Talk:Joseph Nāwahī/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 14:48, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:48, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I'll copyedit as I go through; please revert if I screw anything up. I'll add notes as I go so it might take me a couple of days to complete the review. Generally this looks in excellent shape, so I'm going to review the prose a little more strictly, as I would for FAC.

• Through his long political service during the monarchy and the important roles he played in the resistance and opposition to the overthrow: my immediate reaction was "the overthrow of what?". I think this could be fixed by making "opposition to its overthrow".

• Changed.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:27, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• established himself as a leader in the opposition to the unpopular Bayonet Constitution of 1887 and loyalty to the idea of Hawaiian nationhood: not quite clear on the second half of this. He presumably wasn't in opposition to the idea of nationhood, but that's how it reads.

• Changed.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:27, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• I imagine "chiefly" is standard terminology in discussion of Hawaiian history, but it reads oddly to someone unfamiliar with the topic. Could it perhaps be linked, or given a footnote or a parenthetical explanatory comment?

• Changed.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:27, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• Nāwahī remained loyal to his Hawaiian roots evident by his later political opposition to the descendants of the missionaries: I don't think this quite works. Perhaps "...roots, as evidenced by..." or "...roots, and was later a political opponent of the descendants..."?

• Changed.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:27, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• Other sources claimed this first marriage ended in divorce and his first wife survived: You can't say "other sources" since you haven't mentioned any sources yet. You could either include the sources and a discussion of them in the body of the article, or put that discussion in a footnote.

• Added more detail.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:27, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• You say "controversial 1874 election"; this is the first time the year is given. It would be more natural to give the year earlier, when describing those events, and then just say "controversial election".

• Added 1874 to the previous paragraph.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:27, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• Nāwahī blasted the treaty, calling it: you've already said he opposed it; I think you can just say "Nāwahī called the treaty".

• Changed.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:27, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• the cessation of Pearl Harbor: What does this mean?

• Cession, I mean.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:27, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• When you say "Nāwahī remained an independent", I think this is referring to his political position, but I took it to mean he was in the House of Representatives again, which can't be true since he lost in 1886 and 1887.

  It was the ticket he ran under. The Reform Party became the governmental party and he ran under an oppositional stance. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:27, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

  Much more informative now. But now it says Instigators of this coup d'état formed the Reform Party, drawing its memberships from Hawaiian conservatives and citizens of foreign descent: I don't think we should have "coup d'état" in Wikipedia's voice -- can we ascribe the opinion inline? And it should be "membership", I think, not "memberships". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:09, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

  What is wrong with using "coup d'état"? Changed to membership.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

  It's in quotes, which I assumed meant that you were using Osorio's description because it was not neutral. If it's not neutral, then it should be attributed inline, but if it's generally regarded as a coup, I think you can take out the quotes. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:11, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

  It's in italic not quotes. Generally coup d'état is italized.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

  D'oh. Must have been looking at it in edit mode; sorry about that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• due to the disenfranchisement of much of his native constituencies: can we get some details here? Perhaps just in a footnote if you think it's a digression.

  Added more detail.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:27, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

  I don't see it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:09, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

  This constitution limited the absolute power of the monarch and strengthened the power of the executive cabinet. It also raised property requirements for suffrage, disenfranchised many poor Native Hawaiians and naturalized Asian citizens, and gave the vote to unnaturalized foreign residents of European or American descent. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

  You're right; I missed that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:11, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• The legislature is biannual, so there must have been an election between 1887 and 1890. You don't mention if Nāwahī ran; do we know?

  There was no regular election in 1888 (which was the year of the next one). The elected candidates from the special 1887 election sat in both the special 1887 session and the regular session of 1888.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:27, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

  Ah, OK. Can we say that in the article? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:09, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

  Does the changes I made make it more clear?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

  That helps, but could we add a footnote to "regular session of 1888" saying something like "There was no election in 1888; sitting representatives continued to hold their seats during the 1888 session"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:11, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• a constitutional convention to draft a new constitution to replace the existing Bayonet Constitution: rephrase to avoid repetition of "constitution". Same problem again a few sentences later in the next section.

  Is there a good synonym for constitution? It is important to call it a "constitutional convention" so I don't want to change that and we can change it to document in the second usage but that doesn't seem right.

  I think you can just say "a constitutional convention to draft a replacement for..."; what else is a constitutional convention going to do than draft a constitution? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:09, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

  Made change as recommended.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• You don't need the "main" link in the "Legislature of 1892-93" section -- you have a link to it in the text.

• Removed.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:27, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• Nāwahī was re-elected to his vacant legislative seat in December: why "vacant"?

  Constitutionally, he had to resign when appointed as a cabinet minister. A special election in December was called to fill his vacant seat. He won the seat back again.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:27, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

  Can we explain this in the article? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:09, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

  Made some additions.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• members of Hui Kālaiʻāina: this has not been mentioned before; can we get an explanation?

• Added a footnote. It is hard to explain this in the text since it is in the middle of another sentence.

• In the "During the overthrow" section it is mentioned twice that members of Hui Kālaiʻāina presented a sealed package containing the constitution.

• Removed.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:27, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• He was elected the President of the Hawaiian Patriotic League in 1893 You've just given the full name of the League; I think you could connect this to the previous sentence with a semicolon, and make it "and was elected President of the League later that year".

• Sentence sounds too long. I change the sentence using your suggestion.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:27, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• In the discussion of his funeral you use the phrase "head of state", but he was never the head of state, was he? He was Minister of Foreign Affairs for one day, and was head of the Liberal Party, but never ran the government as far as I can see. If the Liberals won the election of 1892, making him head of state in that legislature, the article doesn't say so.

  No, the funeral was just considered befitting a head of state. Nawahi was never head of state. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:27, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

  OK, but that's not clear from the current phrasing; I would reword it so the reader gets the point. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:09, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

  Changed.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:32, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

  I reworded it; revert if you don't like my version. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:11, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

That's everything I can see this pass; I'll read through again once these points are addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:00, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: There you go. Hope that addresses everything.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:27, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Some strikes above; a few points are still outstanding. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:09, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Addressed the remaining ones. @Mike Christie:--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

More strikes; two left, both quite minor points. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:11, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Looks good; passing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)