Talk:Emilie Widemann Macfarlane/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: CaroleHenson (talk · contribs) 04:09, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, This looks like another interesting article, so here I go as part of the current GA backlog drive. As a reminder, it's my m.o. to address comments by section, make minor edits (like commas, links, and other minor changes), and then assess the article against the GA criteria. Please let me know if you have any thoughts or comments as I go through the review.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:09, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

As far as what is in the introduction and infobox, I don't have any suggestions, the content looks good.
The introduction is quite short, though, for a GA article. Is there other information that you could add about what makes her interesting or notable? Perhaps more detail about her work with the Ka Hui Hawaiʻi Aloha ʻĀina o Na Wahine, the Hawaiian Relief Society, suffrage, or her activities during the World War I.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:16, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is some notable information about her leadership in the Annexation section, too.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:40, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added more.KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That looks better, thanks. I made two tweaks here, by splitting one paragraph into two - and removing a duplicate "in 1895" in the sentence about the Hawaiian Relief Society. This section is

Done.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:17, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Early life and family

I don't understand "There was disagreement about her mother's royal descent after her death, although her mother's grandfather, Kalawa, was a retainer of the aliʻi of Kauai." Was there definite resolution, perhaps that "her mother's grandfather, Kalawa, was a retainer of the aliʻi of Kauai."? Unless there is clarification about the nature of the disagreement, I think it's better to just leave the final outcome.

It is shortest succinct way to summarize the families' royal descents without going into the details of the genealogical battle and sparring that went on after Mary Kaumana Pilahiuilani's death. The point is that the family descended from the aliʻi class on her mother's side but how recent or how important the family lineage was a source of contention although her great-grandfather had a special place in the court of King Kaumualii, the last alii nui of Kauai. KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My point wasn't the need for brevity, but the need for clarity. If there is no explanation about what "There was disagreement about her mother's royal descent after her death" means, why keep it in the article? It just leaves the reader wondering what disagreement? Between who? Why? So many questions, no answers.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:52, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I went to research it and I couldn't find it in the obituaries (citation 3), then there was a book published before her death (citation 2 - 1931), so I skipped it... and I could not find it in the first citation. I am guessing you have access to the book and Google preview isn't letting me see the relevant pages (I am guessing 128 or 135 based upon the index).–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:04, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is in the book. KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:09, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edit! It reads much better now.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, the section looks great!–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:23, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I like the cropped image of her husband, too. This section is Done.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Civic engagement

The sentence leading into the subsections looks good.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:24, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1890s

Rather than the generic 1890s title, what do you think about "Opposition to annexation" or "Political efforts"... something that better captures the nature of the content in this section? And, perhaps make the Hawaiian Relief Society its own (albeit short) section?

Changed. KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If I am understanding correctly the quote that starts out "Greeting" was written in part by Macfarlane. Should it be moved up to the discussion about the two proposed approaches and that she resigns?

Macfarlane and the early leadership. I don't think it is necessary and bisecting the paragraph with a long quote might be confusing. KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, is Macfarlane in the younger group? And, that would make her sisters, well, at least Campbell, in the older group?–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:36, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They were all in the younger group. Campbell just survived the controversy and didn't resign it. Exact details are not exactly provided on the transition. KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the section heading change! I am going to mark this section Done, but I do think it would be nice to clarify - unless it is original research to do so, that Macfarlane, was in the younger group. And, perhaps, that the sisters were, too, but not inclined to resign, again, unless it's OR (reading between the lines) to do so.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:30, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New: Hawaiian Relief Society

This section looks great and I appreciate the greater emphasis on Macfarlane's activities and the background information about the epidemic. This looks good and this section is Done.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:36, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After annexation

After annexation made me think that I was going to read her political or civic involvement related to the annexation. Perhaps this section could be divided into two sections - one for the Suffrage movement and another for Community leadership, Community development, or something of that nature?

I feel like that would be too much sectioning and also throws off the chronological pacing. KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I like the heading better.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I really like the second half of this section. For me, this best reflects her influence and organizational abilities.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This section is Done.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Death

No comments or suggestions.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Comments

The article is very well-written (1a).
I have some suggestions about additions to the lead and the names of the sections so that they are more specific to the nature of her activities (1b).
Citations were formatted correctly and reliable sources were used throughout the article (2a, 2b).
I see no evidence of original research or copyvio issues (2c, 2d).
As a general comment, there is a fair amount of information about her one-month involvement in the Ka Hui Hawaiʻi Aloha ʻĀina o Na Wahine group and the suffrage movement, but not a lot about how she affected change.

That is probably the most important part in this and the core of the article. Lot of research have been done on Native Hawaiian voice and involvement during the overthrow and she was the first president of the female Hui Aloha Aina organization. She did have less impact than Campbell who led the organization through into the dissolution of the organization in 1900. If you take that away, Macfarlane is just another socialite who did charity work. I couldn't even really find much about her suffrage involvement except that she was supporting her sister's efforts.

Sorry for the confusion, I wasn't thinking at all about removing that info. I was just thinking that it would be nice to have the other "After annexation" and the cholera info expanded. I am getting that there wasn't more information to expand the after annexation activities, so it is what it is.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sections where I think she was more effective were the community and heritage activities in the Annexation section and addressing cholera. It would be nice to have more information about what she specifically did, why her help was needed, and/or how people were affected.

The whys are hard to find since we don't know from the sources. She was just a charitable person who had a good standing in society to make a change. KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. Thanks for the input here, that helps!–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, it is so focused (3b) that we don't get a good sense of who she was or how she operated (3a).

The article is neutral and stable (4, 5).
The images are relevant and properly tagged (6a, 6b).–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:10, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your efforts on this article, KAVEBEAR, and making changes where possible. It looks good and passes GA.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]