Talk:Henry Hoʻolulu Pitman/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: ErrantX (talk · contribs) 12:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Happy to review this. First scan: passes all the quick fail criteria (I notice a diacritics discussion on the talk page, but that seems to have been resolved). Full review to follow, initial comments:


 * There are ref template errors visible on the page
 * Where?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 15:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks like Maile66 fixed it :) --Errant (chat!) 15:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * There are quite a lot of notes: in my first scan of them some seemed fully interesting and relevant enough to simply include in the article prose. One example: "According to historians Anita Manning and Justin Vance, Henry Hoʻolulu Pitman "has the unfortunate distinction of being the only known Hawaiian or Pacific Islander to die as a prisoner of war in the Civil War." or the note about his mixed-race which strikes me as perfectly acceptable content to include in the first section. It might be worth thinking about including them given the relative length of the notes section compared to the article.

Interesting subject matter. --Errant (chat!) 12:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * and built a beautiful two-storied house; beautiful seems subjective. Is this quoting the source?
 * Pitman 1931, p. 20.
 * Okay. --Errant (chat!) 14:34, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


 * There are a few duplicate links (for example: Kingdom of Hawaii, or the link to Carter's article)
 * Are you not suppose to establish a link every section?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 10:34, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * MOS:LINK says Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead, generally the accepted format is linked once within the body. --Errant (chat!) 14:34, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I delink a lot of obvious ones.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


 * because his enlistment was reported back in Hawaii as "Henry Pitman has run away from home and gone [to war]."; why who? This was unclear to me
 * It was knowledge within the American missionary community in Hawaii. The exact quote comes from a letter written by the daughter of missionary Gerrit P. Judd to her brother Albert Francis Judd in 1862 (Sister to A. F. Judd, Nov. 9, 1862, Judd Collection, MS Group 70, 28.7.13, BPBM).--KAVEBEAR (talk) 10:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Your addition for this looks fine --Errant (chat!) 14:34, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


 * indicating that unit assignment may have been influenced by how dark Hawaiians appeared.; is this strictly relevant to the Biography? Rather than an article about Hawaiians during the civil war? I appreciate the regiment he joined is important but is this critical to his biography?
 * I believe it is because the opinion of historians that skin color matter in the assignment of Hawaiian soldiers. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 10:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That's fine. --Errant (chat!) 14:34, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


 * However, historian Bob Dye and others claimed Pitman was placed in the colored regiments because of his mixed race despite regiment records which proved otherwise.; this sentence is SYNTH/OR to some degree. One source is presented with Dye's view (OR: were are the others?) and then this is countered with a rebuttal, but the source for that merely says he was in a White regiment (without referring to regiment records) (Synth).
 * Yeah I was afraid of that. Can we rephrase to seem less of a synthesis.
 * Historian Bob Dye and others claimed Pitman was placed in the colored regiments because of his mixed race. Regiment records proved otherwise.
 * Historian Bob Dye and others claimed Pitman was placed in the colored regiments because of his mixed race. However, regiment records stated he was placed in the 22nd Regiment Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry, a white regiment.
 * What you have in the article not seems fine. --Errant (chat!) 14:34, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Huh? Was this a typo or do you mean it's not fine. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 17:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Gah, sorry, I meant it is fine. Sorry. --Errant (chat!) 17:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Cheers. --Errant (chat!) 09:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I want to expand the introduction to be more of a feature quality. Are there any editors that you know might be able to help? I'm horrible with writing good, detailed introductions. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * So, yes, my final comment was going to be that the lead section is a little short for an article of this length. I can't think offhand of anyone who would be able to help (all the people I can think of no longer edit, because I've been away for about 2 years..). But I will have a think.. You've done a great job on the rest of the article. --Errant (chat!) 08:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * New lead is looking good. Do you feel you're done KAVEBEAR? I think I'd be happy to pass this :) --Errant (chat!) 15:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah sure thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)