User:Khyamamoto/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.)

I will be evaluating the article about Abigail Kinoiki Kekaulike Kawānanakoa.

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I chose this article because I have a personal interest in this topic. I attended Kawananakoa Middle School, named after her grandfather, David Kawananakoa, and have an interest in the history of its namesake. In addition, I feel that it is important to highlight Kawananakoa's life, as she was an influential person in Hawaiian history with legitimate claim to its throne, and her personal identity is one that should be highlighted.

This article matters and should be revised because of the role that Kawananakoa plays in past and current Hawaiian culture. As a person with claim to Hawaii's throne, especially given the current context and protests regarding Hawaii's acquisition by the United States, it is important to highlight the legitimacy of successors. In addition, her personal identity as a woman and member of the LGBTQ+ community should be celebrated and made more visible.

My preliminary analysis of this article is that it is well-constructed and researched, but that work can be done in order to cite some of the claims made. I feel that the lead-section is concise and serves it purpose, I feel that there are areas of content, specifically the equestrian and philanthropy sections that are considered lacking. I think the balance can be improved by talking about the "issues" of Native Hawaiians regarding Kawananakoa's burial plans, and that some of the source links need to be updated. The article is ranked as a C, and I think it has strengths in the areas highlighted as high importance for the communities it is a part of. I think it can be improved with more content in a few sections, but I would argue that it is fairly complete.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

Lead Section


 * The lead section is a single sentence, as opposed to a short paragraph, however the single sentence is the most concise way to portray the most relevant information about Kawananakoa, and I feel that it is sufficient and does not need to be changed.

Content


 * The section about Kawananakoa's "Birth and Early Life" is well researched and the section defining her lineage is clear and prominent. I feel that this section is good. However, the section about "Family Legacy and Philanthropy," there is not a lot, and I think that more can be added, especially if she is described as a philanthropist in her lead section. This can be improved by explaining what she did for each of these organizations. I also feel that there is a claim in her "Equine endeavors" section that needs to be cited.

Tone and Balance


 * Most of the article is written neutrally, and the sources are unbiased, so this article is mostly balanced. The only issue I have is in the "Family legacy and philanthropy" section, regarding her burial plans, as issues from Native Hawaiians are mentioned, but not explained.

Sources and References


 * I think the sources used are of good enough quality for someone who has little academic research dedicated to them. One of the links, source 17, does not seem to work, so it can be fixed.

Organization and Writing Quality


 * I believe this article is well organized, and the quality is good, there are no errors I can find.

Images and Media


 * I believe the media present is good, and it helps to elevate the reading experience. I think that the description of Kawananakoa's grave can be accompanied by a photo, but a photo may be taken in poor taste so I understand its exclusion.

Talk Page Discussions


 * There is a discussion regarding her heritage. I feel that this section is the most relevant part of Kawananakoa's article, so it is both good and bad to see it discussed. It is good because it shows an adherence and dedication to accuracy, but bad because this section should be the most "airtight."

Overall Impressions


 * This article is complete, and I feel it can be brought higher by a few doable edits.