Wikipedia:Peer review/Veiqia/archive1

Veiqia

I've listed this article for peer review because it was recently promoted to GA status and it was suggested to me that could be a Featured Article candidate. I've not participated in the FA process before, but would be interested to hear feedback on whether this could be an FA candidate.

Thanks, Lajmmoore (talk) 16:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Airship

A very interesting article. As requested, I will provide comments from an FAC standpoint below:

• Non-English-language terms should not be simply italicised, but put inside the relevant {{lang}} template (MOS:FORITA), possibly with an English-language gloss if needed. This is very important to increase accessibility—see MOS:OTHERLANG for the details on why.

• Be careful that you clearly outline the timeline in the lead—that a once prominent practice was discouraged during the nineteenth century and later disappeared, but has now revived in the twenty-first century. Otherwise you end up saying that "the last daubati was active between 1908 and 1910" and that a 21st century daubatai has tattoed several women. Both can't be true at the same time.

• The prose is alright, but could perhaps use a trip to WP:GOCE. There are a fair few errors, I noticed: "Veiqia can cultural impact outside Fiji", "Another example is Theodor Kleinschmidt who many several drawings of veiqia", "Indeed, veiqia were a soure of pride for women", "whether at pubsecence"

• The number of illustrations are really good—would be a really nice FA with this level of illustrative detail.

• Sometimes the prose gets a bit lost in itself. Take "As anthropologist Karen Jacobs has observed "the tattooed body is hard to collect"." this is somewhat oddly placed, coming just after the statement that records began to be collected, and the "as" at the beginning indicates a sort of logical statement that doesn't really follow. Incidents such as "Ema Tavola also designed a tattoo for Margaret Aull to mark the death of her grandmother" are a little too trivia-like.

• Otherwise, I think the article strikes a really good balance between WP:MTAU and giving lots of detail—what FA criterion 2b) demands.

Nice work. If you have any questions, feel free to ping me. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:59, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks very much for the review AirshipJungleman29 - these points are all really helpful. I've started with the lang links - but should I add veiqia as a lang link throughout? Or not because it's the topic of the page? Many thanks Lajmmoore (talk) 11:47, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
  • I believe you could go either way with that. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:29, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note to self - continue with copy editing and checking prose Lajmmoore (talk) 12:30, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

  Note, copy editing and prose checking done (by me at least) Lajmmoore (talk) 11:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks so much AirshipJungleman29, for the next step I took a look at the FAC guidence and it suggested to look for a mentor, would you be willing and have capacity? If not, I really appreciate the help so far! Lajmmoore (talk) 11:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be willing. I'd have to take a look at the sources first (first-timers at FAC have to pass a rigorous source spot-check) but after I do that I'll provide comments below. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks very much, please ping me if you need access to anything I used Lajmmoore (talk) 11:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Pre-FAC comments

As always, these are suggestions, not demands; feel free to refuse with justification. Common practice at FAC is to respond to each point with an indented reply directly underneath it (it makes it easier to see what has been actioned or not actioned in a lengthy set of comments) although if you don't have much to say to a series you can just say "all done/not done" after the final one.

Lead

• The first paragraph is perhaps a trifle too long with unnecessary detail. There is the semi-tautology of "By the early twentieth century ... between 1908 and 1910", and the prominence of Mageʼau Gray seems too high compared with her mentions in the article. Also, are you sure that the Veiqia Project should be italicised?
• "Historically, if a woman did not have veiqia she might find it difficult to find a husband." this is a slightly strange sentence. We know that its a historical practice already, so the first word is not needed, but rest is awkwardly in an conditional present tense.
• "A wide range of natural materials were used to make the tools for incision and for the ink. To break the skin, some materials used included stingray spines, lemon thorns or shark teeth. Inks were made from Acacia richii or Kauri pine." couple of things:
  • I wouldn't describe things used to break the skin as "materials"—better, to me, are "items" or perhaps "tools"
  • These three sentences are a bit wordy and unclear. The third sentence sounds very definite—inks were made out of two things—but it is confused by the first, which suggests they were made out of "a wide range of materials"; reading the article reveals that there was a third known substance—the soot of burnt candlenuts—but not "a wide range". I would personally remove the first introductory sentence and just focus on the materials/tools used for the job.
• The gloss for liku comes at its second appearance.
• "The tattoo practitioners were women" if this refers to the daubati, you can just refer to them as such.
• Would be nice for the image caption to be cited to the same source as provided on the Commons page. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Query from Z1720

@Lajmmoore: It has been over a month since the last comment. Is this ready to be closed and nominated for WP:FAC? Z1720 (talk) 15:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for following this up - I've never nominated anything for FAC before so was waiting for @AirshipJungleman29 (who I guess I busy, or I might have misunderstood) - I've completed to peer review tasks though Lajmmoore (talk) 20:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Really sorry about this Lajmmoore, completely forgot. Will leave comments shortly. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)