Talk:Edward William Purvis/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) 12:40, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I'll take this one. Vanamonde (talk) 12:40, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@KAVEBEAR: I see that you have become active again; are you going to be able to address my comments soon? I have no problem holding this open until you are back to active editing, but I do not wish to hold it indefinitely, as that is not particularly fair to other GA nominators. Vanamonde (talk) 17:28, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I can get to this on the weekend.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:50, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Please close this for now. I can't find the time to address these concerns and it would require access to sources I don't have at this current time. Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 17:30, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

@KAVEBEAR: I didn't think my suggestions were as demanding as all that! I'll give you a few hours to think about it, and close within the day unless you change your mind. Vanamonde (talk) 17:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

It is mainly a lack of time on my part since I am going back to school. I made the changes. Let me know what else I can do. If it can take me around 30 minutes of my time, I might be able to do address them.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:33, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

@KAVEBEAR: Understandable. I've three responses, which shouldn't take long at all if you have the sources to hand. I will be frank: I think this is just up to the mark, mostly because it is short, even though a seemingly substantive source exists. That said, everything else is satisfactory, and that source does not seem to be the most reliable publication; so on the balance, I think I can pass this once these three things are fixed. Vanamonde (talk) 17:53, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Concerns addressed

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   Sources seem solid

   C. It contains no original research:

   No concerns

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Earwig's tool flags nothing of importance, and spot checks only find Wikipedia mirrors.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   No extraneous material

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   No issues with stability

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Only two images used, licensing seems okay for both.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Caption issue addressed

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   All my concerns have been addressed. This is borderline with respect to comprehensiveness, but all other criteria have been comfortably met, and I do not see much evidence that there is substantive, reliable information that has been left out.

Comments

• You should avoid honorifics where they are not needed; the image caption is one such, where it actually confuses things. "Purvis, then a major in the Hawaian army, with Colonels X and Y..." or something like that.
  • Changed.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:30, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
• Section should not start with "he". "Purvis was born..." would be standard, though you have many options.
  • Changed.
• I'd switch the two clauses of the first sentence
  • I am not sure if his mother was Scottish or not, so I made that a separate sentence.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:30, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
• "The family lived in the Dutch East Indies etc" is an odd phrase, because it suggests they lived in many places at the same time.
  • Changed.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:30, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
• It would be more usual to say "learned Hindi".
  • Changed.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:30, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
• Any information on why he resigned?
  • No information in sources why he resigned.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:30, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
• Any information on why Purvis, a recent immigrant, was appointed to a high post in the administration?
  • No there are only inferences I can make. Foreigners with experiences elsewhere often found employment in the Hawaiian government.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:30, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Seems a reasonable inference, but not something we can use in an article, obviously. It would be interesting to see if there are any sources which discuss this. Not necessary at this level.
• Gibson "regime" is an odd word, given that he was prime minister, and not an absolute ruler.
  • It is a common phrase used to refer to the period [1]. The king was a constant, but his cabinet changed often and it was custom to label the head minister in each cabinet when referring to who was in charge as the chief advisors to the king.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:30, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
    • My concern was more with "regime" than with "Gibson". I have changed it to "administration". If you don't like it feel free to revert; if the phrase is used the issue is not critical.
• "Purvis attempted to undermine the Gibson regime." I'd like to see a citation for this, even if it is just a duplication
  • The publication of the satires were the attempts to undermine Kalkaua and the Gibson regime/administration. Also [2] ". It is unlikely that the nickname of a man who sought to undermine the king in the months prior to the imposition of the Bayonet Constitution of 1887 would have been applied to an instrument favored by native Hawaiians." ...Although it says king here, the main target was Gibson who ousted Purvis' superior Judd.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:30, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Um, I don't see how that addresses my concern...I'm not saying it's not supported by the sources, just that you should add the source (duplicate a citation, if needed) at the end of this sentence.
      • Changed.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:16, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
• "These works and other factors contributed" sorry, this is too really vague...
  • There are so many reasons why the 1887 coup happened and these pamphlets were one factors which damaged the reputation of the government and the king leading to the force signing of the new constitution. Do you want me to list them out? I don't know if that is necessary here.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:30, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
    • I'd go with "These works, along with other factors including X and Y".
      • Changed.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:16, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
• "Animal Inspector for Kauai" most folks, including myself, will not know what this means.
  • It is listed in his offices held for the Hawaiian government. I am not sure what that is either. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:30, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Not too happy, but okay.
• Do we know why he thought the US would be healthier for him? If it is "mountain air" he was after, it might be worth mentioning.
  • That is not in the sources though. It just state he went to the US for health reasons..--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:30, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
• "brother in law"; so did he have a sister, or was he married? In either case, it seems like slightly more detail could be provided.
  • He had a sister and that was her husband. I can't access any of the sources at the moment on my new computer but the wills listed him as the executor.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:30, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Okay
• Many of the entries in the bibliography are missing some parameters, particularly with respect to location. U.S. states should be mentioned without abbreviation; locations should be linked unless they are mentioned in the text.
  • It is common place in the US to list US states with abbreviation. My practice has been to list city without state or country when it is pretty commonly known and list state when it is not obvious like "Springfield, OR" for example and just Honolulu not Honolulu, HI.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:30, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Perhaps, but I am going to stand firm on this one. This is a global encyclopedia. Many readers will not know where or what Oregon is, let alone Springfield. Indeed I go to the length of adding country names to my place of publication parameters.
      • Changed.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:16, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
• Author's full names should be given unless they are actually missing.
  • Shouldn't they reflect how they are spelled out in the sources? Like H. G. Wells not Herbert George Wells for example.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:30, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Well, if it's actually abbreviated conventionally, and not just in a bibliographic listing somewhere, fine.
• Curious as to why Hedeman is not a source; you've listed her in the further reading, and the title seems relevant.
  • Unable to access this source.--18:30, 8 July 2017 (UTC)KAVEBEAR (talk)
    • Okay, I do not think this is absolutely necessary at this stage.
• Minor point, but he is described as a Ukulele player in the categories, but not in the body of the article.
  • Removed.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:31, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
• This is a very short article, which is okay in and of itself, but we need to be absolutely certain that no relevant information is being left out. My question about the further reading entry becomes more relevant in this light.