Talk:Kaʻiulani/GA1

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

Reviewer: Johannes Schade (talk · contribs) 11:44, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I would like to review the article Ka'iulani nominated by User:KAVEBEAR on 22 July 2020 for GA status. Johannes Schade (talk) 11:44, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Welcome
Dear KAVEBEAR. It is a pity you had to wait so long for a GA review of this excellent article that you submitted on 22 July. I see that you are an extremely experienced wikipedian, whereas I am almost a novice. It is an honour to help you. I see the article was rated B on 1 September. I applied the Rater script to your article, which calls ORES which rates your aricle "B or higher" with a confidence of 97.7%. I know nothing about Hawaii and have the advantages and shortcomings of a fresh look. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 12:22, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah it’s been a long wait. Pinging Maile66 who helped with expansion to see their feedback on future review. KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:38, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Cite book with Year parameter
I am just starting to look at your article. This looks all such a fine quality that I am quite convinced that there is nothing that would need to be added according to the GA Criteria (WP:GACR), which taken strictly (see WP:GANOT) are finally not so hard to meet.

However, may I please tell you about some minor possible issues. Seen your experience it is likely that you are right and I am mistaken. I am astonished to see you use the "Cite book" template with the "year" parameter. The documentation for "Cite book" says "year: Year of source being referenced. The usage of this parameter is discouraged. Use the more flexible |date= ...". If I understand it right the "year" parameter is intended for the "Cite journal" template. Johannes Schade (talk) 15:02, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Not sure. I’ve never heard of this rule. I just generally use year to refer to a single year and date for mdy. I think it’s discouraged for flexibility of edits later. If it is a big issue that the template itself should go back and clean everything, switching all year parameters to date using a bot because I can do it manually here but the same format is used in all my other articles and possibly other quality article. But let me know if it is a necessary change. KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:34, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This is all news to me. For myself, I generally use one of the drop-down templates from the edit view toolbar.  I have noticed here and there, that what any edit toolbar template uses is sometimes under review, and what was acceptable at one point, is superseded by something else. The year-date preference is one of those. — Maile  (talk) 18:52, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Surely not a requirement for GA. Perhaps I should not have mentioned it. I am still reading. Johannes Schade (talk) 08:18, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Heraldic twins
At first reading I did not understand what was meant with "Kameʻeiamoku was one of the royal twins along with Kamanawa depicted on the Hawaiian coat of arms ...". This is the beginning of the 2nd sentence of the 2nd paragraph of the section "Early life and family: 1875–1887". Having never seen the coat of arms of Hawaii, I thought that the twins appeared on the shield, which felt a bit odd. Indeed, as the article Coat of Arms explains, the coat of arms strictly speaking is "the heraldic visual design on an escutcheon (i.e. shield), surcoat, or tabbard". The Hawaiian twins are not part of the coat of arms but are the supporters of the shield in the "heraldic achievement" as they say. I am just reading up, I am in no ways an expert in heraldry. Might it be possible to avoid the possible misunderstanding? If you find it important enough, you could even add an illustration showing the Hawaiian coat of arms on its shield with its supporters. Johannes Schade (talk) 11:41, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not that familiar with heraldry myself and imagine all the historians who have written in passing about these two chiefs didn't know the difference between shield or supporters of a coat of arms either so hence the confusion for someone more well-versed in heraldry. How about: "Kameʻeiamoku was one of the royal twins along with Kamanawa depicted flanking the Hawaiian coat of arms"? KAVEBEAR (talk) 09:30, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Flanking describes it quite well but "supporter" is the technical term used in heraldry for the two figure surrounding the shield to the right and the left.

Could she speak Hawaiian?
Reading about family background made me wonder whether she could speak the Hawaiian language. The article does not seem to say anything about this?
 * Yes, she could and she was fluent in English, French and German as well. Other sources claim Italian and Spanish but seems like bad 19th-century newspaper reporting. I added a sentence to explicitly state that. KAVEBEAR (talk) 09:24, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Enroys
I do not understand "enroys" in the sentence: "Cleghorn paid for the travel expenses of Edward C. Macfarlane, another of the queen's enroys, to protect the rights of Kaʻiulani."
 * Changed to envoys. It was a typo. KAVEBEAR (talk) 09:10, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Wellwishers
The sentence "Thousands of well-wishers, including her cousin Kawānanakoa, greeted her at the harbor in Honolulu and showered with garlands of lei and flowers." Should it not be "showered her"? The word "lei" should be linked, at the first read I did not know what that was. Johannes Schade (talk) 20:56, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Made the suggest changes. Changed linking of lei to first mention. KAVEBEAR (talk) 09:26, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Dear KAVEBEAR. Thanks for accepting criticism so easily. I am trying to be constructive, but quite obviously I lack experience. This is only my 2nd review.

Continual health problems
The last sentence of the lead reads: "Suffering from continual health problems, Kaʻiulani died in 1899". I find that this, especially the word "continual" makes a reader who reads from A-Z think that Ka'iulani was sickly all her life. According to the details given in the body, if I understand it right, health problems made their appearance in the mid-1890s after the overthrow. Perhaps that might be clarified — Besides, it seems strange that she like her mother died so young.
 * I made some changes. I still don't like the wording but I think it addresses your concerns. KAVEBEAR (talk) 11:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I do not understand the use of for explanatory footnotes. I tried to find the documentation for this strangely-named template but found nothing. I would have used for that purpose but I am quite sure you know what you do. Sorry to bother you with this, it is more for my edification than for the advancement of the article.
 * I am not sure. This is how I have been adding footnotes for years. KAVEBEAR (talk) 11:30, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * In my humble opinion a bit old-fashioned by now and not user-friendly but of course no obstacle to a GA nomination.


 * I'm not an editor who ever understood how to do the tag references. But a lot of editors at Wikipedia use that method.  The closest I can find to a guideline is Template:Tag.— Maile  (talk) 13:38, 29 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Dear . Thank you for the link. It does shed some light on the issue. Having read up I understand it as follows: the "#tag:" is a MediaWiki parser function that allows to evaluate a MediaWiki magic word inside a tag, which is needed when you want to use inside . However this can also be done by replacing the tag with a template like  or , which I think is a more user-friendly way. The  template does precisely the same as  and the  template is similar but uses the default group instead of note. With many thanks, Johannes Schade (talk) 17:55, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Link to Internet Archive in Ref Webb
The link to the book by Webb & Webb in the section "Books and journals" does not work. This might be an error in the URL as searches in Internet Archive do find the book. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 11:25, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixed link. KAVEBEAR (talk) 11:29, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Kalākaua family tree
I realise that this is a template you are using and not directly a part of the article. However, I see you were involved. I find the family tree not easy to read. It should ideally include a legend. Another shortcoming seems to be a strange error that makes that all the L-shaped elbow bends are dashed instead of continuous. In the code "L" is used where one might expect "`". But perhaps you do not want to go into this now. It is admittedly outside the scope of the GA review of Ka'iulani.
 * Changed L to ` for now. KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:54, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Dear KAVEBEAR Thank you very much!

Poppies
I suppose this image shows a painting by Ka'iulani. It is quite pretty and well done. Perhaps the caption should be more explicit. The captions of the other pictures do not hesitate to name her whenever she appears.
 * Changed caption. KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:54, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Full name
She had five first names. Her full name is given in the info box and discussed in the Name section of the main text. The Full name entry in the infobox states her full name three times, and in the absence of any punctuation this is not immediately obvious to the unsuspecting reader. Each time her name starts with her English first-name, i.e. Victoria, then gives her four Hawaiian first-names and ends with her family name, i.e. Cleghorn; the difference being the order in which her four Hawaiian first names are given.

Her first names are discussed and duly explained in the section called "Name". This section also mentions the three permutations of her Hawaiian first names and cites the sources for these permutations, but without any comment on their significance.

I would feel that the name as given in the Hawaiian Gazette, which is the only one given in the lead, should also be the only one appearing in the infobox. The Name section should document all three variants, cite the sources and give some comment to the effect that the permutations of her Hawaiian names do not seem to carry a meaning or have an importance, unless there is some evidence to the contrary which should then be given. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 15:33, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Reduce the name in the infobox. KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:52, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Access date and archive URL
As I understand it, the access-date parameter and the archive-date parameter are needed when using the template because the contents of web sites could be changed or disappear any time but not with      because published books, (academic, scientific) journals, and newpapers are immutable once they have been published. However, you use these two parameters with many (but not all) of the books, journals and newspapers cited in the article. The documentation for  says under access-date Not required for linked documents that do not change.
 * The access dates are added by bots after each link restoration or clean up.KAVEBEAR (talk) 15:58, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Dear KAVEBEAR. I looked at the history and found that they appeared at an edit of yours marked:


 * 19:48, 23 July 2020 KAVEBEAR 120,236 bytes +10,270 Rescuing 59 sources and tagging 0 as dead.) #IABot (v2.0.1 undothank Tag: IABotManagementConsole [1.2]


 * I wonder what happened at that time. You seem to have needed to rescue the article from some drastic mishap, adding 10270 bytes, which seems to have been all these access-dates and archive-urls. I still think you should clean them up but of course not a requirement for GA.

Bayonet Constitution
"Presented to Kalākaua for his signature on July 6, 1887 ... " Did he ever sign it? You do not say.

Overthrow
"During her absence, much turmoil occurred back in Hawaii. Kalākaua ..." -> "During Ka'iulani's absence ... King Kalākaua ...". I suggest this section could be shortened and should only summarise the main events focusing on the effects on Ka'iulani. The readers are anyway directed to the existing article about the overthrow. Ka'iulani was not involved in the overthrow but of course suffered the consequences.
 * Took some extra information out of the first paragraph relating to her uncle's health. Not sure what else you mean. The remaining paragraphs talk about events surrounding the overthrow for context to the reader including key dates and figures in a very limited capacity but also how it directly affected her or those advocating for her like her father. The way I wrote it was very Kaiulani-centric. It is also a pivotal part of her life even she was never directly on the ground for any of the events. KAVEBEAR (talk) 16:15, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Visits the United States, 1893
This section seems to be less well written then the others before.

First of all, the heading: The use of the verb "Visits" without a subject seems odd — or is it the plural of the noun? Seems unlikely as Ka'iulani made only one visit to the Unites States in 1893. I would propose to change the heading to "Visit to the United States, 1893". Do you agree?
 * Changed.

"Many elements in Hawaii and abroad ... " — "elements" sounds weird to me, should it not be people or factions, stakeholders or something like this? It also sounds vague. Would it not be better to name the groups or people who were in favor of Ka'iulani becoming Queen instead of Liliʻuokalani? Does this not rather belong into the section "Overthrow"? I am not so sure.
 * Changed to "factions" instead. It is intentionally vague since it is pretty vague who was in support of her and who was in support of the queen besides those prominent men who wrote about it. But Bishop, Wodehouse and Dole are mentioned for some prominent examples. It makes more sense in this section since the cold-shoulder given by the Hawaiian delegation to Kaiulani and Davies were rooted in the fear that she was presenting herself as a compromise candidate and a political opponent to the queen.

"Kaʻiulani, accompanied by Mr. and Mrs. Davies, Alice, Annie Whartoff, as her ..." - This is the first mention of Alice. She is probably needed here and must be introduced at least by giving her full name.
 * I think I already correct that.

"traveled from Southampton to the New York City" the article and the City are not needed "to New York" is good enough.
 * Removed.

There is an extra closing curly bracket before the word "Dissent".
 * Removed.

The quotation "Her coming will do no good, especially when she is under the wing an ultra-Britisher." lacks an "of" and the second half should read "under the wing of an ultra-Britisher."
 * Added "of".

Why "ultra-Britisher"? The role of the British or the apparent American fear of British interference should either be clarified or its use avoided. Johannes Schade (talk) 21:48, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That is just what is Macfarlane's quotes. It is use to convey that the queen's representatives distrust Davies and his own agenda not fear of British interference since that was unlikely to happen given American-British relations at the time. KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Passed
The article complies with the six GA criteria: 1. It is well written: has a lead of adequate length that covers the content well. 2. Is verifiable has a reference section: has many citation (235 inline citation) and refers to reliable sources. 3. Has broad coverage (7272 words of readable prose). 4–6. Is neutral, stable and illustrated. Johannes Schade (talk) 08:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)