Template:Did you know nominations/John Dominis Holt II

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 Vanamonde (talk) 10:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

John Dominis Holt II edit

(

)

~~... that Hawaiian Colonel John Dominis Holt became a Democrat with a prince?~~

Reviewed: Swaziland national cricket team
Comment: I've created an article on his grandson with the same name but I don't want to combine the two hooks. Please promote on separate days.

Created by KAVEBEAR (talk). Self-nominated at 13:08, 16 November 2016 (UTC).

There are multiple issues with the article. The independent notability of the article firstly comes to question as its unlikely to grow beyond the stub version we have at present. At just 402 words I believe both this article and his grandson is easily merged into a single article about the Holt family. The lead should summarize the article body. The references are scattered and makes it hard to understand. I would say consider all of this and see if the article can be presented with independent notability. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 14:13, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

The above "review" does not qualify as QPQ, as it does not touch on any of the requirements of a review. This article is not a stub. This a new article that the DYK Check says is 2434 characters (0 words) "readable prose size". That puts it well past the 1500 minimum required for DYK. It was created new on November 16, 2016, passing the 7-day nomination requirement. Of course the references are scattered. They're supposed to be throughout the paragraphs. Every paragraph is sourced, meeting that requirement of DYK. Earwig's tool shows no copyvio problem. This nomination meets all requirements of DYK to pass. @KAVEBEAR: Please supply an alt hook. I think becoming a Democrat is not that hooky, but his being a founding member of the Democrats is hooky. Something like that. — Maile (talk) 14:26, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

And I have clearly mentioned that the notability of the article is in question, when we know that it won't be growing beyond whatever is present. I have even suggested that maybe a meaty article for the Holt family would be better. This comes under the QPQ only. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 14:35, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with your opinion on the issue of notability and I don't agree with a merge or writing family articles to be honest. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 15:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Per DYK Reviewing guide — Maile (talk) 16:03, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

@IndianBio: I saw the post at WT:DYK about this review, and I would also have raised concerns. You have raised a notability issue, and it is reasonable to put off doing the full review until that is addressed. In this case, KAVEBEAR does not agree there is a notability issue, so if you think your view would prevail, start an AfD. However, the review does not address the review criteria, and if an AfD were closed as keep, I would expect to see the criteria addressed to claim a QPQ... which is somewhat pointless / moot now that Maile66 has done it. The issue of inadequate QPQ reviews is unresolved, so I will post further at WT:DYK to seek community consensus. Kavebear, I think Maile's request for an ALT is sensible and the referencing looks odd to me, but absent an AfD which delays a decision, I suggest you carry out towards getting the tick. EdChem (talk) 01:35, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

EdChem are you speaking about the mid paragraph citations as odd as IndianBio brought up? I think that in itself is a common practice on articles even FAC and GA. Or are you speaking about how multiple sources are bundled looking odd? I recently adopted that to prevent overcitation and minimize excessive similar footnotes. This is also common practice on feature quality articles[1]... I am not oppose to an AfD discussion to establish notability; I am less willing to just except one editor's opinion. And if the consensus is this figure is non-notable, I rather redirect it to his grandson's article than create a Holt family article. KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:01, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Kavebear, citation placement is fine and totally typical, IMO. Bundling of references is what I was thinking about, and I agree that having multiple sources in one reference can be appropriate. On fist glance, it looks odd in this case, something that I would look at more carefully if I was the reviewer, but not necessarily a problem. When I do it, though, I put a line break between each reference, something like references 19 and 23 in the James Bryant Conant FA. I'm not asking you to do anything in particular, just observing what struck me when I saw the article. As for the AfD, it is the path open to IB to address a notability claim or maybe posting to the article talk page – but I don't think a review raising it and not addressing the criteria is ok. And I don't think an AfD will result in deletion, but that's just my view. EdChem (talk) 02:33, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Uninvolved input requested. EdChem (talk) 02:25, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Article is new enough, long enough, and free of copyvio or close paraphrasing. No image used. Hook is long enough and interesting enough, particularly in its quirkiness. Hook is correctly cited to several RS, namely the Hawaiian Star and other newspapers. I respect the concern the original reviewer had with notability, though, disagree with it. All other criteria met. If not other objection, GTG. Great job, KAVEBEAR! (I credit this review to the original reviewer.) LavaBaron (talk) 03:21, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

LavaBaron, please don't try to make this about you. This nomination is not GTG, at least because the hook is not supported directly in the article by an inline citation (a DYK requirement) and the meaning of the "with a prince" part is unclear. EdChem (talk) 03:29, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Please don't try to impugn my motivation. Now, to your constructive comments: the hook is perfectly clear. David was a Hawai'ian prince. They both became Democrats together. Not sure what's not clear.

And the hook content within the article (the three sentences beginning with "after" and continuing to "loyal Hawaiian") is immediately followed by a citation. But, if you prefer to hold this excellent nomination up to host the Model UN, be my guest, I defer from further review. I have limited time to devote to WP and prefer to spend it creating content, not lawyering over the finer points of wikilaw. It's all yours. LavaBaron (talk) 03:39, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks LavaBaron...Addressing the problem raised about the sentence and citation. I went ahead and switched around two sentences so the one with the hook can sit close to the citations since the part about the business was in the way. I am not particularly a fan of the whole the hook must be captured within a sentence and must be followed directly by a citation rule. And also the reason why I haven't suggested an ALT hook yet is that I think the original hook would be a quirky one and a prince is literally linked to David Kawananakoa's article so I am not sure why that is misleading. Should we quality it with the addition of "former".--KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:07, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome and no problem. I'd green-tick this now but it's become clear this is a DYK scalp-collecting mission and not a legitimate review critique you're being subjected to so any green ticks I apply will probably be futile. Sorry you have to deal with it but good luck and, once again, great article. LavaBaron (talk) 04:15, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

KAVEBEAR, my confusion is over the "with" – how does one become a Democrat with someone else? Is it something to do with the founding? I don't doubt the prince was a prince. As for the immediate inline citation, whether it is a good requirement or not is not a topic for here. I haven't done a full review or formed a view on the article, but I do recognise that LavaBaron's actions in the broader situation are unhelpful, and getting the hook promoted then challenged in a queue for an unambiguous issue (no matter what you think of the underlying rule) is not in your interest. EdChem (talk) 04:37, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I see...They were part of the same delegation representing the Territory of Hawaii to the 1900 Democratic Convention. I'm gonna suggest this alt hook for now given this room for misunderstanding...I'm not particularly interested in the dispute (it's unfortunate that it has to happen because of this nom) and generally don't like arguing about non-content topics, but I will try addressing problems with this nomination and the article content to my best ability. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:46, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

ALT1 ... that Hawaiian Colonel John Dominis Holt served as a delegate to the Democratic National Convention with a prince?

I'm gonna leave out the year and link to the convention for hookiness since we have just held a DNC and finished an election year here in the US.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:50, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Re hook content: from what I can see from sources, the prince is listed as one of 5 founding members of the Hawaiian Democratic party (see that article) and Holt is not, though reports confirm they were both delegates to the national convention and at the first state convention. Maybe something lik "... that the inaugural convention of Hawaiian Democrats chose Colonel John Dominis Holt and a prince as a delegates to the National Convention?" I think if the article describes Holt as a founding member, the sourcing needs to be solid. From what I have read, your ALT1 is solid,and ALT0 may or may not be supported. EdChem (talk) 06:32, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, by the strictest definition of "founding member" as the original men who founded the party at its inception, he will not be considered so. I think I meant that he was an early member in that context. I think my train of thought was that since party was founded in 1900, the year the Territory was organized and as one of the earliest member, he can be interpreted as a founding member of the party. I will change tweak it some more. And I will strike the original hook. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:40, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Also based on The Paradise of the Pacific, I am not the only one: "The royalist cause was lost. But John Dominis Holt II (grandfather of the historian), Prince David Kawanana- koa, William H. Cornwell, John Wise and Clarence Ashford were to make a historic decision to carry on the fight for the rights of the citizens of a broken Hawaiian nation under the new circumstances of annexation. They founded the Democratic Party of Hawaii, which not until over a half century later, in 1962, when John A. Burns became Governor..."--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:48, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

ALT1 is fine. I already did the rest of the review above. Ready...set...to go. — Maile (talk) 22:03, 27 November 2016 (UTC)