Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Liliuokalani/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 19:11, 30 November 2017 [1].

Liliuokalani[edit]

Nominator(s): KAVEBEAR (talk), Mailee66 (talk), Mark Miller (talk) 22:20, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the last ruling monarch of the Kingdom of Hawaii who died on November 11, 1917. Aim towards possible TFA for November 11, 2017. Mark Miller (talk) 22:20, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mark Miller: I think we originally planned to have this as DYK (resulting from the GA) on November 11, 2017. Per DYK rules, it can only be DYK if not otherwise appearing/having appeared on the main page. TFA doesn't have those restrictions, so we could have it appear as TFA at a later date. My personal experience is that not only is FAC a little backlogged, but TFA nominations also take time to get through. But let's see what @KAVEBEAR: thinks.— Maile (talk) 22:31, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concern this is moving too fast and the article still needs some additional work. I can help when I can. I'm on break for the entire week. But pass or not these reviews will help improve the article. As for DYK, we should go ahead with it expecting we won't get it to FA and through TFA nomination by then. Worse scenario we can postpone TFA to January 17. Maile66 can you nominate the article for DYK now? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:37, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds like a good idea. If this does not pass by the November date it can always be a good TFA for the January 17 anniversary of the overthrow.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:45, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DYK Liliuokalani was nominated yesterday. @KAVEBEAR and Mark Miller: please feel free to offer ALT hooks there. — Maile (talk) 11:36, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Some initial comments on the first things that caught my eye:

  • Several reference notes (3, 26, 132) contain links to what looks like a non-RS blog to provide translated content from historical Hawaiian newspapers, such as Ka Nupepa Kuokoa and Ka Hoku o ka Pakipika. The blog itself warns that the translations are "works in progress". Is there no better source for this material? It appears that Ulukau: The Hawaiian Electronic Library has images of these papers available online, albeit those are in Hawaiian.
Ulukau books online are in both English and Hawaiian, (although, I don't know about the specific ones you mention) - whichever the reader clicks as their preference (the selector button is in the upper right hand corner. Click "Kikokikoana Hawaii" to get the Hawaiian language version, or "English text" to get the English language version). The Kunkendall books, for instance, if you click the links you're getting the English version. Except for the issue of the location of source on the books, which can be easily fixed, I think maybe @KAVEBEAR: or @Mark Miller: might have the answer to your other questions. — Maile (talk) 23:59, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At least for the relevant issue from Ref 3, I found images of the paper here, but no translated text. If it comes to a choice, I think a reliable source in the original language would be preferable to a non-reliable translation. --RL0919 (talk) 00:15, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree per policy and guidelines that is actually acceptable. It isn't that it must be an English language source but that if no other reliable English source is available, non English sources can be used.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:45, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Book citations are inconsistent as to whether a location is given.
Checked done — Maile (talk) 01:02, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you please comment on the reliability of the Rogne 2002 source? The publisher specializes in devotional literature, and the Amazon description of the book says it presents inspirational "characters", including Biblical patriarchs. This seems to suggest material selected for inspirational value rather than for historical accuracy. Most of the remaining sources seem to be books from academic publishers or reliably sourced historical newspapers, but I will circle back to confirm after I've had a chance to review more thoroughly. --RL0919 (talk) 23:47, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The specific source, Rogne 2003 needs to be looked at to see exactly how strong the source is. Off hand I would say not to discount what appears to be inspirational material on Hawaii's Christian community, Hiram Bingham is considered both inspirational and historic. It would certainly depend on the context, author and publisher to determine the RS strength. It is late here so, If I don't respond directly, I will shortly--Mark Miller (talk) 06:02, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The source cannot be compared to Bingham which is an accepted historical source of the period. The page being cited also is written in the first person voice from Father Damien's perspective (yet it is not an autobiography). I removed it since all of the information in that sentence can be found in the book by Law which was published by UH Press and has been peer reviewed. If anybody disagree we can discuss on talk or the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. ----KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:56, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments after a more thorough review:

  • Ref 142: A local church newsletter may be within the letter of WP:RS, but seems weak for an FA. Is there specific detail in the text that isn't supported by adjoining Ref 141, which has much stronger sources?
  • Removed Ref 142. It was just an additional source that gave more detail about the clock that is not found in the article here.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 11:32, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • A similar question applies for Ref 177, which has as its second source a local canoe club. Is there information needed from that source that isn't in the ESPN article?
This appears under the Legacy section. The canoe club tells the reader why the race carries Liliuokalani's name and why it's held on Labor Day weekend - to honor the Queen by holding it the weekend of her birthday. The ESPN article omits those details.— Maile (talk) 12:53, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 153 and 157 seem to be handled inconsistently with other newspaper and magazine sources – these two use Harvard refs to a bibliography entry, while other such stories are fully cited in the notes. The Harv-ref/bibliography approach is used consistently for books and journals.
  • Reformated.
  • Refs 159 and 166 say "Queen Lili'uokalani Trust" in italics, while Ref 171 calls the same organization "Lili'uokalani Trust" with no italics. Should be consistent in both name and format.
  • Standardized the naming for the Trust. The problem is that the trust seems to have rebranded itself in recent year just looking at their annual reports as simply Lili'uokalani Trust while they were referred to as the Queen Lili'uokalani Trust just a few years before. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:02, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 163 is missing the publication and access date details.
  • Chronicling America is credited with a 'via' parameter in Ref 164, but is used extensively in other citations without a 'via'. This should be consistent.
  • Maile66 what do you think? I have a tendency to not add the via and you do so it is just a difference in our referencing style that is creating this. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:45, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the "via" for consistency, since it seems to be the only one of its kind. — Maile (talk) 12:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 174 links to a marketing company, not to the Hawaiian Music Hall of Fame. The page you should probably use is http://www.hmhof.org/honorees. This could also replace the archive link in Ref 173.
  • What? You can link Ref 173 and 174 to http://www.hmhof.org/honorees but does not list Charles E. King or the Nani La Eha separately. I changed the link as recommended.
  • Looking at this more closely, I was confused by the web site design. The site opens subpages for the honorees without changing the URL. You can right-click to open the subpage with its own URL, which goes to the marketing company, who are apparently hosting subpages under their own domain rather than the Hall of Fame's domain. So they've not blocked deep linking, but they have ensured that anyone following the deep link will be cut off from the main site. Given the way they've done this, I guess the original URL for what was Ref 174 (the page for Charles E. King) is OK. Sorry for the trip down the garden path. --RL0919 (talk) 14:53, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Hawaiian Music Hall of Fame initially had a dedicated page for each honoree, with a direct link that didn't require jumping through hoops to access. A couple of years ago, they re-designed the website, which resulted in (IMO) a less user-friendly and less informative website. And they still change it around on occasion. So, it's the old Wikipedia bug-a-boo about the URLs changing that necessitates that bot that checks for dead links. — Maile (talk) 17:14, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like what is now Ref 172 is now without any URL. I'm OK with whichever of the links you prefer (now that the confusion over the site design has been cleared up), but it does need a link since it is a web citation. --RL0919 (talk) 14:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 178 presents the library as if it were an author; more typically the library would be listed as publisher and no author would be given since the page is unsigned.
  • Changed to: University of Hawaii at Manoa Board of Regents (October 19, 2001). "Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Board of Regents for October 19, 2001". libweb.hawaii.edu. Retrieved September 30, 2017. Is that okay?
  • Refs 183, 185 and 188 all cite the "Hawaiian Almanac and Annual" for various years without any other publication information. How are readers supposed to know what this is, much less whether it is reliable?
  • @RL0919: These are... But my question is do we actually want to list 19 more sources into the bloated Bibliography?
  • If you really need to cite them all, then better a larger bibliography than to leave readers in the dark. But there might be alternatives. One option would be to find an alternative source that provides the information more compactly. Or perhaps an explanatory note could be crafted that explains more about where the information was sourced, but without listing the full details (much of which is repetitive) separately for each annual edition. --RL0919 (talk) 14:53, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are no sources I know of that provide this compactly. Let me know if you have any specific alternatives for the ones (The Court, Hawaiian Almanac and Annual, year–year) I have already.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Assuming the nomination continues (pending resolution of the image dispute issue below), I'll try to come up with an explanatory note and post it here for your consideration. --RL0919 (talk) 14:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thrum, Thomas G., ed. (1875). "Hawaiian Register and Directory for 1875". Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1875. Honolulu: Honolulu Star-Bulletin. pp. 12–13. hdl:10524/664.
  • Thrum, Thomas G., ed. (1876). "Hawaiian Register and Directory for 1876". Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1876. Honolulu: Honolulu Star-Bulletin. pp. 62–64. hdl:10524/665.
  • Thrum, Thomas G., ed. (1877). "Hawaiian Register and Directory for 1877". Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1877. Honolulu: Honolulu Star-Bulletin. pp. 56–59. hdl:10524/658.
  • Thrum, Thomas G., ed. (1878). "Hawaiian Register and Directory for 1878". Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1878. Honolulu: Honolulu Star-Bulletin. pp. 5, 34–38. hdl:10524/667.
  • Thrum, Thomas G., ed. (1879). "Hawaiian Register and Directory for 1879". Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1879. Honolulu: Honolulu Star-Bulletin. pp. 33–38. hdl:10524/669.
  • Thrum, Thomas G., ed. (1880). "Hawaiian Register and Directory for 1880". Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1880. Honolulu: Honolulu Star-Bulletin. pp. 33–38. hdl:10524/656.
  • Thrum, Thomas G., ed. (1881). "Hawaiian Register and Directory for 1881". Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1881. Honolulu: Honolulu Star-Bulletin. pp. 65–70. hdl:10524/23168.
  • Thrum, Thomas G., ed. (1882). "Hawaiian Register and Directory for 1882". Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1882. Honolulu: Honolulu Star-Bulletin. pp. 77–83. hdl:10524/23169.
  • Thrum, Thomas G., ed. (1883). "Hawaiian Register and Directory for 1883". Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1883. Honolulu: Honolulu Star-Bulletin. pp. 74–80. hdl:10524/657.
  • Thrum, Thomas G., ed. (1884). "Hawaiian Register and Directory for 1884". Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1884. Honolulu: Honolulu Star-Bulletin. pp. 76–82. hdl:10524/985.
  • Thrum, Thomas G., ed. (1885). "Hawaiian Register and Directory for 1885". Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1885. Honolulu: Honolulu Star-Bulletin. pp. 84–91. hdl:10524/1078.
  • Thrum, Thomas G., ed. (1886). "Hawaiian Register and Directory for 1886". Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1886. Honolulu: Honolulu Star-Bulletin. pp. 81–88. hdl:10524/1484.
  • Thrum, Thomas G., ed. (1887). "Hawaiian Register and Directory for 1887". Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1887. Honolulu: Honolulu Star-Bulletin. pp. 91–98. hdl:10524/659.
  • Thrum, Thomas G., ed. (1888). "Hawaiian Register and Directory for 1888". Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1888. Honolulu: Honolulu Star-Bulletin. pp. 91–99. hdl:10524/666.
  • Thrum, Thomas G., ed. (1889). "Hawaiian Register and Directory for 1889". Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1889. Honolulu: Honolulu Star-Bulletin. pp. 117–126. hdl:10524/655.
  • Thrum, Thomas G., ed. (1890). "Hawaiian Register and Directory for 1890". Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1890. Honolulu: Honolulu Star-Bulletin. pp. 117–126. hdl:10524/31851.
  • Thrum, Thomas G., ed. (1891). "Hawaiian Register and Directory for 1891". Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1891. Honolulu: Honolulu Star-Bulletin. pp. 161–169. hdl:10524/661.
  • Thrum, Thomas G., ed. (1892). "Hawaiian Register and Directory for 1892". Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1892. Honolulu: Honolulu Star-Bulletin. pp. 144–152. hdl:10524/662.
  • Thrum, Thomas G., ed. (1893). "Hawaiian Register and Directory for 1893". Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1893. Honolulu: Honolulu Star-Bulletin. pp. 139–147. hdl:10524/663.


Leaving aside items questioned above, the remaining sources have a mix of academic books, journal articles, popular books, and journalistic sources (modern and historical). There are also about 30 cites to the subject's own writings. Those categories are all accepted as RS, although some should be treated with caution. Spot-checking I didn't see any uses that seemed obviously concerning. --RL0919 (talk) 01:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck the resolved issues above. Looks like only three items are still unresolved: the Rogne source, URL for Ref 172, and how best to cite the Almanac and Annual. --RL0919 (talk) 14:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
RL0919 I addressed Rogne and the URL issue.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 16:17, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, now struck above. For the Annual, a possible explanatory note might read like this: "Information on her titles and styles from 1874 to 1893 is from the yearly editions of the Hawaiian Almanac and Annual, all edited by Thomas G. Thrum and published by the Honolulu Star-Bulletin. Abbreviated citations are provided to indicate the specific editions used." I'm not hung up on the exact wording, just want some way to provide the publishing details so the abbreviated cites are meaningful. --RL0919 (talk) 17:39, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
RL0919 Like this?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 17:52, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, looks good. I think we can call the source review completed. --RL0919 (talk) 18:06, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • For images showing more than one person, captions should do a better job of identifying which is which
  • File:Lydia_Kamakaeha.jpg: source links are dead, when/where was this first published?
    • Many of these images were uploaded from the original Digital Online Archive of the State of Hawaii. They went off line but have since returned on different servers which changed the urls but kept the content online. I will correct links and check first publication.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:49, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Liliuokalani_and_relative_(detailed).jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:Kapiolani_and_Liliuokalani_at_Golden_Jubilee_(Onipaa).jpg
  • If you're going to use PD-US for these, need a pre-1923 publication. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:45, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:USS_Boston_landing_force,_1893_(PP-36-3-002).jpg: source link is dead, when/where was this first published? Same with File:Liliuokalani_entering_palace_for_trial_of_1895_(PP-98-12-010).jpg
  • Add rough note on first publication both before 1920.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:36, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Aloha_oe_song_01.png should use original publication date
  • File:Liliuokalani_in_1917.jpg: when/where was this first published? Same with File:Queen_Liliuokalani_in_mourning_at_Washington_Place.gif
  • For the former, what was the author's date of death? For the latter, the source site identifies a pre-2003 publication so the unpublished tag won't apply. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:45, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert change on the latter. The former was published before 1923 so added link to where it was first published.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:50, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Royal_Coat_of_Arms_of_Hawaii_(Kalakaua).svg should include a copyright tag for the original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:30, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The work was based on other coat of arms from modern photographs and PD publications. Those files have appropriate tags.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 16:22, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]


  • Addressed most of these to my knowledge. And fixed migrated (not dead) links. But based on our past FA interactions, this is all I know about these images. Most of them have been published and printed in late 19th or early 20th century books on the overthrow but they are the archival image versions of those and others are straight archival images from the Hawaii State Archives or the Queen Liliuokalani Trust (onipaa.org). I am not sure what you want on the last image, just adding a PD-US to it?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If PD US applies, sure. For the others, if you can identify a pre-1923 publication that would work. If an archival image were unpublished, you'd need to see if {{PD-US-unpublished}} would apply. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:11, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT: The infobox image is iffy as a TFA image. I tested it yesterday when I nominated the DYK. Shrunk down to that size, it was hard to tell who that is. Too old and grainy; too much throne chair and official attire. Is there something we can put in the article that is more a close-up on her head and shoulders? — Maile (talk) 11:55, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cropped it a bit and swapped it in the infobox. Tell me what you think. — Maile (talk) 13:04, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am against it. I can revert my change that seems to make it grainy but the reasoning for DYK and FA thumbnail size doesn't seem reasonable to replace what appears to be an official image of the Queen while ruling and has a clear publishing. I'd like to revert that for now.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:23, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And I swapped it back. Per DYK rules: Wikipedia:DYKIMG "3. It must already be in the article". YES, only an image from the article can be used in DYK. The larger one also has clear publishing. And I would add that when we get to TFA, that would also be a reduced image with the same issues of how it looks. It's not just an issue of the graininess. In a reduced size, it's hard to see who that is. I understand you are the one who originally uploaded the one you want to use, but it's not workable as a reduced image for the main page. — Maile (talk) 11:34, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reminder: stability is one of the FA criteria, and edit-warring over the image could well result in an oppose on that grounds. Sort it out. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly agree. Reach a consensus on which one to use. IMO, the J. J. Williams image dates to her reign, but it doesn't work well as an infobox image. It should be incorporated in the body if it ends up being ruled out. The George Prince image was taken during her residence in DC with the queen in the formal regalia of the monarchy. It seems exactly like the one she used for her 1898 autobiography File:Liliuokalani of Hawaii.jpg, anyway we can verify this and see if Prince photographed this one as well? Maybe that is something we can find in old DC newspapers from the era...There is also not a strong argument for a set image for Liliuokalani. Looking at Google and book covers you see most people just choose which ever one they like best from the hundreds of photographs she took in her lifetime. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 13:58, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What the majority agrees on is fine with me. I just want it to be viable as a reduced main page image. For what it's worth, the image in DYK has to be from the article, but it does not have to be from the infobox. We could put the Prince image lower in the article. However ... whatever is in the infobox is the first image readers see of her. Again ... at TFA, it's the same issue of what works on the main page. — Maile (talk) 15:03, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Restarting

Nikkimaria, I swapped some images that I couldn't find pre-1923 publication dates and added appropriate tags to others. Can you let me know what problems remain with the images? One of the original request I don't get was the one regarding the coat of arms, maybe you can be more direct with your suggestions there.----KAVEBEAR (talk) 16:13, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • File:Haleakala_-_the_C._R._Bishop_Residence,_oil_on_canvas_painting_by_D._Howard_Hitchcock,_1899,_Bishop_Museum.JPG needs a US PD tag and a date of death for the author
  • File:Royal_Coat_of_Arms_of_Hawaii_(Kalakaua).svg should include a licensing tag on the image description page for the original design, which is presumably PD by now? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:15, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

  • "founder of the Kamehameha Schools." Why does the reader need to know this in the lede of the article about Liliuokalani, which is a fairly long lede? You never mention this again (which makes it unsourced) Consider cutting.
Done — Maile (talk) 20:02, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you italicize hānai in the article, it probably should be in the infobox. Consider a link there on first use.
Done — Maile (talk) 20:02, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which was temporarily blocked by the President Grover Cleveland." I would cut "the"
Done — Maile (talk) 20:02, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the oligarchical government" this has the feel of editorializing. If you feel the need to point out here that the Republic got there by questionable means, suggest more subtlety.
@Wehwalt: I'm just guessing at how that terminology ended up there. The term is in the lead, but not in the article, which might be what caught your eye. Separate biographies I've been creating/expanding on other individuals from that time and place, in the sourcing I see that phrase a lot, and I think it is referring to the provisional government that was inbetween the monarchy and the Republic. I can't swear to it without re-locating sources, but I'm pretty sure "oligarchy" was the accepted term used across the board, including (if memory serves me) used by one of our US Presidents. — Maile (talk) 01:01, 12 October 2017 (UTC) [reply]
Here's some examples of what I was referring to.
  • Grover Cleveland, "The Provisional Government has not assumed a republican, or other constitutional form, but has remained a mere executive council, or oligarchy, without the consent of the people"."Hawaiian Situation: The President's Message to Congress". The National Tribune. Washington D. C. December 21, 1893. p. 8, col. 4. Retrieved October 19, 2017 – via Chronicling America.
  • And in a search of only Hawaiian newspapers for the period of 1893-1898 (the life of the Provisional Government), results in 460 individual newspaper pages that are littered with the terminology (color highlighted each time).Chronicling America - Hawn newspapers.
So, to shine a little light on this. The monarchy was overthrown by 13 white businessmen, with some rabble rousing help and interference by the United States. They installed themselves in office. It was not voted on by either the populace or the legislature. — Maile (talk) 00:03, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Checked - I have resolved this, I believe. I put the above Cleveland quote in the body of the article, with the above reference. — Maile (talk) 19:38, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Of the aliʻi class of Hawaiian nobility, her family were considered collateral relations of the reigning House of Kamehameha sharing common descent from the 18th-century aliʻi nui (supreme monarch) Keaweʻīkekahialiʻiokamoku." "Family" is singular, at least in AmEng. The introductory phrase is a bit confusing. Consider "Her family was of the aliʻi class of the Hawaiian nobility, collateral relations of the reigning ..."
Done — Maile (talk) 20:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was one of the royal twins alongside Kamanawa depicted on the Hawaiian coat of arms.[7]" the "alongside Kamanawa" causes problems in this sentence. Maybe "was depicted, along with his royal twin Kamanawa, on the Hawaiian coat of arms".
Done — Maile (talk) 20:02, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She, along with her classmates, had been formally proclaimed by Kamehameha III as eligible for the throne of the Kingdom of Hawaii.[13] Liliʻuokalani later noted that these "pupils were exclusively persons whose claims to the throne were acknowledged."[14]" so basically you're saying the same thing twice. I might cut the quote. If you want to substitute something else by L. about her schooling, that's another possibility. You really don't say anything about what the schooling was like for her, just who her classmates were.
  • Added some information enough to cover some more details. But she doesn't speak much about her schooling either since she didn't look back fondly on this part in her life. The majority of that section of her memoir is devoted to who her peers were. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:33, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The boarding school headed by the Cookes discontinued around 1850," I might suggest a "was" before "discontinued" and change "headed" to "run".
Done — Maile (talk) 20:02, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After returning from school," age or year, or possibly both, please. Also remember that the last real mention of her was in the young age group of her class, so having her come home clutching her diploma is a bit of a surprise so suddenly.
  • The last mention was when she transferred to a day school. Corrected that to reflect when she moved back with her Hanai parents. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pākī's death in 1855" Since you differentiate between the two spouses by name, is it proper to refer to "the Pākīs'," earlier?
  • I think so. As a family, they were the Pākīs. Pākī refers to Abner Pākī same as you would differentiate Lincoln, the person from the Lincoln's, the family.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but declared that if neither the King nor any high chief though proper to marry her" Note 2. Presumably "though" should be "thought".
Done — Maile (talk) 20:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "during the royal marriage" should "marriage" be "wedding"?
Done — Maile (talk) 20:02, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last sentence of the first paragraph of "Courtship" might be better placed somewhere in the following paragraph.
  • "She ultimately broke off the engagement at the urging of King Kamehameha IV and the opposition of the Bishops to the union." I would change "at" to "because of" because "at ... the opposition" reads oddly.
Done — Maile (talk) 20:02, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a staff member of Prince Lot Kapuāiwa (the future Kamehameha V) and secretary of King Kamehameha IV. " I would change the first "of" to "for" and the second to "to". I imagine that the secretary job was a personal secretary?
?? Obit for Dominis says he was "secretary and chamberlain" to Kam IV.
?? Obit 2 says "private secretary" for both Kam IV and Kam V, in addition to later being a Governor under Kam V.
— Maile (talk) 20:28, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dominis began as a staff member to Prince Lot and later as a personal secretary, aide de campe and adjutant general for Kamehameha IV. As far as I know, Dominis did not hold the position of chamberlain during the reigns of the Kamehameha's. Changed the propositions.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "they had known each from childhood when he spied upon the royal children from a neighboring school next to the Cookes'." "neighboring" is redundant here. I might change "spied on" to "watched".
Done — Maile (talk) 20:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Rev." at baptism, you refer to the officiant as "Reverend" without the "the".
  • "her hānai sister Pauahi and her husband Charles Reed Bishop." Long intro for two people who in the last paragraph you called "the Bishops"
  • Remove, it is redundant anyway since we've introduced both figures by their full names.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but Dominis's mother Mary made her disapproval apparent by not attending the ceremony. " Can you make your disapproval apparent? Either way, you're guessing.
  • These are the arguments of Helena G. Allens.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it possible Allen got it wrong? I don't have access to her book, but the 1862 newspaper announcement lists Mrs. Dominis as one of the guests: "Among foreigners present were Mr. J. H. Brown and Miss (unreadable) Swinton, W. A. Aldrich and lady, Mrs. Dominis ... " — Maile (talk) 20:43, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"NOTES OF THE WEEK". The Pacific Commercial Advertiser. Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands. September 18, 1862. Image 2, col. 5. Retrieved October 18, 2017 – via Chronicling America: Historic American Newspapers. Lib. of Congress.
  • I haven't read the passage in a while looking at it now..."Although some newspapers listed Mrs. Mary Dominis as a guest, one made the telling statement: "Mrs. Dominis, the groom's mother, waited at her home to greet her new daughter-in-law." Mary Dominis did not approve of the "kanaka" marriages. No doubt she would not have approved of anyone's marriage to her only son, but certainly not the marriage to a native, as later letters exchanged with Boston relatives reveal.2 Although written about someone else, they include the fervent wish that "he" not marry a "kanaka." ----KAVEBEAR (talk) 13:55, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed. It was not correct anyway based on the news sources. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 16:54, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The couple moved into the Dominises' residence Washington Place in Honolulu." I think a comma after "residence"
Done — Maile (talk) 20:02, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just noticed that "Liliuokalani" is spelled without the mark in the sections at the bottom of the article, such as her arms, and her family tree.
Done — Maile (talk) 22:04, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:03, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@KAVEBEAR: I took care of all that I could from Wehwalt's first list above, and have checked-signed off on each one I dealt with. But others were not details I was necessarily familiar with. So would you please have a look at those if you have time? Thanks. — Maile (talk) 00:49, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: Can you strike the one that are sufficiently addressed, so it's easier to navigate the remaining ones? There are some I need a little more time to address like the schooling piece.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt and KAVEBEAR: I struck the ones I believed were taken care of, so that should make it easier to focus on the remaining. Remove any strikeout I put there prematurely. — Maile (talk) 20:00, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look at it again later today.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:15, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mandatory break 1[edit]

Some more comments:

  • "Lunalilo died in 1874, also without an heir to succeed to him." I would cut all after "heir".
  • Changed to "Lunalilo died without a successor in 1874." — Maile (talk) 12:08, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would say "without a heir". He had a successor, it's just that no one knew for certain who it would be.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:52, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Checked - changed to heir. — Maile (talk) 21:44, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Leleiohoku died in 1877, leaving no one to succeed him." Heir is not really an office. I might say, after the comma, "meaning the king again had no heir"
  • Changed to "Leleiohoku died without a successor in 1877" — Maile (talk) 12:08, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Checked - changed to heir per item above. — Maile (talk) 21:44, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "wanted to be named heir to her son's right" I would cut all after "heir"
  • "the smarting of the royal ones" it's unclear what "smarting" means in this context.
  • It means smarting like the pain sensation one would have if they had a sore eye. Liliu (smarting) was one of her birth names. Her brother just used the less crude name of her birth and added -"okalani" (of the ones of heaven or royal ones) which is a common suffix for Hawaiian royal names. If it isn't clear how should that be conveyed? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:36, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of the obvious synonyms really seems to help. I might just drop a footnote and explain there. Smarting's unusual as a noun.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to set aside land for branch hospitals at Kakaʻako." multiple hospitals?
  • Comment - This is ffy and probably should be eliminated or reworded. This is what the source says: "The next month, Princess Liliuokalani, who had been so overcome by what she had seen at Kalaupapa, assisted the president of the Board of Health, H. A. P. Carter, in procuring land at Kakaako, in Honolulu, for the establishment of “branch hospitals.” - the source has “branch hospitals.” in quotes as shown. Looking at the notes for that source, it cites: W. N. Armstrong, “Report of the President of the Board of Health to the Legislative Assembly, 1882,” Leprosy in Hawaii, 113 - I have been unable to run that report down. — Maile (talk) 14:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Maile66 and Wehwalt: There is a snippet version which is probably a compilation of multiple years. "In October last, my predecessor, Mr. Carter, succeeded with the kind co-operation of Her Royal Highness Liliuokalani, in procuring a lease of the premises at Kakaako, near Honolulu, upon which be caused to be erected buildings which should serve as branch hospitals." I am not sure if there was ever the plural "hospitals" after this point there because Kakaʻako was always referred in the singular form in later sources. What do you suggest to clarify?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:45, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspect a minor shift in the English language ... Perhaps substitute "hospital purposes" for "branch hospitals"?--Wehwalt (talk) 06:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure. I reworded it a little bit and remove the plural. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:25, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and were seated with the other members of the Royal Household and foreign royal guests." given that they fell into Category B, I might say "and were seated with other foreign royal guests, and with members of the Royal Household."
  • "Attempts were made to replace Kalākaua with Liliʻuokalani as queen." By whom, generally? I imagine by royalists.
  • "After unsuccessfully dissuading his departure," maybe "After failing to persuade the king to stay " or similar.
  • "hold-over" may be more common as holdover.
  • "and the 1887 constitution gave the legislature the power to vote for the dismissal of her cabinet. Seven resolutions of want of confidence were introduced during this session, and four of her self-appointed cabinets" I might cut the "self-appointed" which makes it sound illegitimate and find some other way to make it clear she had appointed them.
  • @KAVEBEAR: I am somewhat confused by the article wording. It says cabinets were ousted, but is it referring to the entire cabinets, or just which member of the cabinet was named as head of it? Checking the Kuykendall source, I'm no more clear. Article says the the Widemann, Macfarlane, Cornwell. and Wilcox cabinets were dismissed. But was there a Widemann cabinet? "The queen wrote that Noble C. O. Berger's "was the casting vote. It was decided between Mr. Parker and myself that Mr. Widemann [Berger's father-in-law] was to be a member of the next cabinet and for that reason Mr. Berger voted against the Wilcox cabinet. And so it was, for Mr. Widemann gave his consent and afterwards he withdrew."200 There is another version of this affair, which says that Berger's vote was secured by a promise that his father-in-law Judge Widemann should have the naming of the next cabinet; after the vote was cast, Widemann was offered only a place in the cabinet along with Parker, Peterson, and Colburn; he refused to go into such a combination." Etc. etc. — Maile (talk) 18:20, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Maile66: The Widemann cabinet was her first chosen cabinet consisting of Widemann, Parker, Whiting and Spencer. The cabinets were named after the leading minister of the group or the one charged with setting it up; see User:KAVEBEAR/Liliuokalani#Cabinent Ministers. The Widemann cabinet was ousted after the lottery bill was introduced and replaced soon after by the ministry that Macfarlane tried to set up. It was a mess Hawaiian politics during the 1892 Legislative Session of the Kingdom of Hawaii. Widemmann refused to join the last cabinet selection before the overthrow because of the people chosen. The last cabinet was referred to as the Parker cabinet after the leading individual in the body. When cabinets were ousted it meant the entire body. The legislature had the power to introduce a resolution of want of confidence on the queen's cabinet. If this passes the chambers, it removes everyone on the cabinet not just the head. The queen could appoint people who resigned independently. The self-appointed prefix is there because it doesn't include the Cummins cabinet that was the holdover from her brother's reign. Does that explain it more better? You really have to read Kuykendall and the additional sources about this period in depth to actually understand what the hell was going on leading up to the overthrow. ----KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:14, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ouch! My brain hurts! I'm leaving this as an issue between you and Wehwalt, since you have a good grasp of what the situation was. Ouch! Ouch! Ouch! — Maile (talk) 23:17, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edit Conflict....A major reason why the cabinets were removed many of the time was due to the queen's insistence to retain Charles Burnett Wilson as Marshal of the Kingdom despite the legislature scorn for him. The Marshal is subordinate to the Attorney General which means the queen had to find and appoint an Attorney General who would keep Wilson in office while the legislature keep demanding every new cabinet ministry to dismiss Wilson and when they didn't they tack that on to a list of grievance onto a resolution of want of confidence. It also had to do with the political divide in the houses; no party held a majority meaning many of these men were from the compromising National Reform party which was the party the queen supported personally. I don't know if the bit about Wilson should be included though. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:26, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know! It took me many weeks of reading the sources to actually understand it a little better what was going on. The reason why the cabinets are named is also to simplify the article a little so we don't have to name all the men on her cabinets.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:26, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wilcox is not linked on first use, and I'd check out the other names of the cabinets.
  • Linked Cornwell, Wilcox and Macfarlane.----KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:31, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I might move the explanation of the McKinley Tariff to the first mention.
  • @Wehwalt and KAVEBEAR: diff I did some moving and rewording around between the two sections where this information is somewhat duplicated. Please read before we sign off on what I did with this. — Maile (talk) 18:52, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you've omitted that the King might have been planning to go to Washington to discuss the McKinley Tariff with the ambassador.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:09, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's in there, in there, and it's in the diff: "After failing to persuade the king to stay, Liliʻuokalani wrote that he and Hawaiian ambassador to the United States Henry A. P. Carter planned to discuss the tariff situation in Washington." — Maile (talk) 11:15, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops. I had searched on "McKinley", silly me.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:02, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a controversial opium licensing bill" You mention this before, without the link on opium.
  • I haven't looked over the early part of the article a second time yet.
More sooner.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:20, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mandatory break 2[edit]
I've replied to one comment above. I'll give the article a second read when I'm done with the first and will apprise of any remaining issues.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:55, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to promulgate a new constitution that would have strengthened the power of the monarch relative to the legislature, where Euro-American business elites held disproportionate power." This seems a bit longwinded. I might say "to promulgate a new constitution to regain power for the monarchy and Native Hawaiians that had been lost under the Bayonet Constitution".
Done — Maile (talk) 21:20, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "With a vote of two-thirds of the registered voters,[77]" I'm not quite sure what this means. Was there a referendum? I might also split that sentence somewhere.
It's sort of in the footnote in the sentence before it, and sourced pretty much like it's written. In Liliuokalani's own account in her book is (pp 230-231): The election of 1892 arrived, and with it the usual excitement of such occasions. Petitions poured in from every part of the Islands for a new constitution; these Hawaiians Plead for a New Constitution were addressed to myself as the reigning sovereign. They were supported by petitions addressed to the HuiKalaaina, who in turn indorsed and forwarded them to me. It was estimated by those in position to know, that out of a possible nine thousand five hundred registered voters, six thousand five hundred, or two-thirds, had signed these petitions. — Maile (talk) 23:40, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really, there is a lot of repetition in the first three paragraphs of this section, especially regarding the opponents and what the proposed constitution was to do. Suggest consolidation.
  • "(co-written by the Queen and two legislators Joseph Nāwahī and William Pūnohu White)" Likely should have a comma after "legislators".
Done — Maile (talk) 20:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The proposed lottery and opium licensing bills were controversial.[80] " It might be better to put it in the active voice and make clearer L's involvement. It hasn't been made really clear why these matters are so crucial, though you've mentioned it before. Were gambling and opium having a deleterious effect on some part of the population? Also watch the duplicate linking, you've linked them before.
  • "Committee of Safety" is linked on second use.
Moved link to first mention. — Maile (talk) 20:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "United States Government Minister" this may be a bit confusing, perhaps "the diplomatic representative of the United States," or similar? Or else cut "Government" and pipe "Minister" to Minister (diplomacy).
  • Changed to "United States Minister to Hawaii".--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:17, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "US Marines from the USS Boston and two companies of US sailors landed and took up positions at the US Legation, Consulate, and Arion Hall. 162 sailors and Marines aboard the USS Boston in Honolulu Harbor came ashore well-armed but under orders of neutrality." These sentences say basically the same thing twice.
  • "the Provisional Government.[91][92] (break) A provisional government," Although the capitalization could be defended, putting the varying capitalization so close together looks a bit odd.
Taken care of — Maile (talk) 13:57, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the US Minister (ambassador)" well, see a few entries above. I suggest changing to "Stevens".
  • "The administration of Grover Cleveland" I might add ", who took office for a second time on March 4"
@KAVEBEAR and Wehwalt: This point is another place in the article that I feel an important piece of the narrative is missing. Author William DeWitt Alexander devoted a chapter (pp. 71-79) in his book to the provisional government sending representatives to D. C. in Feb 1893 to craft an annexation treaty, Liliuokalani protesting to President Harrison about it, and Harrison sending it to the Senate. This was in between Cleveland's two terms. Seems it might be important. What do you two think? — Maile (talk) 22:24, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There was a dispute: Willis said the Queen said "beheading"; she later said she used "execute."[94][95][96]" The difference seems rather slight. Dead is dead. (Note to Wehwalt:That takes an explanation that is not in sourcing for this article. "Civilized" governments execute criminals all the time. The missionary descendants that overthrew the government believed the Hawaiians were heathens/cannibals, and not necessarily in a former time. And one of their favorite tactics was spreading fear that she was some backwards tribal woman. Word quickly spread that she had said "beheading", she was publicly denounced and called a Dyak headhunter, and other not thrilling names. That's why she changed the wording to "execute".— Maile (talk) 21:36, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is "Queen" proper under the circumstances, btw? She wasn't by then, legally.
  • "Cleveland sent the issue to the Congress, stating, "The Provisional Government has not assumed a republican, or other constitutional form, but has remained a mere executive council, or oligarchy, without the consent of the people".[97] The Queen later changed her position on the issue of punishment for the conspirators, and on December 18, 1893, US Minister Willis demanded her reinstatement by the Provisional Government." My research says that Cleveland sent his special message to Congress on the Hawaiian situation on December 18, 1893, so I don't see how you justify the "later" after "Queen". There's a bit of a continuity issue here.
The President's message to Congress was separate. Minister Willis had to negotiate with Liliuokalani, and she was slow in coming around. Thus on December 18, as Cleveland's message reached the Congress, and following a final session with Willis, the queen agreed to meet the demands made upon her. By the time the queen capitulated, Willis was aware of the nature of the monarchy and of the lack of political ability, and even honesty, on the part of the queen's native advisers. He was convinced that, even if restored to the throne, the queen could not last. Thus, although his heart was not in it, Willis approached the provisional government with the president's proposition and asked immediate acceptance. As an honorable man who would do his duty, he had even thought of requesting all American citizens to withdraw from the controversy, which would have dispensed with over half of the armed forces of the provisional government. On the afternoon of December 19, the executive council was formally advised of the president's wishes. Kuykendall p. 645 — Maile (talk) 20:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Republic of Hawaii was recognized by the United States government as a protectorate," a protectorate of whom? Surely not the US, under Grover Cleveland?
@KAVEBEAR: Wow, this dates back a decade in this article. The source does not say this. However, this section probably needs to be reworked. Among other things, Dole appeared too far down in the section, and came across almost as a marginal figure with scant info about how he played into the story. I did some rewording Here-1. But I think we need to take a look at this whole section again, just to make sure how it all works together. — Maile (talk) 15:25, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are you comfortable, generally, that the citations reflect the references? I don't want to be hard, but this is one of the most important pre-statehood Hawaiian articles, and there's an extent to which I feel that some of this stuff should have been addressed pre-FAC. I don't catch everything. If I find one or two things beyond matters of style that make it seem that things have dropped between the nominators, that's par for the course, but I'm starting to feel it is a bit more than that.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:00, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have to defer to KAVEBEAR's opinion on that. I don't know what he checked before this went to GA, and we didn't get a chance to eyeball this before it was nominated at FAC. I can only vouch for the citations that I put in, which were specific sections. Let's see what he says. — Maile (talk) 19:01, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:19, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the base of Diamond Head Crater." do craters have bases? Our article on volcanic crater doesn't mention it.
Changed - It was on the beach below Diamond Head. — Maile (talk) 15:54, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "of the former palace " I might say "of the ʻIolani Palace" and make the caption of the image in this section clearer in that regard.
  • Where was she imprisoned between January and September 1895. The image suggests it was the palace, in which case the "commutation" reads a bit oddly.
  • "in an upstairs bedroom of ʻIolani Palace, " I don't see why the link should be here.
  • "of the former ʻIolani Palace" I get what you are trying to say, but it may look odd to the reader who knows that it's still called that.

I've made some adjustments and added another source, that I hope clears up the palace wording. — Maile (talk) 13:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "she wrote her memoir Hawaii's Story by Hawaii's Queen with the help of Julius A. Palmer Jr. and Sara Lee, as editor;" ambiguous whether there were 1 or 2 editors.
Corrected - I just rewrote the paragraph with clarifications, and an additional reference.— Maile (talk) 19:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but it failed to pass in the United States Senate after the Kūʻē Petitions were submitted by a commission of Native Hawaiian delegates ... The petitions were used as evidence of the strong resistance of the Hawaiian community to annexation, and the treaty was defeated in the Senate. After the failure of the treaty," the treaty is mentioned as failing three times. Surely a bit of consolidation can be done.
I have rearranged some of the wording in the paragraph so that "treaty" only appears twice; also did some other slight wording rearrangement to make the paragraph clearer with regard to cause and effect of the signatures, and to the full name of the treaty "The Treaty for the Annexation of the Hawaiian Islands", as it appears to be written here. Am striking in presumption that this solves the problem, yes? KDS4444 (talk) 22:52, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "56th United States Congress[123]" I would think this was from the Hawaii Organic Act and would so state.
Corrected — Maile (talk) 14:55, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • More soon. I'm sorry for the slow pace but it takes time.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:59, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mandatory break 3[edit]

@KAVEBEAR and Wehwalt: I've edited the Overthrow section, clarifying and filling in missing events in the flow of information. It added minimal size to the article. In doing so, I've struck out above issues that I think were also resolved when I edited the section. I can only verify the sourcing I put in to match the prose, or otherwise verify any sourcing to Kuykendall. Offline sourcing was not available to me to verify. Please feel free re-edit. As for the "beheading", that is worded different ways in different sources. I just went with Kuykendall, who reported that she was claiming the constitution called for the death penalty. Who knows if she really used the word "behead", or somebody fabricated that and it's been passed down as truth for a century. — Maile (talk) 20:03, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd still like to see an assurance from the nominators as a whole that they feel that WP:V is satisfied.--20:11, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
I can assure that the majority of the article is verifiable. All sources here are reliable. I'm really busy with work until beginning of November so I don't have time to address everything here but I will comment on them soon.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:16, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then I suggest we put this on hold until then.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:16, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I made some changes to the Overthrow section and added in the indigenous agency to the story such as the Committee of Law and Order bit because the overthrow is not just an event that happen between the queen and white people. Maile66 can you look over and trim any fat off the edges? What do you think is still missing? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 16:22, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I will attend to this, as well have a second look at the other sections. @KAVEBEAR: Do you think we have too much listed under "Further reading"? It doesn't need to be an all-inclusive directory of anything and everything connected with the queen and the overthrow. — Maile (talk) 16:54, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Capitalization of "Crown Lands" or "Crown lands"? We ought to be consistent, but I'm finding inconsistency in sourcing. "Crown Lands" seems more in use. But the Organic Act says "Crown lands". Which is correct? — Maile (talk) 23:19, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Wehwalt and KAVEBEAR: Still going through this, but I completely rewrote the Legacy section last month, so I can vouch for that sourcing. I pretty much wrote/rewrote the Later life and death last year, and I can vouch for the sourcing on that. KAVEBEAR and I pretty much rewrote the Crown Lands section last year, so that should be OK on sourcing. So far, the sourcing on Arrest and imprisonment looks OK, as does the sourcing on the Annexation section. — Maile (talk) 01:06, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I rewrote the sections on her early life, marriage, reign before overthrow, and religious belief. A good deal for the Annexation section was also rewritten with better sourcing. Sections on Arrest and imprisonment, Overthrow, Promulgating and Compositions may still need spot checks here and there, but they are fixes that can be done in the review process. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:29, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, how do you want to proceed? I like to review a fairly stable article, and I'm not in a position to check the references myself.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:50, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @KAVEBEAR: Do you want to put this nomination aside? It does seem like we're re-working a lot, and it's not stable while we're doing it. FAC will always be there for re-nomination, no harm no foul on this. Whichever direction you want to go, I'll work on it with you. — Maile (talk) 11:20, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think they are that problematic enough that they need to be rewritten wholesale and can be addressed item by item like we've been doing in the review process. Have we address most of your concerns so far? I just don't want to close it without further opinions from other reviewers.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 17:24, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, in general, but then I have to go over the rewritten sections in more detail. Most of the sections mentioned by KAVEBEAR are ones I haven't gotten to yet. Since you don't have a ton of supports yet, there seems little harm in my suspending my review until you guys feel that subject to the usual human error, you think it's WP:V compliant.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:34, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "John Owen Dominis was given the title Prince Consort and restored to the Governorship of Oʻahu, which had been abolished following the Bayonet Constitution of 1887" Unclear, if it was abolished by the constitution, how was it re-established?
  • The keyword is following. The governorship were abolished by the legislative government put in power after the Bayonet Constitution. This is explained in detail on the governor pages. My question is it worth it in this article to elaborate more on the legislative acts that abolished the post in 1888 and the act that restored it in 1890 under Kalākaua's last legislative (the act didn't take into effect until 1891 when she became queen). I was trying to condense what unnecessary details.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:19, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ohhhhhhhh ... I finally get it. Maybe we should just leave it as is. — Maile (talk) 22:23, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likelike, husband Cleghorn and Kaʻiulani need more informtion:
  • No mention of her death. The last place she's mentioned is when Kalakaua becomes king.
  • "she named her niece Kaʻiulani as her successor" (first mention of her name) but we aren't told Likelike was her mother. Natural reader's assumption that sister Anna Kaiulani is the mother.
  • "Her sister's widower Archibald Scott Cleghorn was appointed..." - the first place he's mentioned, and is assumed - but not clear - that Likelike Cleghorn was his wife.

Recommend closing this FAC to resume at a later date[edit]

There is now an edit war happening in the article regarding the infobox image. There are also related issues at the DYK nomination. This is not ready for FAC. — Maile (talk) 11:58, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let's attempt to resolve the issue. It is a ridiculous thing to edit war about. Can I broker a compromise so things can proceed without this? Just use the original image and add the new 1898 image to a section below. We still can use either images for DYK.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 12:48, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
KAVEBEAR I am willing to go along with what you suggest. — Maile (talk) 13:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know if/when images are stable so I can re-review. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:22, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I added Prince's image to the article.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:28, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just for the record here, I am withdrawing my request for an early close to this. There has been a lot of activity on this review since I posted the request, and resulting adjustments to the article. Let it play out as it will, according to however the review itself goes .— Maile (talk) 13:46, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank[edit]

  • "Historian Ralph S. Kuykendall stated that she gave a conditional "if necessary" response; however, Liliʻuokalani's account was that she firmly turned down both men.": Why do you believe the primary source over the secondary source?
Dank I'm the editor who put that in there. I don't fully believe either, because both Liliuokalani and the source Kuykendall used had a vested interest in telling their version of history. Liliuokalani's account comes from her book. Kuykendall's account uses Lorrin A. Thurston's account, IMO just as prejudiced as Liliuokalani might have been. Thurston helped overthrow the monarchy. And Thurston was not there when the conversation took place - at best, Thurston got it second-hand. But here's Kuykendall's notes on why he reported it as he did:
"Liliuokalani, Diary, Dec. 20, 22, 23, 1887, in AH. The account of this episode by Liliuokalani in her book Hawaii's Story by Hawaii's Queen, pp. 186-189, is obviously quite inaccurate. The account by Thurston in his Memoirs of the Hawaiian Revolution, pp. 175-179, points out some of the discrepancies between Liliuokalani's diary and her book."
— Maile (talk) 21:59, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SnowFire[edit]

  • Not a review, but IIRC, didn't Liliuokalani go on speaking engagements in the United States while in exile to try and drum up support for her restoration, and also made a hash of it? In the sense that the public was largely sympathetic to Liliuokalani at first, but by the end, they generally favored annexation? Basically that she was really bad at not pressing certain berserk buttons Europeans and European-Americans had about "native" governments potentially arresting and trying whites, similar to how President Cleveland was repulsed from supporting her after the original demand to try & hang the plotters (which is already in the article). To be clear, I reserve the right to be totally wrong on this, but if there was such a tour, it seems like it might be worth including in the Annexation section. SnowFire (talk) 23:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. She was only abroad advocating against annexation for the latter part 1896 till 1898 which is mentioned in the article right now while the "hanging" comment/incident with Minister Albert S. Willis occurred in 1893 while the queen was still in the islands. Generally, I have not read any works that said the American public ever popularly favored annexation of Hawaii. There was significant opposition even in the US which is not mentioned anymore due to the historiography which glosses over the legacy of imperialism in Hawaii. Opposition to annexation was strong among Democrats (Cleveland's party and the party of the White South which didn't want a territory dominate by non-Whites to the join the Union). There is an article in Hawaiian Journal of History called “‘Aole Hoohui ia Hawaii’: U.S. Collegiate Teams Debate Annexation of Hawai‘i and Independence Prevails, 1893 to 1897” by Ronald C. Williams, Jr. which states that many in the US especially on college campuses on the West coast were against annexation. It was mainly the whites on the islands or their supporters on the mainland who were defaming the queen and the ability of natives to rule the island on their own. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:40, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: This FAC has been open for over six weeks. There has been one support but there is as yet no consensus to promote. Therefore, I think it would be better to archive now. It can be renominated after the usual two-week wait. Sarastro (talk) 19:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Liliuokalani/archive1&oldid=812967466"