Template:Did you know nominations/Hale Nauā Society
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Hale Nauā Society
... that King Kalākaua's committee to revive the Hale Nauā secret society consisted of ten women, including Queen Kapiʻolani, and only one man other than himself?
https://evols.library.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/10524/509/JL33209.pdf "Those present at the initial organizing meeting of the Hale Naua on September 20, 1886, were King Kalakaua and Queen Kapi'olani, John T. Baker, Mrs. Ululani Baker, Mrs. Annie Maikai, Mrs. Hannah Kinimaka, Mrs. Hannah Lilikalani and Mrs. Grace Kaahalewai, Mrs. K. Makua, Mrs. M. Kaahu, Mrs. M. Kawelo, and Mrs. K. Keaweluaole."
- Reviewed: Peel Marina
- Comment: SPECIAL HOLD DATE: May (Asian Pacific American Heritage Month)
- Just a note for clarification. The article was moved from user space to main space on March 16, the same date it was listed here. — Maile (talk) 03:39, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Created by Maile66 (talk). Self-nominated at 02:37, 16 March 2020 (UTC).
Huge efforts have gone into this, and it is bordering on new enough, I see no reason to quibble about that; it is long enough, neutrally written, mostly well referenced, and no copyvio concerns were raised by Earwig, apart from the long quoted passage. QPQ done, and the hook is cited and interesting. I have two stumbling blocks. First, there are some unreferenced passages, and it would be better to add the missing citations; second, the source relied on for the hook refers to an “organizing meeting” and not a committee, which is mentioned in the article and the hook; but a committee is something more formal and ongoing; unless there is a citation for ”committee” the hook should really be in line with the source. Please ping me when ready, Maile66. Moonraker (talk) 01:53, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- ALT 1 that King Kalākaua's committee to revive the Hale Nauā secret society consisted of nine women, and only one man other than himself? https://muse.jhu.edu/chapter/2509874 2 "Earlier, Kalakaua formed a committee of nine women and one man to plan a society ‘‘to further the humble and careful way of life as nurtured by our ancestors from the beginning of time, so that it will never be forgotten"
- Maile66, with that new source, ALT 1 is fine. Wikipedia:Did you know/Citation says “The article in general should use inline citations of reliable sources. A rule of thumb is one inline citation per paragraph, excluding the intro, plot summaries, and paragraphs which summarize other cited content. Newly sourced BLPs are expected to be thoroughly sourced.” This isn’t as clear as it might be. It doesn’t spell out that unsourced material (apart from those exceptions) is fine, but that last sentence does seem to mean non-BLP articles are *not* expected to be thoroughly sourced. I do think that is weird and ought to be revisited. One citation per paragraph might mean one covering the whole paragraph, though it doesn’t say so. But where there is unsourced material, someone could come along and add {{cn}} tags to DYK articles, as does happen. I guess you did not pluck any material out of the air, so I should just like to suggest politely that adding the sources would improve the article. I might be persuaded to sign it off if you insist on not doing that. Moonraker (talk) 04:28, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- It is already adequately sourced and within policy. There are already multiple sources within the paragraphs you mention. You are offering your opinion, not DYK rules. I have already followed the rules/guidelines of DYK. You are not contesting any fact. You'd just like to see more sources ... because you personally would like to see more sources.— Maile (talk) 10:53, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- Moonraker, the Citation page you reference is an old one, and from its history has not been maintained. The D section of the DYK supplemental guidelines is more regularly maintained, though it covers similar ground, and is the one typically referred to as clarifying the regular guidelines at WP:DYK. The BLP statement is an artifact of the days when DYK had a special 2x expansion for completely unreferenced BLPs; in that case, DYKs submitted under the 2x rule were expected to be thoroughly sourced, not merely with a source or two included. That BLP exception to the general 5x rule was removed years ago. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- It is already adequately sourced and within policy. There are already multiple sources within the paragraphs you mention. You are offering your opinion, not DYK rules. I have already followed the rules/guidelines of DYK. You are not contesting any fact. You'd just like to see more sources ... because you personally would like to see more sources.— Maile (talk) 10:53, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
As stated above, this is in general a good article, the ALT1 hook is cited, and two admins seem to be insisting that the referencing complies with D2, viz:
“The article in general should use inline, cited sources. A rule of thumb is one inline citation per paragraph, excluding the lead, plot summaries, and paragraphs which summarize other cited content.”
- I am surprised if D2 intends to allow articles with material that isn’t sourced at all. It may perhaps take it for granted that the text is organized into paragraphs in a standard way. It may or may not expect to see a citation to cover the whole of each one, it is just not clear whether it is acceptable if only part of a paragraph is referenced. But if it is, then a whole article could be set out in one paragraph, with only the first sentence referenced, and that would comply with D2.
- In this case, some whole sections consist of long single paragraphs, which brings D2 into play. D2 is too vague and ought to be revisited, but in the mean time it is not an obstacle. I have, though, added {{cn}} tags and would hope the nominator will take care of them. Moonraker (talk) 19:04, 12 April 2020 (UTC)