Talk:Flora Kaai Hayes/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Aussie Article Writer (talk · contribs) 11:15, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	I have done a copyedit, but some of the sentences are a bit choppy. Can you ask the Guild of Copy Editors to assist with this? Ezlev, I have taken the liberty of asking on your behalf. I hope this was not too forward of me. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 12:54, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply] I think it's not too bad. I took a stab at a copyedit myself. Still would be good to get the guild to check it over. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 01:37, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead section is too long and is too lengthy, it should be cut down somewhat. I am happy to help with this, if you would like. In particular, I think we can remove some of the material that is already well detailed in the body of the article and strip the lead to the achievements and significant events in her life - we don't need to note where she was born, or where she went to school in the lead as this is only meant to be the briefest of summaries of the whole article. Much better! Thanks. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 01:34, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply] The second section has a subsection, which has a subsection. I suggest that you call the second section "Early career", make the first subsection a first level section, and make the "Legislative activity" subsection a first level section also. A flatter structure is better than one with too many subsections in this case. Corrected by nom. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 01:34, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	I made a small structural change.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Please note: any sources I cannot read, I am assuming are correct. I do, however, feel it is appropriate to note that I have not been able to verify them. Early life: ~~"Her mother Katherine Kahumu Kaai was a descendant of Keōua." could we get a source?~~ Fixed by nom. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 01:32, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply] All other references that I can read (there is a book that I can't get access to) check out. Career: - all references I can read check out Hawaii Territorial House of Representatives: ~~the bundled citation is fine, but needs to have a full citation to each of the newspaper articles~~ Fixed by nom. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 01:32, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply] Legislative activity: - these check out Later life: - the sources I can read check out Filmography: - all sources verified
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	~~The following source ends with a tremendous number of organizations she was part of. And I mean a lot. These seem notable enough for the article, I think they need to be in the article.~~ has been done! - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 16:26, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	File:Flora Hayes 1965.png - PD, tagged and described correctly File:Flora Kaai marries Homer Hayes, 1914.png - PD, tagged and described correctly File:King Kalakaua's Torah and yad.JPG - CC license
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	File:Flora Hayes 1965.png - depicts the subject File:Flora Kaai marries Homer Hayes, 1914.png - an excellent image of an article about her marriage File:King Kalakaua's Torah and yad.JPG - illustrates the object described in the section
	7. Overall assessment.

Discussion

I note that the image in this source which has a photo of a still image of the film looks like it may be out of copyright... perhaps something to add to the article? - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 12:24, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ezlev I have reviewed the article, hopefully you will be back to see this review! I would love to help work with you on getting this to GA status, I think we can IAR and extend this review till you get back. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 12:50, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aussie Article Writer, thank you so much for beginning this review! I’ll be offwiki for the remainder of the month, and I can’t wait to work on this with you once I’m back. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 21:56, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aussie Article Writer, I'm back! I believe your notes from attributes 1b and 2b are resolved now – if not, please let me know what you'd like changed. (It's possible that the lede is still too long, but if so, I think your fresh eyes are needed to determine what else to cut.) I'm about to do a proofread in hopes of cleaning up some of the choppy sentences mentioned in 1a. As for 3a, I'm having trouble picturing where to include those organizations in the article since there's so little information (when she was in a given position, for how long, etc). Do you think a list-like structure in a subsection could work, or if not, what were you imagining? Thanks again for working with me on this! ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 18:13, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ezlev No probs, if there isn't much info maybe make a a list like you suggest would do the trick. The lead is much better, I just coalesced the first two paragraphs together. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 01:37, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aussie Article Writer, thanks! I've added an "other positions" section with a simple bulleted list, omitting positions which are mentioned earlier in the article. What are your thoughts? ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 03:05, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’d add all the positions, no need to omit them. It is a list, after all. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 22:02, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that'll make sense if the list is framed as "other positions", i.e. positions not mentioned in the article prose. Making it a list of all positions Hayes held seems strange, but if you think that's better...? ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 22:45, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in responding. I agree with you, best make it a list of all organizations. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 22:38, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem – there's no rush (a fact of which I have to frequently remind myself). I've made the suggested change! ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 03:14, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Legend! This passes GA. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 16:26, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic! Thank you so much for the review, Aussie Article Writer. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 17:05, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]