Talk:J. W. Lonoaea/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Bryanrutherford0 (talk · contribs) 19:10, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

• I'll review this article. I should be able to get a full review up in the next day. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 19:10, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The prose standard is fine. The article complies with the various MoS sections indicated in the GA criteria.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Some claims in the final paragraph need citations to support them; specifically, the claim that exactly thirteen legislators were injured, the claim that he returned to Wailuku to recover, the date of his death and the claim that the news took five days to reach Honolulu are currently unsupported.

Not understanding the problem here. The source links on LoC seems to be not working now. It maybe going through maintenance but the facts are sourced to the newspapers cited in through sentences. KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:28, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, I'll take another look when the newspaper site comes back up. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 12:58, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay, so, the source cited after those claims ("Legislative Assembly - Session of 1874", Pacific Commercial Advertiser, 2 May 1874) does not include anything about Lonoaea at all; it only confirms that his seat was taken over by a "N. Kepoikai" in the next session. As the article now stands, there doesn't appear to be any support for any of the claims between citation #13 and the sentence about N. Kepoikai. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 17:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The article says nothing about the subject's life before being elected to the legislature, nor anything about his time in the 1872 legislature; in essence, it only tells the reader that he was elected twice, voted for Lunalilo and then for Kalākaua in the elections to the monarchy, and was mortally wounded in the riot, dying shortly thereafter. While this is enough to establish the subject's notability, it doesn't seem to me to reach the standard of "broad coverage" of the scope of a biography. At the absolute minimum, if basic facts such as Lonoaea's given names, the date and circumstances of his birth and the other events of his life are irrevocably lost to history, then the article should at least acknowledge those absences, since they are major biographical details that any reader would wonder about.

Yes that is lacking since the sources don't have much about him beyond these facts. He was an obscure historical figure so the article has more to do with the context of the time as well. KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:28, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Understood, but, as I said, that may mean that this is incapable of becoming a Good Article. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 12:58, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   The article seems appropriately neutral to the topic.

2. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

3. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The sole image is of soldiers during the riot; perhaps the image File:Martin and Moehonua, injured survivors of Honolulu Courthouse Riot of 1874.jpg depicting others wounded in the riot might be more informative? It seems more relevant to this topic to me.

4. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I'm not sure this article can be rated "good" with so many basic biographical details missing. What content it does contain is generally at an acceptable standard of clarity and verifiability, with a few issues I've noted above. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 17:43, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

• The review is going on hold for seven days pending a response from the nominator. Without significant movement after that time it will fail. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 15:42, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

  This nomination is now failed, because of unaddressed issues noted above (a lack of citations for some substantive claims, dates, etc., and a failure to achieve broad coverage of the topic). If these issues can be address at a later date, then the article should be renominated for GA. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 01:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)