Talk:James Kaliokalani/GA1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I am giving this article a GA Review. Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 17:39, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
Is it High Chiefess or High Chieftess

It's Chiefess.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:59, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is or what was a Punchbowl Battery?

It is an artillery battery unit and fort.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:23, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it needs to be explained why that was an important position., especially to the readers who are unfamiliar with Hawaiian culture/history. There needs to be some context. Shearonink (talk) 22:35, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Importance is subjective. It was a military fort and his grandfather commanded it. In the greater scheme of world history, it is not an important fort and even in Hawaiian history it wasn't that important. It was used for ceremony salutes throughout the monarchy and contained cannons and artillery from the conquest of the islands decades before. It seems out of context to go into much more detail about it on his grandson's article. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:55, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Grammar issues:
whom the Cooke called - should be "Cookes"

Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:23, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

later in May 1840 (as a more steady boarding students)

Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:23, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Cookes enforced a strict moral on the children especially on their sexual misconducts

Add code after moral, what is wrong with this? @Shearonink: --KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:23, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual misconducts is not thought of in common usage as a noun that can have multiples. People can be guilty of sexual misconduct or fall afoul of sexual misconduct laws or rules, but "on their sexual misconducts" doesn't quite make sense. Shearonink (talk) 22:35, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to misconduct.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:55, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Observation: (about nothing to do with this review) but, in my opinion, at least in this matter? the Cookes kind of sound awful... they were children. Shearonink (talk) 04:53, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shortly after enrolling Kaliokalani When is shortly...is it in 1839, is it in 1840?

Remove shortly, date it to November 1841.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:23, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

She initially supportive of his enrollment. Missing part of the verb...

Changed.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:23, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

school, married or attended continued their educations elsewhere.

Removed attended.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:23, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

while later source stated he died on April 2

Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:23, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After enrolling Kaliokalani, as a permanent student, <- The comma is unneeded & should be removed "After enrolling Kaliokalani as a permanent student"

Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:38, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Please rework the lead section, especially the "At a young age..." sentence.
Changed.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:17, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you - greatly improved. Shearonink (talk) 04:53, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
I am extremely troubled that so much of the content is about other people: the Cookes, John Papa, the grandmother and other relatives. I am also troubled by the fact that so much of the content is about the Royal School itself. While I will concede that James Kaliokalani is notable in and of the fact that he was a member of the Hawaiian Royal Family, I am unsure that there is enough content for a WP:GA. I am always willing to be persuaded that I am wrong on these types of matters though, so let's continue with the Review process and see what we can improve upon.
I understand but it is everything about him. Most minor royals in non-European don't necessarily have a lot written about them; this is everything I've found on him and the events surrounding his life, I want to direct you to two of my previous GA John William Pitt Kinau and Mary Polly Paaaina, and even J. R. Kealoha on the level of thoroughness in my research. I'm trying to improve the quality of all articles related to these minor royals so there are bound to be some figure who have less written about them then others. Paaaina Is even more obscure than he is actually.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:17, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, well, that makes sense.

Have you thought about combining minor royals under consideration into a possible group article? Shearonink (talk) 04:53, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe at a later date but I would like them the sixteen individual royal students to have their respective articles as well and to eventually work to GA for all of them and the school itself. It's just easier to do the minor ones at the moment because of my own personal standard on thoroughness.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:04, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
It is odd to me that the only images of a person is that of a person unrelated to the subject. Are there no other images or photos of the subject available?
Have you thought about adjusting the photo of ʻĪʻī to a smaller size? It is almost overwhelming the text... Shearonink (talk) 04:53, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Shearonink: I went ahead and removed the image. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:13, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. ok, well you're the nominator/editor...maybe play around with the size of the image at some later date if you wish. Shearonink (talk) 06:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Review is on hold pending a few minor matters. Shearonink (talk) 04:53, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article passes muster as a GA, laying out the known facts of a member of Hawaiian Royal Family. Shearonink (talk) 08:22, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.