Talk:Kaniakapupu/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ivar the Boneful (talk · contribs) 14:49, 20 August 2017 (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 is fine, though there are a few minor corrections / rephrasings that could be made (which I will do have done myself). The lede is basically perfect, except I'm wondering if the opening sentence could be made slightly clearer. Could "...is the ruins of the former summer palace..." be simplified to "...was the summer palace..."? I assume this wording was chosen because of the dual names issue (as far as I can tell the palace was never known as Kaniakapupu, only the ruins), but this might be being overly pedantic at the expense of readability. It's not essential that it be changed, so I'll leave it up to the nominator to decide whether it's worth altering. There is also some inconsistency with how the name is spelled in the article (Kaniakapūpū vs Kaniakapupu) – it should really be one or the other. Just for accuracy reasons I would probably prefer the version with the macrons be used, but again I don't have a strong opinion.

I didn't alter the intro. But I changed Kaniakapupu to Kaniakapūpū.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:50, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   The sources used in the article all appear to be of a high quality. Everything in the article has inline citations, and the same citation style is used throughout. There is nothing to suggest any plagiarism or original research. In the third paragraph of the "History" section there is an "excessive citations" tag. I would agree with the tagger that five citations are unnecessary there; they should either be condensed into a single citation (as with Citation 33) or some should be removed.

Condensed the citations. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:50, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The nominator has done a good job in covering the topic as broadly as possible with somewhat limited source material. The article size is exactly what you would expect for this sort of topic. A few minor quibbles though. I'm not sure if the section on the plaque is actually necessary – it doesn't really add any new information to the article, and the image of the plaque could just as easily moved up to the preceding section on conservation efforts. But then again it isn't detrimental to the article, so I'm happy to leave that up to the nominator's discretion. I also think the quote from Suzanne Case in the "Vandalism" case is unnecessary. It's not especially interesting, and the same could have been said for virtually any historic site. It seems like it's just filling space, and I would think it would be best if it were removed.

Removed the quote but left the plaque for now. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:50, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   There are no neutrality issues, mainly because there aren't really any facts in the article that are up for dispute. There are aesthetic opinions (in the form of architectural descriptions), but these do not violate WP:SUBJECTIVE as they are given in direct quotes rather than in Wikipedia's voice.

2. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   There are no ongoing edit wars or content disputes.

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):

   There are five images used in the article, all of which are either in the public domain or tagged with an appropriate Creative Commons licence. The captions are short and sweet, no issues there.

4. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Great work on the article, KAVEBEAR – now I know who's responsible for all the Hawaii DYKs! There are a few minor changes to be made / potential changes to be considered, as noted above, but once those are ticked off I'm happy to pass this. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 14:49, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

   The changes requested above have been made, I'm now satisfied that the article is of a high enough standard to be promoted to Good Article status. Well done! Ivar the Boneful (talk) 18:06, 21 August 2017 (UTC)