Talk:J. R. Kealoha/GA1

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

Reviewer: Hchc2009 (talk · contribs) 08:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll read through and review properly later today. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks great - just about to pass. Thanks for all your work on this! Hchc2009 (talk) 07:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct;


 * "After the outbreak of the American Civil War, the Kingdom of Hawaii under King Kamehameha IV declared its neutrality." - worth adding the year here, for non-US citizens, e.g. "After the outbreak of the American Civil War in..."
 * ✅--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * "However, many Native Hawaiians and Hawaii-born Americans (mainly descendants of the American missionaries) abroad and in the islands volunteered and enlisted in the military regiments of other states. " - which states?
 * States in the United States or the Confederacy at the time. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you'll need to give that in the text then; at the moment, the reader can't tell which states it is referring to here. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


 * "Native Hawaiians" and "native Hawaiians" - you'll need to be consistent on how you capitalise this
 * ✅--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * "Individual native Hawaiians have been serving" - from context, this should be "had been serving"
 * ✅--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * "Many combatants served under anglicized pseudonyms because they were easier to pronounce than Hawaiian language names and they were often registered as kanakas, the 19th-century term for Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders, with the Sandwich Islands (i.e. Hawaii) as their place of origin." - the sentence needs to break after "names".
 * ✅--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * "they were easier to pronounce than Hawaiian language names" - worth saying that they were easier for English-speaking Americans to pronounce? (I'm guessing the Hawaiians had no problems with it!)
 * ✅--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * "Kealoha fought in the Richmond-Petersburg Campaign," - would be worth giving dates for this
 * ✅--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * "Kealoha's service in the Civil War was recorded down" - "recorded down" didn't feel right. "recorded"? "written down"?
 * ✅--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * "started the effort to give him a grave marker." -"started an effort"
 * To be honest, I don't think this is necessary. Both works fine.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You'd typically use "the" as a definite article to refer to something or someone the reader already knows about. In this case, the effort hasn't been introduced before, so I think it should be the indefinite article in the first instance. After that, it would quite reasonable to use "the". Hchc2009 (talk) 18:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


 * "the Sandwich Islands" - I'd question the use of italics here under the MOS; would speech marks be more appropriate? Hchc2009 (talk) 18:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Anything else? Thanks!--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC) (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.


 * Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;


 * Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources 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;


 * Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

(c) it contains no original research.


 * None found. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;


 * Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).


 * Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.


 * Appears neutral at this stage. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:32, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.


 * Stable. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:32, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Illustrated, if possible, by images:

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;


 * Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:32, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.


 * Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:32, 4 October 2015 (UTC)