Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Prince Romerson

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.

Article promoted by Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 06:07, 31 July 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Prince Romerson

Nominator(s): KAVEBEAR (talk)

Featured article candidates/Prince Romerson/archive1

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe this article can be considered an A-class article but may need extra peer review to get it there. The ultimate goal is to get this to feature article status as a very short featured articles along with a few other articles on Hawaiian and Pacific Islander combatants in the American Civil War. KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:27, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:USSMercedita.jpg: is any further information about the source available? Author, record details, etc? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:21, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No I am not sure. I wasn't the original uploader. Should it be removed? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:43, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can the information be found to verify the given license? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find it, so I added another image.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:36, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: just a quick comment at this stage. In the citations you have "Manning & Vance 2015", but in the References "Manning, Anita; Vance, Justin W. (2014).". I assume 2015 is a typo. Can you please confirm? Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:54, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, it is a typo.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 12:30, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changed the format for the reference format 2015 NPS book based on advise from Trappist the monk on FAC review page for Henry Hoʻolulu Pitman.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:12, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, no worries, but it seems there is now a citation error due to the presence of the "National Park Service 2015, pp. 142–145" citation, without a corresponding long reference in Bibliography section. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:54, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I changed that as well.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 12:40, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the subject's approximate date of birth should appear somewhere in the body of the article (it is currently only included in the lead and infobox)
- Done.KAVEBEAR (talk) 14:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
" He died on March 30, 1872": do the sources specify what caused his death?
- Not in source.KAVEBEAR (talk) 14:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"...need to remember "our boys from Hawaii" --> not sure about the inclusion of the quote here, as it isn't really attributed in text and seems to add a little point of view. Perhaps this might work better, "...need to remember the military service of Hawaiians"?
- I see merit to keeping this,KAVEBEAR (talk) 14:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Understood. For FAC, I'm of the opinion that there might be a smoother way to utilize the quote, most likely by directly attributing it to a person at a time and place (e.g. "During an interview with...so and so stated..." or "During a campaign statement, so and so stated..." or "In an article published by the...so and so said..." That said, it's a minor point, and if my opinion is in the minority I won't stand in the way of promotion. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:46, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
inconsistent capitalisation: "under Anglicized names" v. "under anglicized pseudonyms"
- Done.KAVEBEAR (talk) 14:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
for consistency, is there a place of publishing that could be added for the Moniz work in the Further reading section?
- Done.KAVEBEAR (talk) 14:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
in the Bibliography, compare "Washington, D. C." with "Naperville, IL" (inconsistent presentation of the secondary location)
- This is how Washington, D.C. is written in publishing location. States are not punctuated.
  - Ack. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:46, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Norwood, MA: Printed at the Norwood Press" suggest changing to "Norwood, MA: Norwood Press"
- Changed,KAVEBEAR (talk) 14:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Honolulu: Printed at the Hawaiian Gazette Office" suggest changing to "Honolulu: Hawaiian Gazette Office". AustralianRupert (talk) 13:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it should remain this way because this is a periodical and the publisher isn't clear.KAVEBEAR (talk) 14:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - No worries, it's not a warstoper for me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:46, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Comment~~ -- copyedited a little but in general I found the article well-written and easy to comprehend. It's brief, but I can see you've mined many sources and appreciate there may not be a huge amount of detail on the subject. I note Nikki's image review above, but would prefer to see a source review from her if possible (more for reliability than formatting) before I support, especially if the article's ultimate destination is FAC. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:03, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source formatting is quite inconsistent, but I'm not seeing any significant reliability concerns. Looks like Bookhaus has subsequently gone out of business(?), but from what I can tell it appears to have been reputable. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:38, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The inconsistency lies in the fact that news and web sources can't be cited with Harvard referencing style. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:37, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, actually they can. Either harv or sfn can be used to produce these results, you just have to include a ref tag within the cite web or cite news template so that the short citation can be anchored to it. There's an example at Australian Flying Corps if you want to see the html mark up. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 14:02, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tks guys -- if the formatting can be improved I'd suggest doing so before FAC, but I won't hold up support on that account here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is an utterly fascinating article. My only comment is that I wish the second image could be staggered to the left because I prefer the aesthetics of left/right images but, sadly, yours is the correct format. LavaBaron (talk) 01:37, 29 July 2016 (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.