confusion for readers and future editors. -Pax Verbum 05:29, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Makes perfect sense, thanks. I've amended to 'References' and 'Bibliography' respectively and I think I prefer that as well. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 08:42, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good! My project for tonight (for me, in about two hours, local time) will be going through all the sources for 2b. Then tomorrow and over the next couple days, I'll go through the body of the article itself. -Pax Verbum 01:42, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    Thanks for catching that, sorted! Noted the in-use tag too so I'll hold off on any other edits. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 21:31, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good! We had a bit of an edit conflict when you corrected the sources; hopefully I was able to straighten everything out with your changes and mine! -Pax Verbum 05:57, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • A good variety of sources, both secondary and appropriate primary sources. The only thing I would note here is that a lot of the sources come from one place, the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, hosted by the government. That's not a problem for this reviewer for GA status since the articles have many different authors and everything seems to be unbiased, but a larger selection (or using citations from the sources of those articles) might be helpful moving forward. Overall, the Encyclopedia of NZ seems to be a wonderful resource! -Pax Verbum 19:09, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! Will keep that in mind. It's definitely a great resource, but agree that more diversity in sources could be an additional improvement. :) Chocmilk03 (talk) 21:31, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
    • No copyright violations or plagiarism apparent, although just a heads up: there are a couple of places where the phrasing is very similar to outside sources. It's not an issue in the article, but it's something to be aware of, that as we are writing, sometimes similar phrases still sneak themselves into the article. Again, to be clear, not an issue here, but something to watch for in the future. -Pax Verbum 05:40, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I will definitely try to be more conscious of this! Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 08:42, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    • Comparing to other literature articles and my own personal (although limited) familiarity with NZ, the article seems to address the main topics well. -Pax Verbum 05:57, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It might be helpful for the reader to define "Pasifika" in the modern literature section, even if as a parenthetical or a short clause. For example: "Notable Pasifika writers with connections to New Zealand include..." -Pax Verbum 05:57, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, good suggestion. Have amended in the article, is that what you were thinking? Chocmilk03 (talk) 06:58, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good to me! - Pax Verbum 17:04, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
    Absolutely. I am working on one of them at the moment :) Chocmilk03 (talk) 06:58, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
    • In the "Maoriland" section: "In 1901, William Satchell launched a magazine called The Maorilander, and the leftwing labour journal..." - You might consider using the term "liberal-leaning" rather than leftwing, or perhaps another term. Leftwing and rightwing tend to be be quite charged, especially in certain parts of the world. -Pax Verbum 21:03, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, I think "leftwing" is accurate even in the politically charged context, and "liberal-leaning" would be an understatement. The magazine is/was generally described as socialist and radical. I've added another source with more details about it; see if you agree? Chocmilk03 (talk) 06:58, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for that. Yes, I would agree. - Pax Verbum 17:07, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
    • Article seems stable. No ongoing edit wars and doesn't seem to be in a major state of construction.
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    • With the exception of the two noted below, all images seem to have the appropriate licensing and status.
    • The Katherine Mansfield image is tagged as public domain in its country of origin, but a US public domain tag still needs to be added to the file on Commons. If I am understanding the requirements correctly, it needs a PD tag both for the country of origin and for the US in order to be used.
    • Same issue with the New Zealand Illustrated cover: it is tagged as PD in NZ, but it appears to need a PD tag for the US as well.
    Thanks, I have reviewed those two images and added the appropriate US PD tags (I wasn't aware of that requirement, so good to know!). Both images are old enough (1919 & 1905) that they were public domain in NZ well before the 1 January 1996 URAA date. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 22:24, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good! -Pax Verbum 05:02, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

Pass or Fail:

Placing on hold as we work out the last few bits (whether they are corrections or discussions). Once that's done, I see no issue with this one being promoted! -Pax Verbum 05:57, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations! Time to promote this to Good Article status! This article was well-written and informative. As someone with family connections to NZ, it was a true joy to get another taste of all things Kiwi. I was also able to add a few books to my "to-read" list. Thanks again and all the best! Cheers! -Pax Verbum 06:27, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Pax85: Woohoo! Thanks so much!! Really grateful for your helpful comments & work on the article. Enjoy the books! :) Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 21:02, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 05:31, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • ... that New Zealand literature only began to flourish in the mid-20th century? Source: "New Zealanders have long been avid readers, but until the mid-20th century most of the literature they consumed was imported from Britain. Historian and poet Keith Sinclair identified the 1950s as the decade 'when the New Zealand intellect and imagination came alive'." [1]
    • ALT1:... that Māori fiction written in English, now a key part of New Zealand literature, only emerged in the 1950s? Source: "Māori fiction of any description did not appear until the 1950s ..." [2]; for the importance of Maori writing to NZ literature see [3]

Improved to Good Article status by Chocmilk03 (talk). Self-nominated at 08:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Yes - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
  • Interesting: Yes
  • Other problems: No - I'm concerned about ALT0, which as the source indicates is at least partly an opinion-based statement. I would say ALT1 needs to be tweaked since it's not clear from the hook whether it refers to Maori language literature or English language works by Maori people.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: (t · c) buidhe 12:18, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: Thank you! Fair comment on ALT0. With ALT1 it's the latter -- how is the amendment? This is supported by both sources, I think. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 20:08, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
looks good! (t · c) buidhe 06:59, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ALT1 to T:DYK/P7
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_Zealand_literature&oldid=1251167871"