Jump to content

Talk:Kalākaua's 1874–75 state visit to the United States/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Liveste (talk · contribs) 10:43, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kia ora tātou. I've read through the article and the FAC from last year, and I'll be doing the GAN review over the next week. Cheers. – Liveste (talk • edits) 10:43, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Liveste: When is this happening? KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:53, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@KAVEBEAR: Sincere apologies for the delay. The initial review is published now, and the nomination is on hold pending changes. – Liveste (talk • edits) 09:20, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Initial review

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Quite a well-written article. Only minor changes needed, plus a few others that are optional but recommended.

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    Some minor issues needing clarification or fixing; otherwise, prose is clear, concise, easy to read and engaging.
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    One comment in the Lead part of the Miscellaneous section below; otherwise, article complies with all relevant sections of the MoS.
  2. 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:
  3. 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):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. 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:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Miscellaneous, by section

[edit]
Lead
  • "first reigning monarch to set foot in the continental United States" — The first reigning monarch from any nation, or the first from the Kingdom of Hawaii? This should probably be specified (and linked if the latter). Also, is "continental" United States relevant here?
  • I get the "continental" question. Until Hawaii became a state, the US was all on one continent, even if you count the purchase of Alaska. I added that word, but was probably going for consistency as their trip was technically "across the continent". But not exactly the same thing as using it in the lead. Minor issue, so I removed the word. — Maile (talk) 18:41, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the king put up with the relentless attention" — Is this from the aforementioned government officials and military representatives, or from members of the public as well? The use of the word "the" here implies that whoever is giving the relentless attention has already been mentioned.
  • I changed it back. The lead is the summary. He was like a rock star of his day; people asked for his autograph. Everywhere he went, people wanted a piece of him - politicians, diplomats, judges of the US Supreme Court, the public, etc. People stood on rooftops in D. C. to see his carriage pass down the street. In San Francisco, they pitched financial ideas to him. He couldn't get off the train at a regular stop, without crowds of curiosity seekers mixed in the with local hoi polloi. In Missouri, the crowd was so large that the police had to sneak him in another entrance just to escort him to a planned reception. I'm not sure there's a brief way to say that in the lead. But, yes, it was relentless attention. — Maile (talk) 16:26, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just tweaked this to say, "Although ill with a viral infection throughout much of his trip, the king accommodated the relentless attention of being in the spotlight across America." Maybe this is better. — Maile (talk) 23:28, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The resulting close economic ties between the Hawaiian islands and the United States became a major factor leading to the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii in 1893." — The main body of the article doesn't confirm that it was a "major" factor leading to the overthrow. This is a significant statement, so the lead section shouldn't be this specific (per WP:LEAD) unless it's also included in the main article body and referenced.
  • @Liveste: I'm not sure if I can explain it better, but the word "major" is not necessary in the body. That concept is explained in two sections of the article:
  • "The quest for tariff easement" section explains the the need for the treaty. Sugar represented money, a lot of it. Countries they exported to were killing them on the tariffs, because those nations had their own sugar planters who did not have import taxes on their products. Hawaii planters wanted more profit. Hand-in-hand with the goal of lowering the taxes on sugar exports, the US kept trying to get the monarchy to sign over Pearl Harbor to them. 20 years before Kalakaua became King, the US tried to get Kahemahema III to sign over annexation of Hawaii to the United States. The greed that went into this was not subtle. Kalakaua himself was so-so lukewarm about a reciprocity treaty, but he was opposed to ceding Pearl Harbor to anybody. The kingdom's legislature passed a resolution to send him to D. C. to negotiate the reciprocity treaty.
  • The "aftermath" section is (I thought) worded so it draws a chronological line from the reciprocity treaty to the overthrow of Hawaii. There was financial prosperity like the kingdom had never seen before. Kalakaua started spending money on grandiose schemes and surrounded himself with men who enabled him. A lot of missionary descendants and other non-natives got elected to the legislature, many of whom were not pleased with Kalakaua's wild spending and crooked friends. In 1887, Kalakaua was forced to sign a new constitution that allowed non-residents to vote, while excluding voting rights of non-whites. When the treaty was renewed, new wording gave exclusive use of Pearl Harbor to the United States. The kingdom was overthrown by non-residents who wanted Hawaii annexed to the United States. — Maile (talk) 17:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The quest for tariff easement
  • "with Oregon and California sugar refiners" — The state names should be adjectives.
I changed it to "sugar refineries in Oregon and California" — Maile (talk) 11:21, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Profit margins were impacted by tariffs levied by importing nations, and the smaller locally owned operations were eclipsed by larger European- and American-owned plantations." — Just to clarify, are the European- and American-owned plantations in Hawaii, or were they competing plantations abroad that weren't subject to tariffs?
    Maile66? KAVEBEAR (talk) 15:13, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, it's good this came up on this review. As I read through it, this seemed to be missing the element of how foreigners came to influence this issue. I've since added about the 1850 Alien Land Ownership Act that allowed foreigners to buy up good plantation land in Hawaii. — Maile (talk) 16:30, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
San Francisco (November 28 – December 5, 1874)
  • Second image in this section has the caption: "Kalākaua and his suite with Mayor James Otis and staff ...". Although the use of "suite" here is correct (it took me a while to find this out), it's also uncommon and potentially confusing. At first I thought it was referring to a hotel suite, which is how it's used elsewhere in the same section. Perhaps replace it with something similar like "royal party" (which is also used in the article).
  • "The royal party boarded three private cars provided by the rail company on December 5." — It took me a while to understand that these were "rail cars" rather than motor cars (in this case, provided by a rail company). Perhaps either specify "three private railroad cars", or at least link to railroad car.
New Jersey and New York (December 23–30, 1874)
  • For Ref 58, the dashes should be made consistent, since they don’t appear this way in the ref itself.
  • According to the Wikipedia article, the Manhattan theatre was destroyed by fire in 1848, so it wasn't that one. The sources do not say which theatre it was, but that's a pretty common name for a theatre. There could have been others that Wikipedia doesn't have an article on. I think we should err on the side of caution and not link the theatre. — Maile (talk) 19:58, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
New England (December 31, 1874 – January 9, 1875)
  • "New Bedford had been the point of origin for many whaling ships and missionaries sent to Hawaii. The day after stopping in New Haven, they accepted an invitation from Bedford's Mayor George B. Richmond to visit the town." — There's a Bedford, Massachusetts and a New Bedford, Massachusetts. The ref confirms they went to New Bedford, so the second sentence should specify "New Bedford" as well to avoid confusion. Also, it'd be useful to write "New Bedford, Massachusetts" at the start of the first sentence, to clarify that the party had gone to a different state.
  • "and attended by 100 master mariners" — The ref says nearly 100 master mariners.
  • "visits to the Merchants Exchange, the Massachusetts General Court." — These should be separated by an "and".
  • Refs 76 and 77: It took a while to determine that what preceded the ref info were actually direct quotes. Is there a better way to display these? Also, I think there should at least be a space between the direct quote and the ref info.
    Maile66?KAVEBEAR (talk) 15:13, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Question: Not sure I understand this. I don't see any direct quotes in this section. What I see as Refs 76 and 77 are two very short clips that merely source the statement that this was the point in his trip when he began back in the direction of Hawaii. — Maile (talk) 19:24, 26 October 2019 (UTC) Also, with some edits I made in other places, I think these are now Refs 70 and 80. — Maile (talk) 21:02, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Aftermath
  • "Exported products for 1890 … was $13,282,729.48. (all figures given are Hawaiian dollars)" — I think this needs some slight rewording. Perhaps replace with something like: ""Exported products for 1890 … earned $13,282,729.48 (in Hawaiian dollars)."
  • "As the kingdom's income rose, so did Kalākaua's expenditures (all figures given are Hawaiian dollars): $343,595 to build and furnish Iolani Palace; a delayed coronation in excess of $50,000; a $75,000 public celebration of his 50th birthday." — This might need some rewording, especially if it's not certain that this is an exhaustive list of his expenditures. Also, the semicolons aren't needed and can be replaced with commas. I'd recommend something like the following (added words in bold, semicolons replaced): "As the kingdom's income rose, so did Kalākaua's expenditures (all figures given are Hawaiian dollars): this included $343,595 to build and furnish Iolani Palace, a delayed coronation in excess of $50,000, and a $75,000 public celebration of his 50th birthday."

Optional

[edit]

The following points aren't specifically covered in the GA criteria, so whether they are addressed or not won't have any effect on the outcome of the GA nomination. But I'd still recommend looking at them in any case. Some of these I can even do myself if there are no objections.

  • The link to MOS Hawaii-related articles should be removed from the "See also" section, per MOS:LINKSTYLE (not strictly included in the GAC, though). The link currently on the talk page should be more than sufficient.
  • Query on ref 45: I'm not sure why multiple sources are lumped together in the one reference, and used to source two entire paragraphs here. Was it too messy to separate them for individual sentences? Not problematic, but a bit unusual IMO.
  • Visuals and neatness, in my case. Those are short paragraphs. There was enough itinerary info at each stop to break it into two separate paragraphs. Both sources contain information of both stops. — Maile (talk) 18:02, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query on orthography: should "Iolani Palace" be spelled with the ʻokina, like in the main article ʻIolani Palace? I wasn't sure on this point.
  • Abbreviation styles: this is related to what came up in the FAC, but it might be a good idea to make abbreviations styles more consistent: for example, the article has both "Washington, D.C." (with full stops) and also "US" (without full stops). Neither style is wrong though, so it doesn't strictly need to be fixed here.

Overall comments

[edit]

The review is on hold while the above items are addressed. Feel free to discuss any concerns with the items in this review. Cheers. – Liveste (talk • edits) 09:20, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Liveste:, I think @KAVEBEAR: and I have addressed all issues raised. Let us know if we missed anything, or you see anything else. Thanks for all the time you put into this. — Maile (talk) 20:19, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Liveste:, just checking in, are you still here? You haven't edited since October. KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:59, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
KAVEBEAR, Maile, I have just requested a second opinion/second reviewer, since Liveste's editing history indicates that they sometimes step away from Wikipedia for many months at a time. I'm hoping that either my post on Liveste's page will result in their imminent return (though not optimistic), or that a second reviewer will show up soon and be willing to take over the review and complete it. Thanks for your patience, and I hope someone shows up soon. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:03, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
BlueMoonset, KAVEBEAR, Maile66, I'll step in and take a look at this article. Should have time to do the second-opinion review over the next few days. Ganesha811 (talk) 00:51, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion review - template

[edit]

I'll be using this template to do my review, after reading through the previous review of course. Ganesha811 (talk) 00:54, 13 December 2019 (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.
  • Issues addressed. Pass.
  • Generally very good prose. A few notes:
  • I think the lead should mention in the first paragraph, if not first sentence, that Kalakaua was King of the Kingdom of Hawaii - as it is it could be confusing to those who are not already aware of Kalakaua.
  • I'm going to punt this one over to @KAVEBEAR: for an opinion. King of the kingdom seems redundant and unnecessary to me. The entire second paragraph details how he became king and was sent on this journey, which seems appropriate to me. — Maile (talk) 12:11, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that sounds good! It's clear and gives all the most important information for the article in a single simple sentence.
  • "The quest for" is somewhat odd language - maybe replace with "Desire for" or similar
  • The Wikipedia article Quest defines the process as "a journey toward a specific mission or a goal." That would be what that section is all about, the historical background of Hawaii's political efforts for tariff easement. "Desire" doesn't seem to define the section as well. — Maile (talk) 11:42, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
  • No issues. Pass.
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.
  • Pass. No issues found.
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).
  • Pass. Very good sourcing.
2c. it contains no original research.
  • No issues. Pass.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  • Pass. No issues.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
  • Question addressed. Pass.
  • A question of interest to me, and perhaps to other readers, is how the King's itinerary was chosen. Other than the obvious high-level diplomatic engagements, why did he go where he went? Why New Haven? Why the Waltham Watch Company? Etc. The only one I saw answered was New Bedford, about the whalers. I understand if this information is not available or not in sources, but if it's out there, it would be good to incorporate where possible.
  • Perhaps @KAVEBEAR: can answer some of these questions, also. New Haven is explained as the home to Yale University that trained many of Hawaii's leaders. As for the itinerary, he was the head of state on a diplomatic mission, so it was probably planned out by several advisors in advance. It does look like he touched all bases with the movers and shakers of political influence. And even in his day, there were photo ops and handshaking/autograph sessions. Some of it was obviously tourist site-seeing and shopping, and the watch factory probably falls into that category. Don't know for sure. — Maile (talk) 19:42, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except for San Francisco, New England and the DC region. To my knowledge there is no reason for the king to visit the other cities, and I do think the information is not available in the sources as we know of since this topic isn't heavily covered in detail in existing secondary sources where such speculation would be written. KAVEBEAR (talk) 09:30, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  • Question addressed. Pass.
  • What is the value of the list of guests at the state dinner? I'm not sure what we get from this, as we already expect a State Dinner to have eminent guests by its very nature. Do we have any information about how these guests might have interacted with the King, or if the guest list was different in some way than would be expected?
  • This was the very first White House state dinner ever, so there was no "expected". Those in attendance set the standard for how all future White House state dinners were planned. Generally speaking, when such an historic event happens, it is appropriate to document who was present and what their titles were. — Maile (talk) 19:42, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  • Pass. No issues.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  • Pass. No issues.
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.
  • Pass. No issues.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
  • Images added. Pass.
  • Would be great to have some images for the latter half of the article. I understand if none are available, however.
7. Overall assessment.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kalākaua%27s_1874–75_state_visit_to_the_United_States/GA1&oldid=1093882685"