Talk:Keawepoepoe/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: CPA-5 (talk · contribs) 21:23, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

and then set off to visit the Island of Hawaii Link Island of Hawaii.
From this union Keawepoepoe was born.[5][3] Re-order the refs in numerical order.

Ok...sure. What do you mean exactly? They appear to be in chronological order, 1880 (Fornander) and 1888 (King Kalakaua), but I will make whatever change you are asking for specifically if it is not asking to comply to more than the GA critria.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:39, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean is in numerical order instead of chronological order 3 is before 5 so 3 should be next to the full stop and then the 5.

ruled by Keaweʻīkekahialiʻiokamoku and his half sister Kalanikauleleiaiwi Link both names.

Uhm...they are already linked in the lede. The only other links should be in the infobox. You are aware of GA criteria...right?

By MOS:REPEATLINK it is handy to link it the first occurrence after the lead.

Lonoikahaupu was entertained with festivities and amusements for weeks Link the name.

To what? There is no article.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:46, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By MOS:UNDERLINK you should not be scared to link them into a red link. It could be handy for editors nor readers to see that there is no(t yet an) article about that topic.

You're really not qualified to a GA review are you?--Mark Miller (talk) 08:51, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe try to avoid using citations in the intro/lead. And put the information it has citations to the body.
Kamehameha I is overlinked.

Sure. Let me fix that.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:46, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

to his daughter Napunanahunui in perpetuity and remained

I'm seriously gonna need more here to understand what you are requesting.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:46, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry I mean to link the proper noun. I probably forgot this one.

Many other Hawaiians aren't linked?
who was also the wife and half sister of Keaweʻīkekahialiʻiokamoku "half sister" needs a hyphen.
with a huge entourage of double hulled canoes "double hulled" needs a hyphen.
was ruled by Keaweʻīkekahialiʻiokamoku and his half sister Kalanikauleleiaiwi Again half sister.
were the principle warriors that assisted You mean "principal"?
No edit war.

Infobox

No links to all of his issues?

Images

Is there no image of him? If not then maybe we should add another image?

Sources

No ORs.
Ref 1, translate its title.
Ref 2, "pp. 295-296." --> "pp. 295–296."
Ref 3, "pp. 354-355." --> "pp. 354–355."
Ref 5, "pp. 296-297." --> "pp. 296–297."
Ref 15, "pp. 151-152." --> "pp. 151–152."
Fornander's source shouldn't have a Google Books' URL. Because we should only add a URL if Google Books let us have a preview.

I don't recognize that as GA criteria or Wikipedia guidelines. Could you point this out to me?--Mark Miller (talk) 07:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By WP:GBOOKS Google Books' URLs should only be added if Google Books gives us a preview with the info in it.

Some ISBNs have more than one hyphen and others have only one. Maybe standardise them.
Barrère's source shouldn't have a Google Books' URL. Also remove ASIN, for now, ASIN isn't available in all countries.
Strange a lot of sources have no location why that? Or haven't all sources a location?
Star-Bulletin's source shouldn't have an URL link. Same with ʻĪʻī, Kalakaua, Pitman and Westervelt's sources

Why? I need to understand how your objections are to Wikipedia guidelines and, more importantly to GA criteria.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:53, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Same as above.

Why hasn't Westervelt an ISBN or any other book code?

Is there a request here?--Mark Miller (talk) 07:53, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By WP:HOWCITE ISBNs are optional but for GAN only. A- and FA-classes need an ISBN. It is maybe optional but a book code should be included an OCLC, hoi or others to. Some books do not have an ISBN because they're made in an area in history when there weren't ISBNs but a book code should be included except if there is no code. But then the Google Books' URL can be handy but we should try to add books's codes. However these days ISBNs are de facto required in almost anything.

I do not believe this is required for GA.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:50, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The rest looks good to me.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:23, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aloha. I just got to the page today and hope this counts as beginning the changes needed. It is late here in California but I will try to make a good faith change tonight.Mark Miller (talk) 07:32, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Mark, the GA criteria are a part of the major Wikipedia guidelines there are many other rules which of whom are separate from GA criteria like FA criteria and the imported of all MOS. MOS has the most guidelines and most of my comments are from MOS. Could you also address the refs and the image? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:06, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aloha my friend. I'm sorry but I believe you are going beyond the GA criteria which is specific and completely separate from other article levels such as FA which has a much higher standard. However, for GA, you may not apply other parts of the MOS that are not specifically part of the criteria. Per GA criteria;

[A]ll inline 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;

there are no scientific citations used. The only additional instructions are in the note for sources and references and states;

Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but preferably not both in the same article. In-line citations should preferably be of a consistent style.

For example, you make a demand for a translation? That is not part of GA criteria. I am sorry, but I believe I need to challenge you here on many of your demands as excessive and beyond GA criteria and that your explanation is simply not accurate. Yes, Wikipedia has mnay guidelines and theyare just that...guidelines. That is why GA does not make the same demands as FA which I do not believe even require some of the demands you are making here.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:23, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, MOS says The Manual of Style (MoS or MOS) is the style manual for all English Wikipedia articles which means that every article should be written by MOS, GA criteria aren't part of MOS but an article should still be written by MOS style. GA criteria are the next level above MOS and have more specific information how a GA should look like, but even FAs should be written by MOS. A FAC should have everything from MOS while in GAN most some of them are optional. The goal of FAC is to standardise anything and the usages of some words or terms. Like for instead ISBN isn't maybe required in GAN but it's in de facto used in GANs because most people are preparing their articles to A- or FA-classes. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:32, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How many GA reviews have you done? Unless something has drastically changed, your interpretation of GA guidelines leaves me little choice but to request a second opinion review. I am now asking you to seek such a request at the GA nomination page. Perhaps we should also take this to the Good Article talk page. If you are correct and any of your requests are legitimate, it is a small article and I've tackled bigger but, I have also encountered those that made sure I adhered to the GA criteria and not other Wikipedia guidelines. That is neither the spirit or the actual instruction of GA reviewing.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:42, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has almost no actual rules. We have guidelines and having been here since 2016 I would think you understand that I guideline is not a rule. We do have the 3 Revert Rule but very few others. I will only do what is needed for a GA listing and not to satisfy whatever it is you like or dislike. Let me be clear, this is a GA review not an FA review.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:47, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I can tell in the GA criteria state it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation which means it complies with the manual of style guidelines and in the Scientific citation guidelines it states that It is important to provide linkage data such as the ISBN for books, and relevant database identifiers that link to papers or their bibliographic records. Such linkages facilitate the verification of sourced statements. Examples include the DOI for articles in many areas of science which means that ISBN and/or other relevant database identifiers. These are part of the GA criteria. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 09:26, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can only tell you that it is not from the past GA reviews I have done.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:28, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments

As per the talk at Wikipedia talk:Good articles, there's some additional issues here: So, what is the article about, exactly? I was about to write a lede sentence, but had no idea. Something like: Keawepoepoe was a Hawaiian prince born circa 1700. But I had no idea if he was a prince, or just royalty or whatever (or even if that's technically his nationality).

Most of the lede here could be placed into the birth section, and a new lede written summarizing his life.

Got it. I will look at that as soon as I am able.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:26, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He was the youngest child and possibly his mother's favorite. - this is a massive issue. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:06, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why? It is in the source used.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:26, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As he grew he was considered a handsome young man who charmed many young women.^{[according to whom?]}

Again, what the source states.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:26, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the royal Twins - Twins is not a proper noun. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:06, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is how they are referred to in almost all sources.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:26, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In; "The Polynesian Race Volume II" on page 132 Fornander states all three, Keeaumoku, Kamanawa and Kameʻeiamoku are the sons of Keawepoepoe however, on page 154 he also states that Kamanawa and Kameʻeiamoku were the "tabbooed twin children of Kekaulike (King of Maui)". - can we cite the actual text being discussed? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:06, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:26, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've run a few scripts to help with citations. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:06, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking time on this. I will look into everything you mentioned.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:26, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aloha! First, thank you for not closing this. Sorry I have not been able to back but a short illness made things a bit difficult and then my some family issues popped up but it was my spouse breaking their leg that set all my projects back more than a month, Sorry. Things are beginning to calm down but I need to adjust to everything a bit more before I can get back to this!--Mark Miller (talk) 05:43, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh...too much. Over whelmed. No time for this in the coming month. Please close this User:Lee Vilenski.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:39, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Final note

Closing per above request of nominator Mark Miller. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:10, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]