Talk:Lake Marakapia

GA review

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

Nominator: Generalissima (talk · contribs) 04:01, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Traumnovelle (talk · contribs) 00:03, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Only issues are a verifiability issue, which I may simply just be missing completely and clarification on whether the article can be expanded or if the coverage is limited to the lake in an ecological context Traumnovelle (talk) 00:03, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Only issue was an American spelling that I fixed. I will note the post-temporal comma (e.g. In 1951,) is discouraged in British English [1] and is considered an Americanism, although ENGVAR doesn't appear to be part of the GA criteria and I'd only be pedantic about it in an FA review. Traumnovelle (talk)

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. 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):

   C. It contains no original research:

   I wasn't able to verify the first sentence, specifically the part about Lake Marakapia being on an isthmus between Petre Bay and the lagoon. The avifauna observation study doesn't seem to mention Lake Marakapia either, although I have perhaps missed something here. Traumnovelle (talk)

   Did a further spot check now that the citation issue has been resolved and I did not spot any issues. I review half the sources that were freely available online.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Nothing on Earwig and nothing via spot-check.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   There is nothing on the human history, aside from the release of trout. Although if there is a lack of sources to support that information then this is ultimately not an issue. I did look through some New Zealand databases and found nothing myself to support anything in a section on the human history. Traumnovelle (talk)

   I was not able to find anything myself and we cannot write about what lacks sourcing.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   It was created yesterday admittedly but I find the likelihood of this becoming unstable incredibly low and I don't have notability concerns. Traumnovelle (talk)

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   There are non-digitised free images of the lake at the National Library [2] and you could try to contact DeLange to see if he has any relevant images to release of the lake. I will also upload a topographic map of the lake from Land and Information New Zealand. All of this is out of scope for the GA criteria however and the article meets the criteria. Traumnovelle (talk)

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

• @Traumnovelle: I resolved the citation errors. Sadly there seems to be no other mention of the human history of this lake - it's kind of out of the way of major settlements. Google Books results only turn up mentions in botanical specimens collected near there, and transcriptions of atlases and the like. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:20, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you. I had another reference spot check and everything I checked was verified (checked half the referenced material). I did notice a PhD thesis was cited per WP:THESIS 'If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature, supervised by recognized specialists in the field, or reviewed by independent parties.' are any of these true for the dissertation in question? Could a footnote be added to explain why Chatham Island is not a suitable spawning location for brown trout? I did check the brown trout article but it does not go into much detail. I have also uploaded a topographic map: File:Lake Marakapia map.png, should you wish to use it. However, none of these are part of the GA criteria so I've marked this as passed. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:52, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

  PhD theses are presumed reliable; its master's theses you got to be wary about. No further information about the island's suitability for trout seems to be apparent, and I think researching into trout generally would fall under OR or at least SYNTH. (Also, it doesn't seem to be marked as passed on my end) Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 04:54, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

  I may have done something wrong with the template, although I am not sure what. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:54, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

  Traumnovelle Just use GANReviewTool Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 08:05, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

  It should be fine now. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:53, 2 March 2026 (UTC)