Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Alexis Bachelot/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 14:11, 4 March 2012.

Alexis Bachelot

 * Nominator(s): Mark Arsten (talk) & Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 00:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Alexis Bachelot led the first permanent Catholic mission to Hawaii, but encountered religious persecution and was even suspected of being a French spy. While he saw limited success, his treatment by the Hawaiian government led to an international diplomatic incident with lasting consequences. The article is currently at GA status and has been peer reviewed and copyedited since then. I'm fairly confident that it meets the Featured article criteria. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Eisfbnore (Obvious) Support as co-nominator. I'm the GoCE member that Mark roped into editing this article, and it turned out being one of the most pleasurable CE experiences I've had. I'm open to any and all suggestions on how to clean up the prose further. Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 18:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Check alphabetisation of bibliography
 * There are a couple of 'due to's in the article which should be 'owing to' or 'because of'. I'm too woozy and tired to give a full explanation of what ought to be used when (though I think that I've erewhile explained it in one of Mark's FACs), but this website gives a considerably thorough elucidation. -- Eisfbnore talk 01:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I got them both (took me a couple tries to find the out of place reference though)--and yes, I am definitely a repeat offender when it comes to due to vs because of! Mark Arsten (talk) 02:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comments from Redtigerxyz
 * Disclosure: I was the GA reviewer.
 * Should it be "Alexis John Augustine Bachelot (born John Augustine Bachelot ..." ???
 * Kaʻahumanu, the Kuhina Nui of Hawaii: Kuhina Nui must be italicized IMO. Also a short English summary will better explain the jargon
 * Comment I don't think Kuhina Nui should be italicized. We don't italicize other honorifics such as "King," "Queen," "Emperor," or "Grand Pooh-Bah."  I could see an argument for italicizing it under the "foreign words not in common English usage" clause of MOS:ITALIC but I don't care for it here because the title forms part of a person's name.  Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 01:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

-- Redtigerxyz Talk 18:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC) Everything seems fine.  Towards Support -- Redtigerxyz Talk 17:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "By Bacehlot's arrival however," -> Should it start with however ???
 * "He was freed only after...." Three consecutive sentences start with He. repetitive
 * "a French adviser to Hawaiian king .." -> "a French adviser to the Hawaiian king"-- Redtigerxyz Talk 18:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright, good to see you again. I think I have taken care of the issues that you have spotted thus far. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "Because Kamehameha III was young at the time of his his ascension, Kaʻahumanu (a wife of their father) ruled as Kuhina Nui." stepmother???
 * La Comète -> the La Comète?? (eg The Waverly) Simarly, La Vènus
 * Ok, I've made both those changes. I think I just introduced that "his his" recently. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * All issues resolved. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 18:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment -- Wouldn't having harv templates make verification easier? It's nice to link directly to the reference. Further review to follow. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I'll think about it, I haven't been using them much lately though. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

(Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 moved to talk page)


 * Support. My issues have been addressed. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Images (again)
 * By my count everything is fine. All images have source details and all but one is undeniably PD. The only one that is not PD is the work of a Wikipedian with and licensed correctly. Captions are in accordance with MOS. It would be preferable to have ALT text, but it's not required. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support: I gave this article a detailed peer review, as a result of which a number of improvements were made; more have been effected during the FAC process. The one quibble I have is that I don't see the purpose of the two "See also" links and I don't imagine that any of your readers will use them. Personally I would drop them. But whatever you decide to do, well done in producing an original and historically fascinating article. Brianboulton (talk) 20:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, you were a great deal of help at the peer review. I've removed the See Also per your comment. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Be consistent in how multi-author sources are notated
 * Missing bibliographic info for Scott 1991
 * Rayson & Wong or Wong & Rayson? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review, I think I've taken care of those three. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Closing comments - I have taken the liberty of spot-checking the sources (using Google Books) and found no issues. Graham Colm (talk) 14:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.