Talk:Liliʻuokalani/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Caeciliusinhorto (talk · contribs) 12:36, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Wow, this nomination has been open for 9 months now. It's about time someone got around to reviewing it, I think. I'm sorry you've had to wait so long; expect some initial commentary in a few hours... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 12:36, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

This took me slightly longer to get to than anticipated. I've given the article one read through, and it looks superficially good, but some of the prose could use tightening up. The glaring exception to what seems to be a generally high quality article is the section on legacy, which just seems to be a bulleted list of stuff which has been named after her. I would strongly suggest recasting that in prose, with some sort of logical narrative behind it; as it is it falls foul of WP:GA? criterion 1b.

And now for a closer read through. Up to the end of "Early life", so far:

• "last reigning monarch of the Kingdom of Hawaii": is the word "reigning" necessary? It looks redundant to me.
• "beginning January 29, 1891": I would say "from January 29, 1891".
  • Changed.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:06, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
• "The composer of "Aloha ʻOe" and numerous other musical compositions" the repetition of "composer... compositions" is clunky. I would say "The composer of "Aloha Oe" and numerous other works".
  • Changed.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:06, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
• What does it mean to have been "deemed eligible for the throne"? The article doesn't really make this clear, and at least to someone like me who doesn't really know anything about Hawaiian history, this seems like an odd concept.
  • Um, it's not exactly clear either in history. These children were just considered and listed as eligible royal heirs for the throne in the event of succession crisises when the king doesn't clearly name an heir apparent. There were two cases of this in 1872 and 1874 in which royal elections were disputed by royals who attended the school. Jim Bartels once said, "They did a remarkable thing. They created a school only for the children of the seven families which would be appropriate to rule. And they simply turned their children over to an American missionary couple and allowed them to just take them and train them any way they wished." --KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:06, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I dispute this and feel much of it is original research. This must be rectified or removed. It is also contentious as it is and has been used as the basis for claims to the throne in a manner that may truly have created a false impression without reliable sources to state this clearly.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:27, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

@Mark Miller: it's not clear what exactly you are claiming is original research which ought to be removed from the article. Can you clarify? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 13:04, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

@Caeciliusinhorto: I am not clear with on what is being asserted. But if we drill down, we can see who did what that might be disputed. Please note that @Mark Miller: wrote much of what he seems to be disputing. @KAVEBEAR: only changed a few words, which I don't see as OR. But maybe the assertion of OR is about something else. Clarification would be appreciated. — Maile (talk) 15:10, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

23:13 Sept 26, 2016 edit by Mark Miller

:10 Sept 27, 2016 edit by KAVEBEAR

Yes, I added that but it should actually read that they were "listed as being eligible" not "deemed eligible for the throne". The original point brought up by the reviewer and as explained by KAVEBEAR makes that specific portion OR because it is based only on the fact that they were all listed at one time in a proclamation, not that the proclamation made them eligible. I am asserting that that information should be clarified or simply removed from the lead. Sorry if I came across unclear.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:05, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@Mark Miller: I understand that this is important to you. But from where I sit, it's a matter of parsing words, how it's perceived all depends on the person reading the words. It is somewhat WP:POINTy. But I will leave this up to the reviewer here.— Maile (talk) 14:26, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

None of this is "important to me" and I really do not understand your accusation of disruption, especially if this is content I added and was responding/replying to the reviewer and the editor's exact issues with specifics about why I feel it is original research. This has come up before on other articles in regard to at least two living persons. There is no accusation against KAVEBEAR, you or the reviewer. Because this is a GA review of an article I am a major contributor to I feel inclined to participate. Are you asking me to refrain from commenting?--Mark Miller (talk) 18:58, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I do see a significant difference in meaning between "deemed eligible" and "proclaimed eligible". What does KAVEBEAR have to say about it? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:54, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

A part of the confusion here is what KAVEBEAR mentions from the former Iolani Palace Curator as being a bit of the original research I am concerned with. I do not know if it was Mr. Bartels intention to claim that only those from the school were eligible to be named heirs (as the constitution gives the monarch the right to choose any successor, depending) or if he simply thought it of interest that Kamehameha III set up a royal school for the current heirs. Bernice was named because of her connection to someone with a disputed paternity and actually turned down the succession on Kamehameha V's deathbed when he refused to name two others. I believe that to be sensitive to this subject of succession, we have to stick to only what is absolutely apparent and from reliable sources. We know it is a proclamation because of the sources as well as the primary source document.

The entire reason of the proclamation was because Kamehameha III did not have surviving children and wanted to attempt to cast as wide a net as possible for the line of succession within the Christian standards he had to conform to and the families that were important to Kamehameha's (they were all basically first and second cousins) conquest. He had already tried to marry his full blood sister and then named his male lover as the engrafted king of Hawaii. Much of the proclamation was to make sure that succession stayed within that standard. He also knew he had a very limited list of direct Kamehamehas to choose from. He named the only two dynastic, descendants of Kamehameha I left as his own heirs. Wisely, he named others as eligible as neither of those two had children (at least legal heirs) but each constitution deems the direct succession. Long short (too late), we should not try to imply anything that suggests one family line over another in the succession or word it in any way that sounds like it pushes a point of view or synthesizes any particular point about the line of succession based on the proclamation itself or the interpretation of sources. There are sources that discuss this and perhaps a separate article is a good idea but we should keep it simple here. By this time the monarch was no longer the supreme monarch. He had co-regent and a body of nobles that had to all agree. "Deem" would seem to imply this was his decision only and framing this as being the only pool of people that could be chosen doesn't seem accurate at all.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

My issue with "proclaimed eligible" is that I don't understand how this news article is considered a proclamation. The part where the princes and chiefs are listed is a list. The part before were proclamations. But you are correct, the decision was not Kamehameha's alone. If you read, "The Chiefs' children's school a record compiled from the diary and letters of Amos Starr Cooke and Juliette Montague Cooke, by their granddaughter. Mary Atherton Richards", it mentions the decision was equally shared by the parents of the chiefly children and was one of the dying wish of Kinau (Kamehameha III's sister and the second kuhina nui). I just got "Facing the Spears of Change: The Life and Legacy of John Papa `Ī`ī" maybe we can find something more specific. Honestly, it works the way it is. I rather not argue for the sake of arguing. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:33, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

"I don't understand how this news article is considered a proclamation" - I didn't want to get ahead of the discussion by trying to assume what your reaction or objection might be but this was one I wondered about. While I appreciate the suggested reading, could you please present the source and/or snippet of the reference that supports the claim that only those that attended the school could be eligible and how it fits within the context of the article? The newspaper only copies the proclamation much like they do with the Kingdom Supreme Court records. The entire list is part of the formal proclamation. That much seems pretty clear to me where it states "In council".--Mark Miller (talk) 01:51, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that, the best example of how this was simply not accurate, is that when Kamehameha V died, even though she was not named in the proclamation and I don't even think she attended the school, Keʻelikōlani was allowed to run for monarch along with Emma and Kalakaua when no heir triggered the constitutional clause.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:11, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

There is a reason why since Keʻelikōlani was an adult and also a member of the House of Nobles when the royal school was founded and was mother to one of the student John William Pitt Kinau. Attendance at the school was not absolute to the succession, but those who attended were considered eligible to be rulers.----KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:35, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

• "After the accession of her brother, Kalākaua to the throne as monarch in 1874": more apparent redundancy. By definition, he is monarch if he is acceding to the throne.
  • Changed.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:06, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
• "After her brother's death on January 20, 1891, Liliʻuokalani ascended to the throne and assumed the title on January 29." presumably "assumed the title of Queen of Hawaii", but if so again I would just cut it entirely per the Principle of Some Astonishment.
  • Did nothing.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:06, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
    • I made this adjustment.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
• "the former Queen": I think, per WP:JOBTITLES, "queen" should be lower-case.
  • Changed.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:06, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
• "Christian name Lydia": WP:OVERLINKING. I wouldn't bother linking either "Christian name" or "Lydia"; putting them together like that is doubly distracting as it gives the reader the task of working out whether it's one link or two.
  • I'd like to return the link to Lydia as it has pertinent information on why she is remembered with purple. I'd also at least like to argue that the link to "Christian name" is not over linking on a page where people may assume she was pagan or non-Christian in a historic context. But I'll leave both for the reviewer to decide before making any change.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Changed.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:06, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
• "sharing common descent from the 18th-century aliʻi nui Keaweʻīkekahialiʻiokamoku": the article mainly does a good job of explaining Hawaiian titles, but "ali'i nui" is never explained in the article – might be worth adding a definition.
  • Added explanation.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:01, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

This looks like a lot of problems, but they are generally easy fixes. Like I say, Liliuokalani#Legacy is the major problem, the rest is just copyediting. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 10:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments on §Courtship and married life:

• "During this period, the young Liliʻuokalani became a part of the young social elite under the reign of Kamehameha IV": repetition of "young". "During this period, Lili'uokalani" is fine.

• Changed.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• "certain elements of the court argued": weasel words. Who argued it? Do we know why?

• The members of the court. It is 19th century gossip, so there is definitely a level of discretion when naming who said what.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• If we are giving direct quotes, WP:V actually requires that we name who said what. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:54, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Unless the information is part of a larger context I really think repeating court gossip might be trivial. There are, in many cases, documentation to specific instances of the court in reliable sources but if they either give no further specifics or if the mention is contentious, it would be best to loose it for brevities sake.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

If it's just trivial court gossip, cutting it is fine. What I don't want is to be in the situation where we're saying "it's just court gossip, so we don't need to attribute it", but still keeping the quote in the article. Either it's a significant opinion which needs attribution, or it's trivia which can be cut. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

There was a lot of this type of talk in many different sources that attribute the talk but a lot of it is unattributed because it is just gossip. I'm fine either way but agree that all quotes must be attributed.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:11, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

There is significance to this quote. It highlights the rank of the chiefess and her place in the court in the 1850s and also the beginning talks about her marriage potentials and her relationship to the eventual bride Queen Emma. The quote is attributed to "Some of those interested in the genealogies of the historic families of the Hawaiian chiefs" according to Liliuokalani and the opinion was supported by Kapaakea (Liliu's father), Paki (Liliu's adoptive father), and Joshua Kaeo (Emma's uncle) (this is explained by Allen 1982, pp. 81–84; Kanahele 1999, pp. 60–62 who didn't have the Queen's Victorian reserve to leave out names). It is never stated that these chiefs said the quote either. More likely it was one of their retainers or servants. So instead of saying all of that I condensed it to "certain elements of the court". --KAVEBEAR (talk) 17:12, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

See, this is exactly the problem with giving direct quotes without good attribution. I originally read the article as this being a direct quote from a specific courtier, but if I am reading you right it is actually filtered through the memoirs of Liliuokalani herself, written forty years after the fact. This is the kind of important detail that readers need to know. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:44, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that was the confusion. So I added "However, according to Liliʻuokalani, certain elements of the court argued..."--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:35, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Added footnote about Kapaakea's quotation from Gregg's about daughter's eligibility and marriage prospects.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

• "Despite this upset, she was regarded as a close friend of the new Queen" the last woman in the nominative was Queen Emma; it's confusing that "she" is now referring again to Lili'uokalani. Better would be: "Despite this upset, L. was regarded..."

• Changed.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• "Visiting British dignitaries: Lady Franklin and her niece Sophia Cracroft noted in 1861": this colon shouldn't be here.

• Changed.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• "They both shared an interest": "both" is redundant here

• Changed.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• "A short-lived dual engagement occurred in which Liliʻuokalani was engaged to Lunalilo and her brother Kalakaua to Princess Victoria. She ultimately broke off the engagement" the word "engagement" appears twice, "engaged" once, in only two sentences. Rewrite to avoid this repetition?

• Changed.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• "at the urging of King Kamehameha IV and the opposition of the Bishops": this is ambiguous. Were the Bishops opposing the engagement, or the breaking off of it? I presume the former.

• Changed.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• "Afterward, she became romantically involved with the American-born John Owen Dominis, a staff member of Prince Lot Kapuāiwa (the future Kamehameha V and also later a secretary of King Kamehameha IV and an Adjutant General Major." Two points, here: a) a closing parenthesis is missing. b) as it is written now, Prince Lot was secretary of Kamehameha IV after being Kamehameha V, which seems implausible.

• Changed. Also removed Adjutant General Major for now.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• "a neighboring school next to the Cookes'." more redundancy. simply "a neighbouring school" is fine.

• I'm keeping this one. How about "a neighboring school to the Cookes'"--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• I'd prefer "a school neighboring the Cookes'", but really it's the redundancy of "neighboring... next to" which I object to. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:54, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• "but Dominis's mother Mary Dominis": no need for the second "Dominis"

• Changed.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• "They never had any children of their own but, against the wish of her husband, she adopted": again, "she" should be "Lili'uokalani"

• Changed.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• "female led organization": should "female led" be "female-led"?

• Changed.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• "During the 1869 historical visit of Alfred": as opposed to the ahistorical visit?

• Changed.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

And another more general comment: I have now closely read the lead and two sections, and it is clear that part of the reason that this article is so long is that is packed with trivial minutiae. Is it really important to say that L.'s wedding was originally planned to be held on her 24th birthday? Or that it was "small and quiet"? That she was taught "in English"?

More to follow. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:49, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I will address these concerns soon. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:06, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

@Caeciliusinhorto: Per request from @KAVEBEAR: I will re-write the Legacy section. Give me a few days. What is currently in the Legacy section is more in the way of memorials. Her legacy is what she contributed (i.e., her trust, her body of written works) and how she is remembered, how she affected the culture of Hawaii and the rest of the world. I'll work on it. — Maile (talk) 14:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

@Maile66: that sounds good to me. I see from your talkpage that KAVEBEAR would like the article to be on DYK for the centennial of Liliuokalani's death; I think there's time to get the article polished up by then. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:16, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done @Caeciliusinhorto:, @KAVEBEAR: I modeled the rewrite after Featured Article Queen Victoria, and tried to limit it, so as not to overwhelm the article. No need to list everything that bears her name. — Maile (talk) 13:39, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• NOTE: @KAVEBEAR: Maybe you know how to fix this. There's an infobox parameter error seen only in preview mode, which I have been unable to correct. It originally listed "|hanai parents=", and the template won't let anybody insert their own made-up parameter. I tried changing it to "parents", but if it also has "mother" and "father", it only recognizes one set of those.— Maile (talk) 23:27, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
  • This is a project issue. This could be dealt with by creating a unique template. I noticed that the Infobox relies on European standards. This may require a bit of work. For now Kavebear has stricken the information but , it should be returned if possible.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:32, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
    • It's an issue with the infobox. Removed it since it doesn't show up anyway.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:29, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
      • It's an issue because the template cannot be edited which makes it a project issue because it has far too many fields that have nothing to do with Hawaiian royalty and no new field can be added. Templates are project issues but adding the information can still be done.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:09, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
        • In fact, the documentation to template:infobox royalty explicitly says that the fields for "father" and "mother" may contain both biological and adoptive/hanai parents (as the infobox in this article now does) – and has done ever since the infobox was created. But whether or not the template should have an extra field for hanai parents is not really an issue for this GA. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 11:35, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
          • Yes, as I said, a project issue which is not anything needing to be discussed in depth here but that the info could still be added. I should have added a  Done check on that but it was late. As for the template itself there may be other fields that cannot be added or changed that may be unique to the Hawaiian Kingdom. Something to think about moving past GA.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:58, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Some more comments:

• The article sometimes uses "U.S." and sometimes US. This should be consistent. Likewise, "Hawaii" vs. "Hawaiʻi"; "D.C." vs. "D. C."; "Lili'uokalani" vs. "Liliuokalani".
• "After his accession, Kalākaua gave royal titles and styles to his surviving siblings, his sisters, Princess Lydia Kamakaʻeha Dominis and Princess Miriam Likelike Cleghorn, as well as his brother William Pitt Leleiohoku, whom he named heir to the Hawaiian throne as Kalākaua and Queen Kapiʻolani had no children of their own." I found this sentence slightly confusing, partly because we have been referring to Liliuokalani as such throughout, and it took me a second to remember that she was Lydia Dominis; partly because it's a very long sentence. I'd split it something like: "After his accession, Kalãkaua gave royal titles and styles to his surviving siblings. Lili'uokalani became Princess Lydia Kamaka'eha Dominis; their brother William Pitt Leleiohoku was named heir to the throne as Kalãkaua and Queen Kapi'olani had no children of their own." (You can also include the fact that Miriam Likelike became Princess Miriam if you want, though it seems unnecessary in this article to me)
  • We do need clarification here. This is historically where Lydia is "renamed" as Liliuokalani So your suggestion still works in the reverse.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
• "the first and only Queen of the Hawaiian Islands": this was her title, and so the capitalisation is technically correct: but why not simply "first and only queen of Hawaii"?
  • She was not the first queen of Hawaii (Hawaii as an island nation had a few already) but was the first of the Kingdom of Hawaii. I will make the additional change to the capitalization.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• She was the first "Queen of the Hawaiian Islands"; this was the official formal title of the Hawaiian monarchs since Kamehameha III signifying that they ruled all the islands in the archipelago (Hawaiʻi Pae ʻAina or the Hawaiian Islands) not just Hawaii Island.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 16:54, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

No, sorry but that is simply factually incorrect. Liliuokalani was not the first queen of the Hawaiian Islands. She was the first queen of the Kingdom of Hawaii. Saying it the other way is still factually incorrect and becomes as much a grammar.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:01, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

• "The first few weeks of her reign was obscured by the funeral of her deceased brother Kalākaua." more extraneous words here: if Kalãkaua were still alive, that might be worth mentioning, but "deceased" can go with no loss of meaning.

• Removed.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 16:54, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

• "including a revisit to the leper settlement": strange wording. "including revisiting the leper settlement"?
• "Supreme Court Justice of the Hawaiian Kingdom": again, I'd just write "Supreme Court Justice"
• "U.S. Legation, Consulate, and Arion Hall": "U.S. Legation and Consulate, and Arion Hall".
• "Liliʻuokalani issued a statement yielding her authority to the United States Government rather than to the Provisional Government.¶ A provisional government, composed of European and American businessmen, was then instituted until annexation by the United States could be achieved." seems strange to mention that L. didn't cede her authority to the PG before we mention that the PG was formed!
• "Liliʻuokalani was arrested on January 16, 1895, several days after the failed rebellion led by Robert William Wilcox and Samuel Nowlein": this rebellion has not been mentioned previously.
• "The Great Māhele subdivided the land among the monarchy, the government, and acreage to allow private ownership by tenants living on the land.": "acreage to allow private ownership by tenants living on the land" -> "private ownership"?
• "but I found, notwithstanding disadvantages, great consolation in composing": the article quotes this twice in under three paragraphs.

• Removed.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 16:54, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

• "He knew her as a person who physically projected regal bearing, but also possessed an inner spiritual core that drew people to her. In the nation's capital, he estimated that she had 5,000 visitors but never lost her personal grace." this strikes me as a touch hagiographic.

@Caeciliusinhorto: You think? I've reworded it a bit in quotes and shortened it. At least 2 columns of the source were celebrity admiration. The interviewer and interviewee were hagiographic, and not just a touch. The interviewer was looking for celebrity stuff to grab the reader, and the interviewee never forgot that his words still represented the queen. Things haven't changed much in the last 120 years.— Maile (talk) 15:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

the interviewee never forgot that his words still represented the queen: exactly. NPOV legacy sections shouldn't be based off of interviews with spokespeople for the subject of the article! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

The entire section is not based on that one individual or the interview. That's 4 sentences out of a very long section that otherwise is not related to that interview. — Maile (talk) 20:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• "Prince Jonah Kūhiō Kalanianaʻole, the nephew of her brother Kalākaua and his wife Kapiʻolani and her second cousin": Lili'uokalani's or Kapi'olani's second cousin?

• Changed.

And that takes me up to the end of the article. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:43, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Arbitrary break/summing up

Where I think we are at now:

• I am now happy enough with Maile66's prosifying of the section on Legacy.
• This diff alleviates most of my concerns on the quotation front. I assume that this comes from L's memoirs, and I still think that WP:V requires a footnote for exactly where in her memoirs this comes from.

Footnote added at end of quote. — Maile (talk) 12:03, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

• I am, however, still concerned that the article says "deemed eligible for the throne by King Kamehameha III" in the lead and "proclaimed by Kamehameha III as eligible for the throne" in the body of the article. Without getting into which is correct, which I am in no way qualified to have an opinion on, it seems to me that KAVEBEAR and Mark Miller, the two biggest contributors to the article by number of edits, both agree that the words "deemed" and "proclaimed" have sufficiently different meanings that it matters which one is used. Given MOS:LEAD requires the lead to be a summary of what is in the article, this seems to be a problem.

I can agree with the change to proclaim instead of deemed. Just so it is consistent. Caeciliusinhorto let's move forward?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I would like to thank KAVEBEAR for this concession. This should be looked into further on another subject or article but this is a good demonstration of good faith.

• I still think that the article contains quite a bit of relatively unimportant detail, and could be condensed quite a bit with no significant loss. However, it is only just over 40Kb of readable prose, which is under WP:TOOBIG's 50Kb guideline on size justifying splitting the article up and using summary style. So I am not going to insist on it.

To put this in perspective, we are ultimately aiming for FA. In checking other WikiProject Royalty and Nobility FA articles, there seem to be (surprisingly) only 5 FAs. The 3 women queen FAs are about the same size as Liliuokalani. The 2 men royalty FAs are larger. — Maile (talk) 12:17, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

FA is a laudable goal (and I am astonished that there are only 5 Royalty FAs!) But my issue with the length is not so much that it is long per se, it's that I had the impression that much of the length was due to fluffy language and irrelevant detail. Looking at it again, though, I can't really see where I was getting that impression from, so I'm striking this comment as irrelevant. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 12:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

We are almost there! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 11:03, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time do a true GA review per criteria. I think the article is being strengthened greatly. Also thank you to User:Maile66 and User:KAVEBEAR for all of their very hard work. Proper formatting of references is tough work for an article this size. KAVEBEAR did an excellent job cleaning that up per the Peer Review. Liliuokalani is a difficult subject to write about neutrally for many reasons. I am very happy with the way the article has come about to this point.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:51, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

My last picky point which I have noticed hasn't been addressed is the inconsistent orthography. Liliuokalani, Liliʻuokalani (with an ʻokina[?]), and Lili'uokalani (with an apostrophe) are all used; the same is true of Hawaii/Hawaiʻi/Hawai'i and US/U.S. I have no strong preferences on any of these issues (though a slight suspicion that using an apostrophe is incorrect), but if you tell me which you would prefer I am happy to do the work to change it. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 13:16, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Can you change all the apostrophe to okina? My computer can't differentiate between them when I use control find. I will look into the other issues as soon as I can.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:03, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Done. I wasn't sure about "Na Lani 'Ehā", which is currently written with an apostrophe, but I suspect should be an okina? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:50, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Done. Changed all Hawaiʻi to Hawaii unless it was in titles or part of a Hawaiian language usage. Liliuokalani should mostly Liliʻuokalani unless in quotes or titles. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:03, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Phew. A big article, about a topic I know very little about. I hope that it is better now than when I started reviewing it; I am certainly happy that it now fulfils the GA criteria. @KAVEBEAR, Maile66, and Mark Miller: thank you for bearing with me, and congratulations. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:16, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:06, 8 October 2017 (UTC)