Wikipedia:Peer review/Macauley Island/archive1

Macauley Island

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion is closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to bring it to FAC in the future, but there were comments that the prose and perhaps other aspects weren't ready for it yet.

Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:05, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Traumnovelle

Just a quick look but I noticed the sence 'but it is likely that Polynesians visited the island during the last 700 years despite the lack of direct archaeological evidence.' Which should state why it is likely Polynesians visited the island. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:29, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is what the source says: There is so far no archaeological evidence by which to date their arrival on Macauley Island but it is likely that they reached the island at about the same time as reaching Raoul Island, given their rapid patterns of discovery within other Pacific archipelagos of similar size. Kiore or Pacific rats (Rattus exulans) are most likely to have been introduced by Polynesians to Macauley Island at the same time (Wilmshurst et al. 2011). The first account of the islands’s vegetation by Captain W. Sever of the Lady Penrhyn in 1788 is of a deforested island (see Oliver 1910). Although Macauley Island was uninhabited at that time, its deforestation is entirely consistent with Polynesian settlement, even periodic, on islands throughout the Pacific, where existing forest was cleared to make way for agriculture (Rolett & Diamond 2004). I must confess that at the moment I am not sure how to formulate this in the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:55, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are there more sources that support this? With just one source I'd consider it a theory rather than an accepted belief. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:39, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My impression is that this one of these cases where the evidence is sufficient (there aren't any other plausible mechanisms) so it's a question of how to formulate this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:31, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kusma

Will try to leave some comments. —Kusma (talk) 09:09, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The geography really would benefit from something like a bathymetric chart to make it easier to understand. Is it correct that this one is PD?

Sorry, need to interrupt myself already. —Kusma (talk) 20:02, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, "Image courtesy of New Zealand Nat. Inst. of Water & Atmospheric Research," means that it's a New Zealand work not an US work, so probably not. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:38, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you think the Smithsonian is illegally promoting the image as PD, you should consider using something like {{external media}} to link to it prominently. Without some image, it is very hard to visualise the volcano (as opposed to the island). —Kusma (talk) 11:52, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Bad website design with regards to copyright tags is pretty common; I wouldn't read too much into it. The thing though is that "Image courtesy of" is usually a sign that the website is displaying someone else's image. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:17, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lead: what is the protected area called? Link?
Pluralized this instead. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:38, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Does the volcano have a name? A lot of the article is about the volcano or about the wider island group; it might be good to clarify the scope.
This isn't one of these volcanoes where each component has its own name, so everything is lumped under "Macauley Island" Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:38, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Eruption history: "easily" for geologists or for the average Joe?
Geologists. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:38, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
History: link to the specific ship instead of to the list.
I guess it's the Lady Penrhyn (1786 ship)? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:38, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Interesting ship: part of the First Fleet, then making some discoveries on the return voyage (even if that wasn't quite the plan). —Kusma (talk) 11:58, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Added, hopefully this won't raise any OR concerns. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:18, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First discovery should probably be clarified to European discovery.
I admit I am unsure whether this is Wikipedia standard for these claims. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:38, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would expect the history section much earlier and closer to the geography.
Moved it up. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:38, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did the excavations find anything at all?
Maybe, but the two Johnson sources aren't online. I'll ask at WP:RX Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:38, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently only charcoal and some things that might be tools but the researchers hedge on that interpretation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:48, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Generally there is quite some specialist geology terminology but it is not too bad overall.

Hope these are useful, —Kusma (talk) 16:26, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dracophyllum

After sending you the reports you wanted I decided to try and find some images. I've have added them quite hastily but I hope they are useful. Sorry I don't have time for a full review, my only other note is that I would insist on a better map for the infobox at FAC, possibly also a reproduction of one of the maps from the report. You can find other images of stuff on the island here. cheers, Draco phyllum 06:08, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's a lot of images of plants and animals - good illustrations for the flora/fauna, but I see you already expanded this. Any map you'd like to recommend for reproduction? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:52, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]