Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Henry Hoʻolulu Pitman/archive2


 * 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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 15:11, 18 July 2016.

Henry Hoʻolulu Pitman

 * Nominator(s): KAVEBEAR (talk) 17:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

This article is about a Hawaiian-American Union Army soldier who is considered one of the "Hawaiʻi Sons of the Civil War"; he was among a group of more than one hundred documented Hawaiian and Hawaii-born combatants who fought in the American Civil War while the Kingdom of Hawaii was still an independent nation. In recent years, he has become one of the many central figures of interest in a revival of interest of this period of Hawaiian history. This article was nominated as a good article and A-List article and has been peer reviewed. Basically, everything known in the sources directly about this individual is already in the article itself, so there are some questions that I won't be able to answer because no known knowledge exist about it. Renominating. KAVEBEAR (talk) 17:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Talk:Henry Hoʻolulu Pitman/GA1
 * Peer review/Henry Hoʻolulu Pitman/archive1
 * Featured article candidates/Henry Hoʻolulu Pitman/archive1
 * WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Henry Hoʻolulu Pitman

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:31, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. - Dank (push to talk) 03:03, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Support - noting that I've been involved with this article at the peer review stage. It appears to cover the available sources thoroughly and I don't remember finding any additional material at peer review which should have been added. Hchc2009 (talk) 22:42, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Support: generally looks pretty good to me. I have a couple of minor suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 05:32, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * ". In 2010, the service of these "Hawaiʻi Sons of the Civil War" were commemorated..." --> ". In 2010, the service of these "Hawaiʻi Sons of the Civil War" was commemorated..."
 * Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 12:26, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Not done; it still said "service ... were commemorated". I fixed it by removing "the service of". - Dank (push to talk) 14:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "he reportedly bursted into tears" --> "he reportedly burst into tears"
 * Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 12:26, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "Considering him missing, Pitman's regiment didn't discover his final..." --> "Considering him missing, Pitman's regiment did not discover his final..."
 * Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 12:26, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "the military services of Hawaiians..." ---> "the military service of Hawaiians..."
 * Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 12:26, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Support - I reviewed this for GA, since then it has only gotten better. The prose & material is FA quality --Errant (chat!) 15:01, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Note -- Unless I missed it, looks like we need a source review for formatting and reliability; also as I believe this will be the nominator's first FA if successful, we'll need a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of plagiarism or close paraphrasing. A request for these can be listed at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:38, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Trappist the monk

 * I have been asked to comment here.
 * reference 2: don't Harvard style references use author or editor names; use of the publisher here seems atypical; is that appropriate?
 * The book is a collection of articles by multiple authors, some of them only a few pages long and then I would use another article from that same book, but by another author, so I thought it would better to use the publisher as the common thread of that book. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 16:30, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * reference 7 requires registration; should have website?
 * How can you edit it for me?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 16:30, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Carter 1897 should precede Carter 1913
 * Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 16:30, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * DAR 1938 and DAR 1910 are used only once each. Is it necessary to use Harvard referencing in such cases?  If the decision is taken to keep the Harvard referencing for these two, consider changing 'DAR 1910' to 'Daughters of the American Revolution 1910' so that the names match in §References and §Bibliography; same applies to DAR 1938
 * Changed to Daughters of the American Revolution.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 16:30, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Daws 1968 links to snippet view; is that appropriate?
 * I don't know although if they are not appropriate, we can just remove them.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 16:30, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * How do we know that 'Secretary of the Commonwealth' is the same as 'Secretary of State'? Because Google says so?  Title page says Commonwealth.
 * Changed. Thanks for the catch. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 16:30, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Pierce 1958 links to snippet view; is that appropriate? Is this a book or a journal? uses with journal
 * It is a magazine. Changed.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 16:30, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Pitman 1931 links to snippet view; is that appropriate?
 * I don't know although if they are not appropriate, we can just remove them.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 16:30, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Rogers in §Further reading: Is this a book or something else? uses with work
 * I am not sure. It was a periodical.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 16:30, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 12:52, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I made these edits. Let me know if there is anything else that I can do. Thank you.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 16:32, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I have restored the numbers in my comments above. Answers here refer to those numbers
 * I presume that you have read the appropriate section of that book so you can discover the name of the author of that section. The author should be the name in the  and  templates.  When the author name is not available, but the editor's name is available, shouldn't we be using the editor name because that name is left-most in the rendered citation?  This way we don't astonish the reader who expects the Harvard reference to match the citation.
 * Could we just use the editors name? The problem is this one article is co-written by Justin Vance and Anita Manning, and another article is written by just Vance. In other article I am using the same format and they are using article written by a third author Ruthanne Lum McCunn for example.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:59, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * perhaps like this:
 * Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:59, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * (and others) There are those who think that snippet view does not allow proper verification because the text surrounding the 'seach string' may not be sufficient to provide proper context
 * Removed.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:59, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 'Commonwealthro'?
 * Fixed. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:59, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I may look more when I feel motivated to do so.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 18:03, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Once again restored the numbering in my comments.
 * I do not understand what it is that you wrote about Vance, Manning, McCunn in Shively. It seems that you know who the author(s) is(are) but I got lost in the various references to 'other' articles.  Other articles in the source? other articles in Wikpedia? both?  If you are attempting to cite two articles (one by Vance and Manning, and one by Vance) with a single citation, that is not proper use of the  template.  There are ways to do it which I'll explain if that is what is needed here.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 11:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It is a book though so it is not an improper use of cite book. I will use Shively because that is common thread. The book is divided into 11 sections and each section divided into articles written by various historians. The section I am mainly using is the one titled "Pacific Islanders and the Civil War" (pp. 130–163) and the articles in that section include 1. Introduction by Justin Vance and Anita Mannning, 2. Eyewitness aboard the USS Santiago de Cuba by Vance and Mannning, 3. J. R. Kealoha by Vance and Mannning, 4. Kingdom of Hawaii Citizens of American Descent by Vance and Mannning, 5. Prince Romerson by Ruthanne Lum McCunn, 6. Henry Hoolulu (Timothy) Pitman by Vance and Mannning, 7. The CSS Shenandoah: A Confederate Raider in the Pacific by Vance and Mannning, 8. Hawaiian Sailor Helps Convict a Slaver by Manning, 9. From Whaler to Sailor Pacific Islanders and the New Bedford Whale Fishery by Laura A. Miller and Marla R. Miller, 10. James Wood Bush by Vance and Manning, 11. Anaconda Plan: The Great Snake by Carol Shively, 12. The Impact of the Civil War on the Kingdom of Hawaii by Vance and Manning. It has the set up of a journal but it is not a journal and if I were to use cite journal or another similar format, I would have to separate each of individual articles I used into their own bulleted source. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 12:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand. I did not say that Asians and Pacific Islanders and the Civil War is not a book.  If you are citing more than one article in the book you can create separate  templates (one for each article) or use  to cite the individual articles and the  to cite the enclosing section.  Consider this (the four  templates are a mock-up of how similar  templates would render in §References; page numbers are made up):
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 11:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It is a book though so it is not an improper use of cite book. I will use Shively because that is common thread. The book is divided into 11 sections and each section divided into articles written by various historians. The section I am mainly using is the one titled "Pacific Islanders and the Civil War" (pp. 130–163) and the articles in that section include 1. Introduction by Justin Vance and Anita Mannning, 2. Eyewitness aboard the USS Santiago de Cuba by Vance and Mannning, 3. J. R. Kealoha by Vance and Mannning, 4. Kingdom of Hawaii Citizens of American Descent by Vance and Mannning, 5. Prince Romerson by Ruthanne Lum McCunn, 6. Henry Hoolulu (Timothy) Pitman by Vance and Mannning, 7. The CSS Shenandoah: A Confederate Raider in the Pacific by Vance and Mannning, 8. Hawaiian Sailor Helps Convict a Slaver by Manning, 9. From Whaler to Sailor Pacific Islanders and the New Bedford Whale Fishery by Laura A. Miller and Marla R. Miller, 10. James Wood Bush by Vance and Manning, 11. Anaconda Plan: The Great Snake by Carol Shively, 12. The Impact of the Civil War on the Kingdom of Hawaii by Vance and Manning. It has the set up of a journal but it is not a journal and if I were to use cite journal or another similar format, I would have to separate each of individual articles I used into their own bulleted source. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 12:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand. I did not say that Asians and Pacific Islanders and the Civil War is not a book.  If you are citing more than one article in the book you can create separate  templates (one for each article) or use  to cite the individual articles and the  to cite the enclosing section.  Consider this (the four  templates are a mock-up of how similar  templates would render in §References; page numbers are made up):

 in §References:

in §Bibliography:
 * in §References:
 * in §Bibliography:
 * A reader clicks on a reference superscript which jumps to McCunn 2015, p. 150 above. Reader clicks McCunn and the page jumps to highlight "Prince Romerson".  Reader clicks on Shivley and lands on the  citation with the section title.  id required in  templates because there are multiple Vance & Manning contributions.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:51, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Like this ?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 15:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep. Because there are three s all in a column, for the second and third you might want to include 2 and 2.  For page numbers, you might want to move the page ranges from the  templates to the  templates.  Then, at the s include the specific page (or pages) upon which the source material that supports this article can be found.  This way page numbering is hierarchical  identifies the section page range (130–163), each  identifies the page-range of an article (132–135, 146–149, 161–163), and each  template identifies the particular supporting page.
 * There is a reason that I don't normally have anything to do with FA: it's too nit-picky, as you can see from this discussion of a single reference. So, you should remember that I am not here to specify what you should be doing with this article.  Rather, I would hope to help you do what you want to do.  The decision adopt or ignore anything that I have written here is yours.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 16:13, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I am a bit lost. I tried those templates but they came out wrong for some reason. I want to do all of this if it means improving the article. Can you help? Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 17:24, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know what I tried those templates but they came out wrong for some reason means because whatever it is that you tried didn't get saved so the article is in the same state as it was when you posted the diff of what you had done to add the templates. So, specifically, what did you try and what were the results?  Or, better, try again and save so that I can see what it is that you did.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 17:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I was using preview. Saved it now. A lot of the steps you mentioned above are not clear to me. The first part of your suggestion doesn't turn out right, and I have no idea what you are suggesting me to change after "For page numbers,..." Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:00, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I meant that you should move the page ranges from to  not rename sfn to harvc.  Then at the  that now doesn't have a page parameter, add a p or pp parameter so that the reader can go directly the the page in the source that supports the statement in the article.  So for Vance & Manning 2015a, move 132–135 to the "Introduction" .  At the Vance & Manning 2015a  add a p or pp parameter that identifies the specific page upon which Vance and Manning claim Kamehameha "denied permission for the men to go as a unit" (or whichever bit of that note is supported by the Vance & Manning 2015a Introduction).
 * Am I making any sense?
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 18:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I really have no idea what exactly are you talking about. I can't follow along with your instructions. These templates and stuff are all jargon to me. I have no clue. Thanks for the help. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * With or without it I think the reference format is already above what is needed for FA criteria especially comparing with today's FA on the main page. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * One last attempt before I accept my dismissal:
 * The section "Pacific Islanders and the Civil War" occupies pages 130–163. We note that in the.
 * The "Introduction" occupies pages 132–135. We note that in the.
 * Somewhere in the introduction Vance and Manning write something that supports this sentence in note 3:
 * However, in order to avert diplomatic controversy and in defense of the Hawaiʻi's neutrality, King Kamehameha IV and Minister Robert Crichton Wyllie officially denied permission for the men to go as a unit.
 * I presume that Vance and Manning did not need all 4 pages of the Introduction to say that. I presume that what they wrote is on one of pages 132, 133, 134, or 135.  That page number belongs in the  template.
 * So what we've accomplished is to narrow the focus from the broadest (the section) to the narrowest (the specific page) in an orderly manner.
 * I stand dismissed.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 19:40, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 15:03, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The section "Pacific Islanders and the Civil War" occupies pages 130–163. We note that in the.
 * The "Introduction" occupies pages 132–135. We note that in the.
 * Somewhere in the introduction Vance and Manning write something that supports this sentence in note 3:
 * However, in order to avert diplomatic controversy and in defense of the Hawaiʻi's neutrality, King Kamehameha IV and Minister Robert Crichton Wyllie officially denied permission for the men to go as a unit.
 * I presume that Vance and Manning did not need all 4 pages of the Introduction to say that. I presume that what they wrote is on one of pages 132, 133, 134, or 135.  That page number belongs in the  template.
 * So what we've accomplished is to narrow the focus from the broadest (the section) to the narrowest (the specific page) in an orderly manner.
 * I stand dismissed.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 19:40, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 15:03, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 15:03, 30 June 2016 (UTC)