Talk:Sovereignty Restoration Day/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Grapple X (talk · contribs) 21:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

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

---

Bear with me on this one; I haven't reviewed in a while but hopefully it's like eating a bicycle. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ^ˣ 21:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

   Prose is good, MOS compliance largely fine. A few overly-short (or single-line) paragraphs could be merged, and the lead is currently too lean in relation to the size of the article--consider expanding this to two paragraphs (it currently does not summarise the manner of historical celebration nor the end of its official recognition for example) Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ^ˣ 21:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   References largely fine. It's a little inconsistent to see in some case two sources are given as two footnotes, whereas sometimes a single footnote contains two sources--I don't think we're at risk of over-citation so I would prefer to see one source per inline footnote ideally. I'm also querying the permanent dead link for the Fujii source--if this is a print journal I don't think we're served in any way by including a dead link and should just treat it as an offline source; if it's a former web source that's now gone, I'd like to see an additional source appended to the sentence for which it currently serves as the only source (first sentence of last heading). Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ^ˣ 21:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Coverage is adequate; neither too recently skewed nor focussed only on history. Appropriately uses hatnote for further background rather than over-relying on prose for this. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ^ˣ 21:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Seems nonpartisan and factual to me. I think it could be spelt out a little more clearly in "Modern-day observation" that the modern recognition is unofficial--consider amending "The tradition of this celebration was revived in 1985 by Hawaiian sovereignty movement activist Kekuni Blaisdell during the Hawaiian Renaissance" to read as "In 1985, during the Hawaiian Renaissance, the tradition of this celebration was revived among the Hawaiian sovereignty movement by activist Kekuni Blaisdell". (There may be better ways to phrase this, I would suppose, but you can see the intent) Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ^ˣ 21:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Article is perfectly stable, no history of edit warring or contention Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ^ˣ 21:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

6. 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):

   Images all used from commons; use is appropriate and illustrative Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ^ˣ 21:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   By and large, happy with this article. Just a quick once-over should be enough to push it over the finish line. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ^ˣ 21:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

   @KAVEBEAR:--pinging here in case you didn't see your talk page message. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ^ˣ 14:41, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I will be addressing the suggestions soon.KAVEBEAR (talk) 16:41, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

@Grapple X: I expanded the lead and fixed the deadlink. Anything else? KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:14, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

The changes look good to me. I'm happy to pass this. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ^ˣ 14:40, 24 February 2020 (UTC)