Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Edward William Purvis

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No consensus to promote at this time - Ian Rose (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 22:06, 3 February 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Edward William Purvis

Nominator(s): KAVEBEAR (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I have found this subject to be such an interesting figure the more I researched into him. Edward William Purvis was British officers born in the Dutch East Indies who resigned his British army commission to settle in Hawaii where he was a major, a colonel and a vice-chamberlain. Even though the attribution has been doubted in recent years, his name is associated with the most well known Hawaiian musical instrument. I am confident with some suggestions and extra nudges I can get to A-Class quality. KAVEBEAR (talk) 11:57, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: G'day, I have a few comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 05:52, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

do we know what his parents were doing in the East Indies at the time of his birth? I assume his father potentially worked for the British administration?

From what I see in genealogy websites is that his father was also born in the East Indies and the family had been there since the day of his grandfather's time when it was a British colony. They seem to be merchants and businessman. Would those sources be considered reliable and the inclusion of stuff from that source be permissible? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:04, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not sure. I would lean towards no, and therefore note that potentially your other citation to that site should be replaced if possible. However, I'm not sure, really, so probably it would be best for you to post a query on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:33, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This will be what the article will be after removal of the contents only found in the Purvis Family Tree. I am suspecting that may be the case. I went ahead and asked on there anyway. Beside this, there are no other sources I can find for his birthplace, ~~exact date of birth,~~ details about his British services (the Hindi, Bengal and Chatham parts), fact he resigned, education at the Royal Military College, why he settled in Hawaii, ~~when he settled in Hawaii,~~ first occupation in Hawaii as palace guard and government clerk, work in cattle ranching with Judd, his cause of death and etc. So those information will just have to be removed and the article access by the stuff we can find in the available sources. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:33, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Linking the discussion on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#The Purvis Family Tree.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:04, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Information from non reliable sources removed for the time being.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:45, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

do we know why he transferred from the 31st to the 70th Regiment of Foot?

No, not in the sources I know of.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:59, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

do we know why he received the Royal Order of Kapiolani? Perhaps this could be mentioned in the body of the article?

No, royal orders award were not track that well in the 19th-century. It may have been given out to him just because he was associated with the king .--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:59, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"File:Edward W. Purvis, ca. 1880.png": needs a US licence in addition to the current one. I'd suggest PD-US-1923 would probably be acceptable

Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:59, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Honolulu Star-Bulletin" should be presented in italics as it is a newspaper title

Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:59, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

also is there an OCLC or ISSN or similar for that could be added for the "Honolulu Star-Bulletin"?

Included OCLC and italicized.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:02, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comments auntieruth (talk) 19:12, 3 January 2017 (UTC) Interesting article![reply]

I added some commas. It needs a grammar review that I don't have time for right now.
It was unclear to me without some additional digging what the relationships were between/among British, French, Hawaiians and Americans. In other words, why was this man actually commissioned as a major in the Hawaiian army, etc.It might be helpful to contextualize this a bit by weaving in a small amount of Hawaiian history.

I'm not understanding here. He settled in Hawaii and gain favor from the King. It had nothing to do with his national origins. He wasn't commissioned as a major in the Hawaiian army because of any relationships between/among British, French, Hawaiians and Americans. It's not explained in the source why he was commissioned and I only have speculations (which can't go in the article).--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:34, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know. Cheers

Regretfully oppose. I'm sorry, I hate to oppose and rarely do so but I don't believe this article meets criterion A2 (comprehensive, neglects no major facts or details). It's a short article (just over 800 words) and while we don't judge articles on length, it's indicative of a lack of detail.

There's nothing at all about his British Army career apart from the regiments he served in. When did he join? Did he buy his commission? Why did he choose the 70th? Why and when did he transfer? What did he do in Bengal?
How did he gain his commission in Hawaii? Did he have any particular military expertise? There's no mention of him doing anything outstanding and his career in the British Army was short.
What were his duties as Vice-Chamberlain? Did he do anything in the post other than accompany the king on a trip to Europe?
I can't parse the sentence "he had resigned this office of vice chamberlain after his superior Judd was dismissed from his post and asked to resign by the king", and why did Purvis resign?
Was he proven to be responsible for the satire? What were his motives?

I noticed this edit and the talk page. It's a pity a better source couldn't be found for some of that information but even with it the article wouldn't be comprehensive in my opinion. I'm sorry to oppose because you've clearly put a lot of work into the article and it's a very nice piece of work base on the sources available, but there's just not enough material for an A-class article. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.