Jump to content

Talk:Jonah Kapena/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) 10:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Looks like you have had to wait for a long time to have this reviewed, so I'll try to be as prompt as possible. I see no reasons to quick fail this, so I will carry out a detailed review over the next few days. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 10:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

[edit]

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:
    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?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    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:
    C. It contains no original research:
    Spot checks reveal no issues: AGF on offline sources.
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
    Spot checks reveal no issues: AGF on offline sources.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    No information that I can find has been left out.
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
    No tangential material
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
    Issues with language have been addressed.
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
    No evidence of any instability.
  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:
    Available images have been included
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    Caption issues have been addressed
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Specific comments

[edit]
Biography
  • "under the school's first principal American missionary " is rather run-on and can be parsed many ways, and I personally have a strong preference for USA being used in place of "America".
  • I know it's linked, but can you add a brief phrase explaining what the "Kuhina Nui" is, inline?
  • "historian David Malo, Boaz Mahune, and Timothy Haʻalilio" If you're including a descriptor for the first of those, you should too for the others.
  • The break after the first paragraph is rather odd, as the last sentence of the first, and the first of the second, seem closely related. Can you shuffle them somehow?
  • The Constitution should be linked at the first use in the body.
  • "and represented her in the drafting of Hawaii's first constitution and declaration of rights. He and Boaz Mahune assisted American missionary William Richards in the endeavor." This is rather confusing to somebody who is unfamiliar with the situation. First, I'm assuming he assisted Mahune and Richards in the drafting, not the representation. Second, it would be helpful if you could clarify whether the other two were also representing particular members of the government.
  • If recent discoveries have cast doubt upon the authorship, then we should also use inline attribution when discussing the authorship the first time, even if it is to say something like "until year XXXX consensus among historians..."
  • This still has only one attributed sentence...if we're attributing the view that's casting doubt, shouldn't we attribute the original view as well?
Maybe I'm not making myself clear. Right now, you are saying "Mahune was credited...However, research shows that..." essentially, the article at this moment is saying that Mahune was wrongly credited. Is this what you want it to say?
@Vanamonde93: The issue is over a disagreement between the weight of the credit given to the native students. The Polynesian newspaper was the one to give "chief" credit to Mahune along with other Lahainaluna students. Osorio brings up this point in his book that this opinion is wrong and that the native students were not the "chief" originator of the document and that Richard play a greater role. This "chief" credit attribution to Mahune for the Bill of Rights has been repeated in other sources as well that I have not used in this article, so I do not want to write in it a way as if I summarizing two views that are the only existing ones. How about this?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 11:34, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is clearer, thank you.
  • "it was decided on April 2, 1845" do we know who made this decision?
  • Should Nobles in "House of Nobles" be capitalised?
  • "It was said that in this office..." by whom? The general public? Scholars? If we don't know it's fine, just leave it be.
  • Was Kamehameha III both a king and a chief justice, or are these different people? Also, as a monarch, he is presumably notable, so should be linked at the first use (even if that's a redlink).
  • Not a fan of the phrase "important paper." can we elaborate here, or use a different term? Widely circulated? Influential?
  • I'd rather not use parentheses for his tenures as author and editor. Can you work that into the prose?
  • In that case, the parentheses should read "(which ran from XXXX to YYYY)". As it is, I took it to mean something else altogether.
  • I presume Kapena could be married to different people because polygamy was legal at the time? Might be worth mentioning.
  • "It is not known if these two were the same person." The "these two" could use clarification, since you've mentioned several people in the previous sentences.
  • I've made a tweak here to make the section flow better, please take a look at it: I don't know the source material.
  • "Kalakaua" should be linked/explained at the first use, not the second.
Sources
  • Can you confirm that the "The Pacific Commercial Advertiser" is a reliable newspaper, and meets our guidelines for reliable sources?
  • Citation number 5 (Hawaii & Lydecker p.16-18) makes no mention of Richards.
  • My fault. Reading the wrong "Hawaii" reference. To prevent this:
  • Lydecker is the only author: can you remove "Hawaii," the title, from the inline refs?
  • Citation number 3 (Osorio 2002): the page number is off here (either that, or you are using a different edition, which you should fix/clarify in the sources).
  • My apologies: I was misreading. To prevent that, though, I would suggest:
  • Break up references to different works into different numbered refs. It's not hard to do, and would prevent confusion.
  • I've intentionally bundled the references together because if they were individualized it would lead to too many footnotes and over-citation. I've seen this done well in many high quality articles and generally having too many footnotes makes the article un-readable.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 11:47, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree, especially considering the length of this article, but since this is a matter of preference, I cannot compel you.
Images
  • "Grave marker of Kapena" in the caption: shouldn't it be "for Kapena" or "of Kapena's grave?"

General comments

[edit]
  • There's a few places in the "death and legacy" section where the language is not quite neutral, or uses an editorial voice too heavy. Phrases like "remarkable legacy" jump out at me. Could you give the section a once-over with this in mind?
  • Okay, this is mostly done, but I still take issue with the phrase " after a long of life of service to the Kingdom". Honestly it could just be dropped, without any loss to the prose.
  • At 861 words (not counting captions and quotes) this is a rather short article. This is not in and of itself a problem, but given the length we need to be absolutely sure it is comprehensive. Can you confirm that all the relevant material from these sources has been included, and that no major other sources are easily found?
  • I'm pausing for now, I'll be back in some hours or possibly tomorrow. So far, this seems to be a well-researched and well-written article, and I foresee no problems.
  • Okay, this is nearly there. There's a couple of minor issues for you to address, and I want to do a few spot-checks on sources, which my internet is too slow for at the moment. Shouldn't take me longer than the next 24 hours.
  • I have done a few spot checks, on most of the sources I could access. The issues above were trivialities, and there were no other problems. I'm happy to pass this as a GA. I hope the review process was helpful in improving the article. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 12:01, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jonah_Kapena/GA1&oldid=754207233"