Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Elias Abraham Rosenberg/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 Ian Rose 00:30, 5 April 2012.

Elias Abraham Rosenberg

 * Nominator(s): Mark Arsten (talk) & Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What?

Since we recently brought the article about the first Catholic missionary to Hawaii here, I decided to nominate the article about the first Jewish "missionary" to Hawaii, as well. Elias Abraham Rosenberg went from a humble peddler to royal adviser in a very short time, using only his charming personality and ability to predict the future. Sourcing this article was pretty tricky, but with help from some of our expert researchers, enough sources were found to write the article. It's been peer reviewed by a few editors and thoroughly flogged by copyeditors, so we believe it now meets the featured article criteria. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Fuhghettaboutit I may add more but for the moment:
 * Lead
 * "While working as a peddler, he encountered legal problems selling lottery tickets." I don't think this quite captures the detail from the text that he was illegally selling lottery tickets.
 * This lead sentence, He traveled to Hawaii, where upon his arrival he claimed to be, and performed as, a fortune teller. reads awkwardly to me. "Upon his arrival" feels redundant when we were just told he traveled there. I think it's the proximity in the same sentence. Also, there's something abrupt about the shift from San Francisco to Hawaii with no lead in language to frame it, like a date of travel. Maybe add a bit more detail from the text and break into two sentences: " ''
 * On the issue of adding more detail to the lead, I think you can summarize a bit more of the article and split into two paragraphs, which feels right for the size of the article.

San Francisco section
 * "He is believed to have been born in 1810 in Russia, and later may have lived in Australia and England." I think you should do away with "later". We know that if he lived in Australia and England, but was born in Russia, his birth preceded living in other places.
 * This incident may have led to his move to Hawaii" I'm not sure "this incident", which speaks of a single incident, works well to refer to his attracting attention from the police. Maybe start with "These problems..." (or something better!)

--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC) Support - I had my say at the peer review. It's a well-written—albeit short—article about an interesting figure. Well done. Eisfbnore (下さいて話し) 06:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC) Support with comments by Cassianto I agree. Lead maybe a bit short, but don't let that ruin a good article. Some small points...
 * Ok, I took care of the first two in the lead and the first in San Francisco. Do you think "These obstacles" would work in place of "This incident"? I guess the lead is fairly short, I'll try to add some to it tomorrow. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, not really, though I haven't thought of a replacement. These obstacles doesn't work I don't think. It's so concrete, while attention from police is nebulous. Let me mull on it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I expanded the lead a bit, hopefully to your satisfaction. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Great job on the lead expansion. I think it reads much better now and feels more balanced with the two paragraphs. I'm fine with "problems/troubles". I looked through the rest and found only a few minor things which I changed myself, hopefully not to your dissatisfaction. I wanted to ask one more thing: In the sentence ending "...the power of the Hawaiian monarch" Should this be monarch y ? An interesting article and well done. I am now happy to support.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all your help with this article! I made the last fix you mentioned (your other edits are unobjectionable). Mark Arsten (talk) 04:42, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support, and your erudite comments at the Peer review. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Could we have a link to "peddler" in the lede?
 * There are a few meanings for "soothsayer". Which was is it? A blue link here might be good to determine which kind of soothsaying he was active in.
 * "In March, April, and May, Rosenberg was paid $100 each month..." Do we need to list the months? I think saying "Between March and May, Rosenberg was paid $300..." Also it maybe good to mention a year here too as the last time it is mentioned is at the start of the first paragraph. I found myself reading it and having to stop to remind myself of the year.
 * Stray period between refs midway through "Return to San Francisco and death"
 * Rosenberg left Hawaii on June 7...(year?)

No further points and an interesting little article to read. Congrats! -- Cassianto (talk) 11:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support and comments, I think I've fixed the things you pointed out. Having to go back to figure out dates is one of my pet peeves, so I won't argue with you there. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Support Just one issue: "ornate and well-crafted Torah[8] and yad"  How is a Torah well-crafted? You might want to put (Torah pointer) after yad.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC) Support. I was an interesting article to read. Ruslik_ Zero 15:59, 31 March 2012 (UTC) Support with nit-picks: I commented extensively in the first peer review and the article has improved enormously from an already very high standard since then. I have a few small issues but I am happy to support assuming there are no problems with images or sourcing. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:40, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support. I didn't think of that about the Torah, I've tweaked the sentence to avoid it. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:42, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * FWIW you can definitely speak of a Torah scroll being well crafted. Each Sefer Torah is handwritten by a scribe, of which there are very few, following a very strict process. Its incredibly labor intensive and the copying must be done perfectly. There's craftsmanship both in the calligraphy and also in the various accessories (crown, breastplate, etc). GabrielF (talk) 03:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting, that's a good point. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the copyedits and support. It was an interesting article to write! I hope a Hollywood producer will read the article and make a film about it, I'm thinking The Rock as Kalākaua. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I took "(Torah pointer)" back out. Parenthetical clarifications make wikilinks cry.  If you insist that this be clarified here, I'll do it in 10 words with some em-dashes.  Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 18:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "Rosenberg apparently encouraged the King to revive traditional Hawaiian religion": I think "apparently" is a little weak here.
 * Also, I'm not sure this idea of revival comes across sufficiently in the main body. Presumably it is the part referring to his use of prophets, but the lead suggests something stronger (maybe this is strong and I'm missing it!). Otherwise it gives the impression that Rosenberg was almost solely responsible for this change and by implication, the subsequent troubles he encountered.
 * Nit-picky and ignore me by all means, but I wonder if "He is the first known Jew to have visited Hawaii" may be better as "the first Jew known to have visited Hawaii"?
 * "Rosenberg was present at a birthday celebration for King Kalākaua at ʻIolani Palace in November 1886." While relevant, this fact appears to be slightly tacked onto the start of the paragraph. It may be better placed after mentioning the king's trust of Rosenberg in the same paragraph, or even after earlier mentioning his first audience.
 * "In late January, the King appointed Rosenberg as a customs appraiser in Honolulu,[9] however the appointment was controversial": However does not work here; better to start a new sentence after Honolulu, or replace "however" with "although" or similar.
 * Do we know why he was initially fired from his customs job?
 * "At this point, Rosenberg reported to Archibald Scott Cleghorn": Reported is ambiguous here. Does this mean that his "superior" was Cleghorn by this stage, bypassing the head of customs, or that following the resignation, Rosenberg went for a one-off meeting with Cleghorn (i.e. about the resignation)?
 * "The next week, the King made a payment of $100 to a local jeweler, but it is not known whether it was for the gifts given to Rosenberg." Apparently unsourced sentence at the end of a paragraph.
 * I'm not sure why note g is added on to information about a 2008 article. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:40, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your support and comments, here and at the peer review. I think I took care of them all--it's not known for sure why he was fired from his customs job. There is speculation that the head of customs found Rosenberg to be too lazy, but I'm not sure there's enough sourcing to put that in the article. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments I commented on the article's peer review, and am happy to see that it's now been nominated for FA status. I think that the article is almost at FA class, but have the following suggestions: Support My comments are now addressed. As I said above, the referencing style for the notes doesn't really bother me, though it is a bit unconventional. Nick-D (talk) 09:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC) Comment Oppose: I am sorry if I appear negative, but as five supports have been registered, I fear my concerns may be overlooked unless I emphasise them in this way. While the article undoubtedly has merits (originality of topic not the least), there are at present significant problems to be addressed before it is ready for promotion:-
 * "who became an adviser to King Kalākaua of Hawaii near the end of Kalākaua's reign" - is there a way to avoid repeating 'Kalākaua' twice in the one sentences (would "who became an adviser to King Kalākaua of Hawaii near the end of his reign" work? - no-one is going to get confused and think that Rosenberg was the king in this context)
 * "After his arrival he claimed to be, and began performing as, a fortune teller" - this is a bit awkward (especially the passive 'began performing as')
 * It would be helpful to explain what the King's authority was at the time Rosenberg was in Hawaii (eg, was he a powerful figure, or constrained by political factors?)
 * I'd suggest noting in the text that William DeWitt Alexander was writing in 1896, as this kind of view is rather jarring to modern sensibilities
 * As a cosmetic issue, the placement of the citations in the notes section at the end of the text in each section rather than as endnotes like the rest of the article is a bit unusual. I'm comfortable with this, but you may want to standarise on all-endnote citations. Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments, I think I've taken care of all but the notes citations. Someone who was pretty experienced with templates told me to do it that way, I'm not sure what his reasoning was though. He's retired now, so I can't ask him. I'll ping someone about it and see what they think then get back to you and Brian about it. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, I talked to a smart guy and thought about it some. With the current system I'm using, you click on a letter to get to the explanatory note, then click the citation in the explanatory note and you go right to to the bibliography, if I change it, you'll have to click to get to the explanatory notes, click to get to the references, and then click to get to the bibliography. I think the way that I have it now is easier on the reader. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your support and peer review! Mark Arsten (talk) 19:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably the most important of these is the inadequacy of the lead. It lacks the essential declarative statement in the opening sentence, explaining why the subject is notable and defining his chief characteristics. Merely saying that he was "was a Russian Jew who became an adviser to King Kalākaua of Hawaii" is bland and uninteresting; what is significant is the unconventional nature of his advisory role and the hints of the charlatan in Rosenberg. Without such information highlighted, I can see no reason why I would wish to read the article. I suggest that the first paragraph is rewritten to capture at least the sleazy flavour of Rosenberg's role and thereby give readers the desire to read a little further.
 * Much of the prose is fractured by the close-knit citing of individual phrases, almost of individual words. Thus we have sentences like: "He began to teach the King basic Hebrew,[1][15] and gave him an ornate Torah[8] and yad[11][c] (Torah pointer) that Rosenberg had brought with him to Hawaii.[1]" That sort of thing is difficult and irritating to read. In this case, there is no need to cite [1] twice within the same sentence; is there really no single source that covers the gifts of both the Torah and the yad? Why is it necessary to double-cite the straightforward information that Rosenberg taught the king Hebrew? There are many other instances where some revision of the citations would make the article altogether easier to read.
 * There are several issues of style, grammar and clarity in the prose:-
 * Rosenberg is defined as a Russian Jew in the lead, but the text says merely that he "is believed to have been born in 1810 in Russia". This implies a degree of doubt about his birthplce and nationality.
 * "The advertisement has been speculated to be a hoax..." Adverisements are not "speculated"; there may be speculation about them. Thus: "There has been speculation that the advertisement was a hoax..."
 * "He also claimed to have found references to Hawaii in ancient Hebrew texts, a claim that encouraged..." Clunky repetition
 * "The King had previously sought instruction from several people he regarded as prophets and had established a society dedicated to this cause." Not clear what "cause" refers to.
 * "No-show job"; I have never seen this expression in a formal article - it reads like slang. The formal term is sinecure. The link to the rubbishy unreferenced No-show job stub needs to be replaced.
 * "Kalākaua's efforts to revive traditional Hawaiian religious beliefs may have helped convince foreign residents that action should be taken against the King, leading to the June 1887 Constitution, which forcibly stripped him of many of his autocratic powers." That makes very odd reading; it implies that "foreign residents", whoever they were, rather than the native population, had power to take action against the king. Was that the case? If so, at least a phrase or two of explanation should be added. Otherwise you need to rephrase to make the meaning clear. Also, the word "forcibly" is redundant; a Constitution is a matter of law.


 * Links to other web pages are normally placed within an External links section; I believe that MOS stipulates this, so the "external images" link probably needs repositioning.
 * Why are the citations within the "notes" in a different format from the in-line citations within the main text?

I will be happy to reconsider my oppose when these points have been addressed. Brianboulton (talk) 11:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No need to apologize, I knew the risks when I nominated this :) I'll get to work on your comments, some will be easier than others. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, did some work on it today, did most of them and took a first shot at a couple. I'll take another look at the lead and the people who deposed the King, those were the only two I wasn't confident in my fixes. (See my reply to Nick-D about citation styles.) Mark Arsten (talk) 01:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * @Brian: External media recommends the template be placed as one would place a regular image. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, I think we've resolved everything you mentioned. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

In general you have answered my main concerns and I have struck the oppose. In particular I think the lead is much improved. A few minor quibbles:
 * (Not raised before) The capitalisation of "King" except as part of a formal naming is questionable. Thus "King Kalakuara" is OK, but otherwise it should be "the king" not "the King"
 * Perhaps refer to Rosenberg's religion before merely stating that he was the first Jew known to have visited Hawaii; a brief mention in the preceding section, maybe?
 * The citations within the notes are still formatted differently from those in the text - is there a reason? Brianboulton (talk) 10:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, king has been downcased and I mentioned that he was a Jew in the first section. With the current system I'm using, you click on a letter to get to the explanatory note, then click the citation in the explanatory note and you go right to to the bibliography, if I change it, you'll have to click to get to the explanatory notes, click to get to the references, and then click to get to the bibliography. Basically it's just a little easier this way, I think. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comments from Crisco 1492
 * Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 moved to talk page


 * Support -- Interesting read. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Note -- Aside from the matter of Brian's comments, looks like we still need an image check. I think we can waive the source spotcheck given Mark's second-most-recent nom had one. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Might as well do the image check. File:Kingdavidkalakaua dust.jpg tagged (PD-US), although proof of previous publication (or lack of) is necessary preferable for determining the proper license; if unpublished, per the Hirtle chart it would not be PD until next year. File:Iolani Palace in 1885.jpg has a tagging issue: How could a photograph by an unknown author definitely be PD-100? If unpublished, this will not be PD until 2016. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Scratched support from above due to image issues. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but for anonymous works the copyright term is 120 years from the date of creation, i.e. it expired in 2002 and 2005, respectively. Ruslik_ Zero 09:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You're right; can't believe I subtracted 130. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Scratched my bad math. Iolani Palace still needs the proper template Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, changed the template on the Iolani Palace image. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Images look fine to me per my above review Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


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