Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kalākaua's 1874–75 state visit to the United States/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) 21:57, 13 January 2019 [1].

Kalākaua's 1874–75 state visit to the United States[edit]

Nominator(s):KAVEBEAR, — Maile (talk) 16:06, 12 November 2018 (UTC) [reply]

This article is about one of the events leading to the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii. KAVEBEAR suggested a "start article" for DYK to commemorate the November 17 anniversary of the trip. In research, as with all things related to Kalākaua, the subject matter took on a life of its own. As KAVEBEAR might be tied up off-wiki, I'll be the main respondent here.

The king himself is one of the most fascinating and clerkmulti-faceted subjects I've researched. Who knew (I didn't) – that the 19th century public collected autograph books, and that celebrities of that era handed out autographed photographs. This guy was a professional at handling the public and politicians. In many places he visited, either a private entity or a government entity picked up the financial tab for his expenses. US office holders fell all over themselves to accommodate him.

At home in Hawaii, he was like a lot of 21st century politicians, spending obscene amounts of money on his pet projects, and choosing enablers for cabinet posts. And as noted in his bio article Kalākaua, he did much to revive Hawaiian culture from near-extinction. — Maile (talk) 16:06, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment
you should check the date formatting for spaces (December 5–11, 1874) and (December 12 – 22, 1874) are the two different ones you use throughout. I will make time for a proper review shortly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:24, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually surprised that I didn't notice that, and that the error exists. Because I routinely run the User:GregU/dashes.js tool, and it didn't flag those at all. But I'll check more thoroughly. Thanks for bringing up. — Maile (talk) 16:33, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just did a run-through, sentence by sentence. As far as I can tell, the inconsistency was confined to the section headings. If I missed anything, please let me know.— Maile (talk) 17:32, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

Just looking at the lede, so far. Mostly phrasing or word choices.

  • "King Kalākaua's 91-day journey across the breadth of the United States began on November 17, 1874. " I'm not sure about "breadth". The difficulty is that he did it twice, back and forth, which is hard to express. I might try something like " ... journey across the United States, and back again, began on ..."
  • Done
  • I might move what made this visit distinctive from the second paragraph to the first, and relegate K's personal details to paragraph 2.
  • Done, if I understand you on this one.
  • "he had previously been to California and Canada with Prince Lot in 1860, as a 23-year-old government bureaucrat" I'd lose the comma.
  • Done
  • "His trip to Washington, D.C. established two diplomatic benchmarks." I might conclude (after D.C.) "saw two diplomatic firsts." Maybe a colon rather than the period but I can see both sides on that.
  • Done
  • "One was the United States Congress holding their first joint meeting in the body's history, less formal than a joint session, specifically for an audience with him." An audience with him is him receiving them, rather than the other way around as was the case. I would make the final clause "specifically to receive him."
  • Done
  • "Washington, D.C." or "Washington, D.C."? You are not consistent.
  • Excellent catch - fixed all with the comma.
  • "to secure an agreement to provide tax relief for its sugar planters," I would frame it as "to seek the elimination of tariffs on the islands' sugar cane" or similar. It should not be framed as a tax.
  • Done
  • "ailing" perhaps "ill".
  • Done
  • " the king abided the relentless attention," I might put a "patiently" or "with patience" in there. Abided by itself doesn't say as much.
  • Done
  • "Anticipation had grown so strong by the time he reached Washington D.C., that spectators gathered on rooftops to watch him pass by. At Niagara Falls, New York, people waited for hours in frigid temperatures just for a glimpse." The lede is a summary. Do we need two examples?
  • Removed the second one.
  • "The treaty, however, became a link in a chain of events that led to the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii in 1893." I would cast this something like "The resultant close economic ties between islands and mainland became a major factor leading to the overthrow of the ..".
  • Agree, and changed accordingly
  • Actually, I made a little change. In 1874-75 "mainland" was not a term used in 19th century sources, since Hawaii was an independent kingdom. I changed it to United States.
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, maybe not so soon, but I'm back.
  • "his port of entry". A port of entry is a defined legal term. Maybe "His arrival at San Francisco on November 28 began a state visit, ..."
  • Done
  • "giving him the distinction of being the first reigning monarch to visit the United States." I might consider shortening it to "making him the first reigning monarch to visit the United States"
  • Done
  • "the United States Congress held their first joint meeting in the body's history," I would change "their" to "the"
  • Done
  • " he sailed for San Francisco, to embark across the United States by rail." I think you're pushing "embark" a little too far here, maybe "he sailed for San Francisco and journeyed across the United States by rail"
  • Done
  • "Goodwill generated by Kalākaua is credited for doing much to help move the legislation through the necessary channels." Is a treaty legislation? And you might want to be clearer about what is being discussed here.
  • Done
  • "resultant" I'd say "resulting"
  • Done
  • "Kalākaua was a career politician who rose through the ranks of chiefs, and was named by Kamehameha III in 1844 as one of the chiefs eligible to be king.[1]" He was eight years old in 1844, so I would change "was named" to "had been named". I note the double usage of "chiefs" but don't know if you can do anything about it.
  • Eliminated "one of the chiefs", and I think it's OK now
  • I might merge the second and third paragraphs of "Background"
  • Done
  • "didn't" Contractions aren't favored on Wikipedia.
  • Changed to "did not"
  • "raising the island nation's visibility with visits to government leaders across the country.[21]" For "country", I would sub "United States".
  • Done
  • "Celebration of the king's birthday began with morning service by various Christian denominations" Suggest "services" for "service"
  • Done
  • I would expect the king needed US permission to visit. Is there anything worth mentioning regarding the permission?
  • I'm going to bounce this one to KAVEBEAR. I never saw anything that mentioned that about this visit, or about any article that involves people traveling back and forth between Hawaii and the United States in that time period. Hawaii had long had a consul in San Francisco. Maybe it just all got cleared ahead of time through there.
  • Ping only works if it is signed. I've looked into this. The US government invited the king and put the Benicia at his disposal according to his official biography. Using this I will look into more leads but it seems the invitation came after Allen and Carter was in Washington..."King Kalakaua was a guest of the nation. President Ulysses S. Grant had sent a special invitation asking the King of Hawaii, David Kalakaua, to come to see him in Washington, and had sent the frigate Benicia for his trip to San Francisco. [2]" I prefer a source to the original invitation but this is best I can find so far. This is the source, the Hawaiian Gazette mentioning the dispatch from Washington was delivered to the American Foreign Minister and then to the King. Interestingly it mentions how originally Kamehameha V had been invited to go before his death and that Lunalilo wished to travel as well.
  • Oh ... better sign the pings, then. Maybe after you read that, you could add a sentence or two, or three or so, to the article. Or we could work it out together. E.H. Allen an H. P. Carter left Oct 18. There must have been some communication to Pres. Grant inbetween the August 1 Hawaiian legislature authorization, and the letter from Grant. I'm glad Wehwalt asked, as this is an important point to have missed.— Maile (talk) 02:02, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Letter between Peirce and Fish. It seems Kalakaua convey his intent to go and Peirce as the US government to extend an invitation to make it more formalized.
You're really good at research. — Maile (talk) 02:17, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm headed for RL responsibilities right now. So, this will have to continue tomorrow for me. — Maile (talk) 02:32, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • KAVEBEAR has now added a sentence to cover this, with sourcing. Last paragraph, first sentence of the The quest for tariff easement section.
  • "Lt. Commander William H. Whiting.[22]" Probably the rank should be spelled out.
  • Spelled out and wiki linked
  • Whiting's first mention is now in the last paragraph of their departure from San Francisco to DC.
  • "in the morning" Which morning?
  • Fixed
  • "Japanese minister Yoshida Kiyonari and Japanese Consul Charles Wolcott Brooks" could you explain the logic of this capitalization?
  • Capitalized Minister. Consul is consistently capitalized throughout the article.
  • " Ogden, Utah to Fort Bridger, Wyoming" both were then territories, as you note in the case of Wyoming a bit later.
  • Fixed
  • "Their train stopped at the Laramie depot on December 8, for a reception at the Railroad Hotel in Cheyenne, hosted by Governor John Allen Campbell." I'd ax the first comma
  • Done
  • "Continuing through Aurora, Colorado a boisterous crowd cheered as the train passed through their town on its way to Grand Island, Nebraska." Really, you have a verb clause twice, and it leads to some confusion as it is not clear (of course it is with context) whether "continuing through" refers to the train or crowd.
  • Changed it to "At Aurora, Colorado"
  • The king's reaction to the reporters is needed in the body or the "tolerance" language in the lede will be unsourced.
  • It happened on Chicago, and I've made the appropriate change.
  • The left-aligned quote box, on my browser, shifts the next heading considerably to the right.
  • Removed alignment. Seems to have taken care of that.
  • "The king's car was immediately boarded by ..." The phrasing makes it sound rather hostile. The "was ... boarded" is what is doing it.
  • Fixed
  • "For the meeting with Kalākaua, the all-male Congress allowed women spectators into the room." I'm not aware it was unusual for women to be spectators. See for example the description of the March 4, 1865 Senate session at three-cent nickel.
  • Removed the sentence
  • "President Grant initiated the White House state dinner tradition, when he hosted the December 22 dinner to honor Kalākaua.[48]"The comma seems unnecessary. I suggest reviewing commas throughout.
  • Removed. But quite frankly, I've seen so many arguments on Wikipedia over commas, or the lack thereof, that's it's blurred my ability to know what is acceptable here. The editor gets flagged for having too many commas, or not enough commas. Everybody's right, and then everybody's wrong. I seriously don't know anymore. Sorry.
  • What is the reason for the order in which the dignitaries are listed? It seems odd to see the VP well down the list.
  • I think it was just an error. Corrected now.
  • Washington, D.C. or Washington D.C.?
  • Good catch. I thought I had caught all those. Fixed.
  • "The New York City council held a reception at the train depot, followed by a carriage ride past throngs of curiosity seekers en route to the Windsor Hotel.[50]" This implies that the king stayed on the train until New York City. I am not aware of any train tubes under the Hudson River in 1874.
  • Can you access this "Clip - Kalakaua in NJ and NY". New-York Tribune.. I changed it to "The New York City council held a reception at the Jersey City, New Jersey train depot, followed by a carriage ride to New York City ". If I read that wrong, please suggest wording.
  • " A Christmas Day observance at Saint Thomas Church, was followed by a photo session at Jeremiah Gurney's studio.[53]" ditto re comma
  • Done
  • ""Acknowledging the king's erstwhile service as a volunteer fireman of Engine 4 in Honolulu, " I know nothing about how often the king responded to 911s addressed to the fire station, but maybe if it wasn't frequent that "nominal" be substituted for "erstwhile".
  • Done (maybe) I changed it to "previous". It wasn't while he was king. When he was working his way up through the career ladder, he was elected (public election, I believe) to be the head of Engine 4. But since I can't readily find the source, I just made the change.— Maile (talk) 19:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • TA! DA! I found a source that says in 1870 he was a foreman on Engine 4. Wording in the article changed accordingly. In that year, he was a legal clerk with the Land Office. — Maile (talk) 02:09, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You previously capped "Freemasonry" but you lower case "masonry" and "masonic".
  • Freemasonry→freemasonry for consistency
  • "En route to Boston, they made a December 31 stop-over in New Haven, Connecticut, home to Yale University. " At the time, I think, Yale College?
  • Done
  • "escorted by Lt. Governor Thomas Talbot and governor-elect William Gaston." I think you've got to spell out Lieutenant again, and I would preface it by "Massachusetts". I think governor-elect can be capped.
  • Done
  • Done
  • "A full agenda for the royal party followed the next few days," If you read this literally, the heavy schedule did not occur until the next few days had passed (i.e., there was a rest), but from context, that is not what was meant.
  • Done
  • "state legislature". probably a link to the one in Massachusetts.
  • Done
  • "Boston and Providence" Wasn't that simply what he took to get to Boston from New Bedford?
  • It was an inspection tour of the new depot. I've edited it a bit.
  • The last sentence in the section, regarding the king's homeward journey commencement, could use a source.
  • Done, but I disagree that it was necessary.
  • Did he visit Boston/New Bedford because a lot of the early missionaries and other American emigres to Hawaii came from there?
  • Reworded a little. They were accepting an invitation from the town's mayor.
  • "the royal party inspected city infrastructure processes. " likely the last word should be "projects"
  • Done
  • Done
  • "day-trip" no need for the dash. Similarly, "stop-over" might be better as 'stopover".
  • Done
  • " Wisconsin governor Harrison Ludington." why the lower case on governor?
  • Fixed
  • Was the king caricatured during his stay? Even though such illustrations are likely racist, it would be interesting to see how he was viewed.
  • I’ve find it hard to put them in the article even when I was uploading them. There is no significant context for them like the one surrounding his 1881 tour that I have seen in sources. I’m guessing these are just product of zenophobia, anti-monarchism or anti-Grant sentiments. KAVEBEAR (talk) 16:40, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest conversion of the exportation figures in pounds to kilograms as well.
  • Done
That's pretty much it. Sorry for the delay, I'm still on the road. Regrettably not in Hawaii!--Wehwalt (talk) 11:42, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt I've answered all your concerns except the one about how Kalakaua got into the country. Hopefully, KAVEBEAR can come up with something. However it happened, there probably wasn't anybody in America who wanted to keep him out. Also, I have not gone back and checked other commas. I have comma burn out from all the nitpicking comma arguments all over Wikipedia. — Maile (talk) 20:54, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • Don't use fixed px size
Removed fixed px
  • Suggest adding alt text
Alt text added to all
  • File:Kalakaua_state_visit_to_Washington,_colored_engraving_(cropped).jpg: when/where was this first published?
First published Frank Leslie's Illustrated Newspaper, 1875; newspaper did not credit the artist
  • File:Kalakaua_and_Reciprocity_Commission_(PP-96-13-03).jpg: what was the author's date of death?
Added to the Commons file description. Photographer partner company, both died before 1900
  • File:CALIFORNIA_–_KING_KALAKAUA_AND_SUITE,_UNDER_ESCORT_OF_MAYOR_OTIS_AND_STAFF,_VIEWING_THE_SEALS_FROM_THE_CLIFF_HOUSE,_SAN_FRANCISCO._SKETCHED_BY_E._BEDFORD_GREY.jpg needs an author date of death and a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:43, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
KAVEBEAR I don't have the answer to death date for E. Bedford Grey. Can you find anything? — Maile (talk) 23:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know. The only other place with information about this image is [3] and it doesn’t give Grey’s lifespan. Gonna ask our friends at the humanity desk to see what they can find. KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:56, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SchroCat[edit]

Two very brief comments from me:

  • "in the fall of 1860" WP:SEASON suggests not using fall – late 1860, perhaps?
Changed per your suggestion.
  • The addition of a map showing the route would help.
KAVEBEAR I've put a map request on the article's talk page. I've never requested a map before, so anything you can add there would be fine with me. — Maile (talk) 21:27, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done. — Maile (talk) 15:22, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 18:53, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MOD[edit]

King Kalākaua's 91-day journey across the United States, and back again, began on November 17, 1874. On this state visit, the Hawaiian King made history as the first reigning monarch to visit the United States. His trip to Washington, D.C. saw two diplomatic firsts: one was the United States Congress holding their first joint meeting in the body's history, less formal than a joint session, specifically to receive him; the second was President Ulysses S. Grant hosting him as honoree of the first state dinner at the White House.

Three sentences. 6 commas, one colon and one semi-colon. It's a little choppy, isn't it? Could the third sentence be broken up? --MarchOrDie (talk) 13:53, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt This user is referring to a thread he started on the article talk page, where you will find exactly what sentences he is talking about. I changed this originally because of your comments above. This user is suggesting something else. Will you please comment here. Personally, Wehwalt, I would prefer to go along with your suggestions because of your extensive FAC experience. But let's see what you have to say about it. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 13:57, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And for the record, this was the original. This is a featured article review, and I don't want to keep flipping back and forth when a change is made, and somebody doesn't like it. — Maile (talk) 14:12, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"On the 1874–75 state visit, he made history as the first reigning monarch to visit the United States. His trip to Washington, D.C. established two diplomatic benchmarks. One was the United States Congress holding their first joint meeting in the body's history, less formal than a joint session, specifically for an audience with him. The second was President Ulysses S. Grant hosting him as honoree of the first state dinner at the White House."
  • Just chipping in on this, prior to my review proper. I agree that the lead is a little choppy too, and could be smoothed out a little - the first sentence and a half (at least) could be restructured slightly (avoiding "on this state visit", which begs the question of how many others he took). I'll give an suggestion of an opening line that you can look at (and reject if you feel like it). - SchroCat (talk) 15:00, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How about:

King Kalākaua, the Hawaiian monarch, undertook a 91-day state visit across the United States and back again. Kalākaua's journey began on November 14, 1874 and lasted until February 15, 1875; he was the first reigning monarch to visit the US. During his stay in Washington, D.C., the United States Congress held their first joint meeting in the body's history specifically to receive him, and President Ulysses S. Grant hosted him as honoree of the first state dinner at the White House.

Read any better? - SchroCat (talk) 15:09, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Quite frankly, I like it better the way I had it the first time, acceptable with suggestions by Wehwalt. I went through this with my first FAC, in the opposite. Someone complained my sentences were too short. And sometimes (if not always), that's a subjective view depending on which side of the Atlantic one sits. Americans generally write with more brevity in a sentence. Let's go with what will get this to FAC and makes me happy at the same time. My money is on Wehwalt's version.— Maile (talk) 16:42, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Your third sentence is 54 words, which isn't what I would call "brevity"; my version is 41 words. The first two sentences are within a few words of each other, and remove the very awkward opening to the second sentence that I outlined above: "on this state visit", which suggests you're about to describe it in relation to others. Your call. Mine is only a suggestion as to how to make the opening pathway smoother, but however it goes you need to do something about "that" state visit, and not to have three "first"s and a "second" in the third sentence. - SchroCat (talk) 16:53, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with your changes though I might clarify what "began" means: is that the date of arrival in San Francisco? Sorry I haven't gotten back have had very little time.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:25, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt "began on November 17, 1874" is the date he walked out his front door and joined his advisors on the ship out of Honolulu Harbor. Interesting thought, though. When the news media says, "...Queen Elisabeth began her state visit today .." would they be referring to her ceremonial send-off at the airport? — Maile (talk) 21:01, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a visit of any sort starts until arrival. If I visit, say, Italy, my visit does not include the flight there.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:39, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I changed the date to the day he arrived in San Francisco.— Maile (talk) 22:09, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Maile66: This would change the 91 day journey. The issue is that there is two events here. The journey which began on November 17 and ended on February 15. The state visit which would have begun on November 28 and ended on February 3. Check out State visit of Elizabeth II to the Republic of Ireland for an example. I suggest changing or removing the first sentence altogether more like intro in Kalākaua's 1881 world tour, date the journey and state visit separately and specified the 91 days are for the journey. KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:39, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
KAVEBEAR Why don't you take a shot at re-wording it? Maybe your style would be better there. — Maile (talk) 02:48, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wehwalt, SchroCat, KAVEBEAR, MarchOrDie - A map has now been included in the article. I have now reworded the first paragraph in a way that should work for everybody. Let us please proceed with the rest of the review. Thanks to everyone for your input. — Maile (talk) 12:29, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm. I still don't like it. Where is "Niagra Falls"? (from map) Most people won't know who Kalākaua was. We should start by introducing him. --MarchOrDie (talk) 22:34, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do you have statistics to back up your "most people"? I've had the totally opposite experience, since this is not the first article on him I've brought to the main page. Nor is it my first article dealing with the Asia-Pacific side of the world. There's no need to load it down with too much detail. The first sentence already identifies him as King Kalakaua of Honolulu, and I'm pretty sure a large part of the world has heard of Honolulu. I believe you and I will have to agree to disagree on that point. — Maile (talk) 23:50, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

King Kalākaua's 91-day journey to the United States, and back again, began in Honolulu on November 17, 1874. His port of entry at San Francisco on November 28 was the beginning of a state visit, giving him the distinction of being the first reigning monarch to visit the United States. Upon his arrival in Washington, D.C., the United States Congress held their first joint meeting in the body's history, less formal than a joint session, specifically to receive him. President Ulysses S. Grant hosted him as honoree of the first state dinner at the White House. This is almost comically bad, worse than before. Why do we need "and back again"? What does this even mean? "His port of entry at San Francisco on November 28 was the beginning of a state visit." Last time I looked the lead was the worst part of the article and it seems to have become worse. I'd have to oppose if this cannot be improved. --MarchOrDie (talk) 08:19, 6 December 2018 (UTC) And I see the error in File:Kalakaua's 1874-75 state visit map.svg hasn't been fixed yet. --MarchOrDie (talk) 08:23, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose on prose. Problems unaddressed two weeks after I raised them. --MarchOrDie (talk) 16:11, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry MOD, your oppose did escape my notice -- can you check if things seem to have improved since you last looked? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:32, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I took another look. Although there are incremental improvements, I still don't think the lead is of requisite quality. --MarchOrDie (talk) 12:01, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I propose something like this:

King Kalākaua's state visit to the United States in late 1874 made him the first reigning monarch to visit the United States. On his arrival in Washington, D.C., the United States Congress held the first joint meeting<ref>less formal than a [[joint session]]</ref> in its history to receive him. President Ulysses S. Grant hosted him at the first state dinner at the White House. The entire trip lasted 91 days, and began in Honolulu on November 17, 1874.

Kalākaua was a career politician of the Kingdom of Hawaii who rose through the ranks of chiefs, and had previously been to California and Canada with Prince Lot in 1860 as a 23-year-old government bureaucrat, long before his accession to the throne. The Hawaiian government sent him to Washington this time to seek the elimination of tariffs on the islands' sugar cane, after previous attempts had failed. There had been concerns about Kalākaua's willingness to make the journey, but after putting Elisha Hunt Allen in charge of the negotiations, he sailed for San Francisco, and journeyed across the United States by rail. He was well-received by government officials on federal, state and local levels, and accorded respect as a commander-in-chief by military representatives.

Although ill with a viral infection throughout much of his trip, the king patiently abided the attention, even being roused out of his sleep after midnight by two reporters wanting an interview. He accommodated journalists and interacted with the general public, shaking hands and signing autographs, while crowds of curiosity seekers grew with each stop. Anticipation had grown so strong by the time he reached Washington that spectators gathered on rooftops to watch him pass by. Goodwill generated by Kalākaua contributed to pass the Reciprocity Treaty of 1875 through the necessary channels. The resulting close economic ties between the Hawaiian islands and the United States helped cause the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii in 1893.

All the stuff about the exact duration of the visit can be included, but it doesn't all need to be in the first sentence. And we definitely don't need to say that he returned. If the trip had been one-way, the article would have a different title. --MarchOrDie (talk) 21:20, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
MarchOrDie - Yeah ... if he didn't return, the article would have been titled "King Kalakaua's Abdication". I'm thinking about your revision. We might reach a compromise, with some slight differences. Not sure why you coded "less formal than a joint session" as you did, which KAVEBEAR re-coded. I don't use the nowiki coding, so am unsure of how this affects, or what either of you meant. Also, you eliminate "D.C." in the last paragraph. Not sure if you're saying it's redundant, but don't know policy on that (if there is a policy on it). Let me think this over. — Maile (talk) 16:40, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, starting one pararaph with "King Kalākaua's" and the very next paragraph starting with "Kalākaua was", seems a bit visually repetitive. How about drop his name farther into the paragraph, like "...Hawaiian government sent Kalākaua to Washington... "?— Maile (talk) 18:42, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Recoded to avoid ref template on review page. KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:52, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
MarchOrDie - Long time, no hear. I appreciate all the time you spent looking at this, but I've decided not to make the changes. Recapping, and explaining fully:
  • changing "began in Honolulu on November 17, 1874" to "in late 1874" would almost guarantee the article being tagged with a "when?" tag. Too vague.
  • Starting the first paragraph with "King Kalākaua's" and the very next paragraph starting with "Kalākaua was" is not good practice.
  • Changing "the kingdom's sugar exports" to "the islands' sugar cane" is incorrect. It was a kingdom, not just a collective of islands, so it's necessary to say so. The sugar cane in the field wasn't being hit with tariffs. The source specifically says "all unrefined sugar". They weren't exporting the cane, but the sugar. It was refined in the United States, where the refineries were the prime customer. Hawaii plantations had mills to extract the sugar from the cane. The very first sentence under "The quest for tariff easement" section specifies the US refineries as the main customers.
  • Consistency - we should not say "Washington D. C." in one place, and have it as "Washington" in another.
  • ... contributed to pass the Reciprocity Treaty of 1875 through the necessary channels..." is not grammatically correct. "to the passage of" would be better. But the reason it is written as " is credited for doing much to help move legislation for the Reciprocity Treaty of 1875 through the necessary channels." is because historians credit him with that, people on the scene credit him with that, but there is no factual evidence of how many votes he moved one way or another.
  • "close economic ties between the Hawaiian islands and the United States helped cause the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii". Actually "a major factor leading to" the overthrow is more accurate. The overthrow of the kingdom was about money. The reciprocity treaty was so the plantation owners, mostly from the United States, could realize extreme wealth. Kalakaua knew it when he agreed to the trip, because the United States plantation owners were his financial/political backers. The plantation owners had a monopoly on the economy. A new constitution disenfranchised Hawaiian and Asian voters, but allowed non-residents to vote. Sugar money overthrew the monarchy. — Maile (talk) 02:12, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So, I really do appreciate the time you spent on this. But I believe how I wrote it is more accurate per the sources, and more in line with how a Featured Article should be written. Thank you so much for your time. — Maile (talk) 00:04, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My oppose on prose, specifically the dreadful lead, still stands. --MarchOrDie (talk) 07:20, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Rose You asked for this reviewer's comments, and he gave what you asked for. My response to his request is detailed above. FAC should never mean writing a lead that is factually incorrect and in direct contradiction with sourced information in the body of the article itself. Also, Wehwalt already came up with good phrasing for the lead, and I respect his FAC experience enough to follow his suggestions. Making the changes suggested above would get this article yanked at DYK (except it already passed there), where adherence to sourced accuracy, consistency, and Wikipedia guidelines, is primary. As far as I know FAC also has those standards. — Maile (talk) 13:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DYK is not FAC. FAC specifically has the requirement that prose needs to be "engaging and of a professional standard". Wehwalt is a good writer and editor but is no more infallible than the rest of us, and the lead you have come up with, while incrementally better than it was at the start of this process, is still almost comically bad. King Kalākaua's 91-day journey to the United States, and back again, began in Honolulu on November 17, 1874. Aargh! Just no. It's the "and back again". A career politician of the Kingdom of Hawaii who rose through the ranks of chiefs, he had previously been to California and Canada with Prince Lot in 1860 as a 23-year-old government bureaucrat, more than a dozen years away from his accession to the throne. Who? President Grant? These tricksy sentences are tricksy and you have to know what you're doing. It still isn't there I'm afraid. --MarchOrDie (talk) 07:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think it was ideal, but I didn't find a better way of putting it that conveys the same information. When I review, I'm not trying to make the article to be written like I might, but to make it smoother and better within the author's style. Maybe phrasing involving the word "return"?--Wehwalt (talk) 09:17, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, exactly. I proposed a better lead but the nominator took issue with aspects of it and rejected it entirely. I think we need to be a bit dialectic about these discussions; it certainly can't pass as it is. --MarchOrDie (talk) 08:40, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to be clear here, it does seem like you are trying to get the lead rewritten to your own style. In doing so, your suggestions introduce errors and do not adhere to sourced content, as I have itemized above. Also, it seems your account has been active since 2012 and has only slightly over 3,000 edits. The Records reflect that you have never created an article. Not one. On the other hand, I have made over 89,000 edits to English Wikipedia and have global contributions of over 135,000 edits. I have created hundreds of articles, and reviewed hundreds of articles on all levels from Peer Review up through Featured. So far, all you've shown me is your own opinion, and tried to introduce errors. And comments such as "dreadful lead" are not appropriate and serve nobody's interest. No, I'm not doing what you say. — Maile (talk) 00:26, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How diligent of you. It might be better if you turned your energy to improving the lead, as Wehwalt has suggested. It can't really pass as it is. --MarchOrDie (talk) 01:03, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Kaiser matias[edit]

  • "...more than a dozen years away from his accession to the throne." This may be a dialect issue, but it sounds off to me. Sounds better along the lines of "more than a dozen years before his accession to the throne."
Might be dialect, because it sounds normal to me.
All good then
  • After the first mention of "Washington, DC" is it necessary to keep saying it like that? Isn't just "Washington" enough at that point, as its clear what Washington is being referred to.
I'd like to hear input from others on this. Is there some Wikipedia policy? Just "Washington" in the context of the lead probably isn't so bad. But I'd like to know if someone can come up with policy covering this, because there is the obvious Washington state, which is what people usually mean if they don't tack the D. C. on it.
I'm also curious what others think, because I'm the opposite of what you note here: as someone from the West Coast of Canada, we always referred to the state as "Washington State" outright.
  • " The Hawaiian government sent him to Washington, D.C. this time to seek the elimination of tariffs on the islands' sugar cane, after previous attempts had failed." Can drop the "this time," as it's redundant.
I think "this time" is appropriate and needs to stay.
If you think so. Looking it over again it feels less redundant than when I first saw it, so don't think its too much an issue.
  • "...he sailed for San Francisco, to embark across the United States by rail." Feel this should be in past tense: "and embarked across the United States by rail."
I think this is a perspective of the individual reader. I wrote it like I see it. He left Hawaii, and at the point of departure it was "for San Francisco, to embark". It's the port he was sailing towards to start the trip.
I see your point, and while I personally think it sounds better in past, I'm not going to bicker over petty details.
For the record, this was subsequently changed to "he sailed for San Francisco, and journeyed". — Maile (talk) 14:38, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Goodwill generated by Kalākaua is credited for doing much to help move the legislation through the necessary channels." Should probably mention what legislation it is again here: "Goodwill generated by Kalakaua is credited for doing much to help abolish the sugar tariff," or something like that.
His trip helped move the legislation through channels. That's all it did, but that was a lot. The trip was at the end of two previous decades taking stabs at abolishing the tax. All historical references refer to his trip as moving the legislation through, not mentioning it in the context you mention.
Understandable, its just that the historical references aren't readily available here, and it seems important to note what type of legislation the trip helped.
Subsequently changed to "to help move legislation for the Reciprocity Treaty of 1875 through the necessary channels" — Maile (talk) 14:38, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Upon Lunalilo's death in 1874..." Feel the specific date of his death should be mentioned, especially as the date of Kalakaua's election is given later on; it gives context to how quickly he was chosen.
I've done some rewording that a couple of sentences. See if that works.
Works for me.
  • "...Kalākaua, who held the rank of Colonel on Lunalilo's military staff..." Should be "held the rank of Colonel in Lunalilo's military staff."
I wonder if you and I are in different countries. I spent most of my adult life in corporate America, and a person is referred to as being "on the staff". I have never in my life heard it as "in the staff".
I'm Canadian and live here again, so definitely different countries. I think what's getting me is the reference to "rank" and "Colonel": one would say a "Colonel in the military" for example, while I would also say "worked on the staff of someone." I would just leave it up to personal preference at this point.
  • The paragraphs about prior Hawaiian royal visits abroad feels like it can be merged into one paragraph. Perhaps take the second one and add it to the end of first, but change the sentence to start like (condensed version): "The brothers Prince Liholilihio and Prince Lot had accompanied Dr. Judd on a year-long mission, from 1849 to 1850, though this was prior to either of their accessions."
See below.
Subsequently merged. — Maile (talk) 14:38, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that light I also think the final paragraph in the "Background" section can be added to the second one. Move the sentences about Kalakua's prior visit to the US to the start of the paragraph, and then the rest of the second paragraph as it is.
It's in chronological order. And if we rearrange it for other reasons, past experience on FAC tells me people are going to get confused and upset that the chron flow is off. People love chronological order. And I'm not merging it into one big blob of a paragraph. Thank you for your insight, but this idea is a no-go for me.
I do understand the issues of chronological order, though there should be times when it's ignored. I'd argue this is one of those times, but like I said I'm not going to hold up a decent article for stylistic choices.
  • "... and Queen Victoria had been the godmother of Emma's son Prince Albert Kamehameha before his 1862 death." Is it necessary to note the death of Prince Albert? Being a godmother has to do with his birth, so when he dies is rather immaterial.
Agree, and taken care of.
  • "Their return trip to San Francisco began on January 9." Is missing a citation.
We'll have to live with that, because I'm not hunting through all those hundreds of newspapers to find that minutia specifically stated. It's a no-brainer, I think. On January 8, he was in Waltham, Massachusetts. On January 10, he was in Niagara Falls, New York going the reverse direction. Look at the map. It was a long trip. On January 9, he was on the train headed in the direction of the return trip.
This was said based on my own misinformation: for some reason I thought it was in the MoS to have each paragraph end with a citation, but a glance through shows I was wrong. I agree it is logical; my point was more to keep up with the MoS, and as that isn't a factor, this is nothing.
Citation is there now. — Maile (talk) 14:38, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Aftermath" section, should clarify what dollar is being used, Hawaiian or US.
Done, but if you have a suggestion how I could have added it better, please advise.
Seems fine to me; I've personally linked the dollar sign ($) to the relevant currency and noted what one (ex. C$), but that's rather common, and I suspect some might think H$ would be for the Hong Kong dollar.

An interesting article, comprehensive in its scope. I may take another look through it, but once the above are addressed it should be close to getting support. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:49, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note regarding the Washington, DC matter, but that is more for a clarification from others. Everything here is good by me, so I'll support. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for the support and for all your time on this. — Maile (talk) 02:36, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Kaiser matias, as noted above, four of the items you mentioned (that I disagreed with), have been subsequently changed to what you wanted. In hindsight, I believe you were correct on those. — Maile (talk) 14:38, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

  • I salute KAVEBEAR's magical ability to dig through old newspapers and hit gold. I have no such ability, so I'm not going to try looking for any more sources that might possibly exist.
  • All of the sources appear to be mainstream news or respectable presses.
  • Via—I recommend removing this parameter, because it is already implied in the link and only serves to promote the website. So I would get rid of all of the "via newspapers.com" and "via HathiTrust" and the open access symbol. The default is open access if we're talking web links. Also, it really clutters up this section.
Answered below
  • For the same reason, I would ditch the "via Project Muse" and the link to paywalled book on Project Muse. Readers who have access to Project Muse can already find it there, and there's no need to state how you accessed the publication per WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT.
Answered below
  • I would get rid of links to Google books unless full text is available. For using the preview for verifiability purposes, I would recommend linking in the citation like so: {{sfn|SomeAuthor|xxxx|p=[url number]}}. This makes it easier to verify.
Answered below
Fixed
  • SIU Press spell this out, add location
Done
  • A. A. Knopf—needs location
Done
  • Honolulu: Honolulu, Advertiser Publishing Company. Duplicate Honolulu?
Fixed
  • University of California Press—needs location
Done
  • Fordham University Press—needs location
Done

As an aside: the first sentence should mention the Kingdom of Hawaii, which is not linked anywhere in the lede.

I understand what you are saying on this, truly. For the record, this was my original opening paragraph:
  • King Kalākaua's 91-day journey across the breadth of the United States began on November 17, 1874. A career politician of the Kingdom of Hawaii who rose through the ranks of chiefs, he had previously been to California and Canada with Prince Lot in 1860, as a 23-year-old government bureaucrat, more than a dozen years away from his accession to the throne.
It was changed at the suggestion of Wehwalt who, I might add, has more Featured Articles than any other editor: List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations. Now, I'm sure you can see why I figure he knows what he's talking about. There are other conversations above about changing the lead yet a different way. Everybody has their own individual idea of what the lead paragraph should say. No doubt, there will be more suggestions from others. So, right now, it's kind of a damned-if-you-do and damned-if-you-don't situation. We can only have one version, so I'm sticking with the reviewer who has the most FA's under his belt. Hope you understand. — Maile (talk) 02:04, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like what Wehmalt actually did was rearrange the sentences, not remove mention of "Kingdom of Hawaii" from the first paragraph. Currently, you are assuming that readers know that Hawaii exists and used to be a kingdom. Failing that, at least link Honolulu and Kingdom of Hawaii in the lede. Catrìona (talk) 11:09, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Catrìona (talk) 23:00, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Catrìona Thanks for checking this over. KAVEBEAR didn't come up with the sourcing on this article. I did. But he does have a knack for coming up with sourcing that nobody else seems to find. The websites Newspapers.com and ProjectMuse are subscription access through The Wikipedia Library/Databases. We very much should promote those, as Wikipedia has partnered with them so we get the access as individual approved subscriptions. I very distinctly remember early on when I first started using services through the Library, that we are supposed to notate in the citations where we got them, so the Library will know whether or not the access is being used. And if not used, they don't renew the user subscription. As for the open access, that definitely is not the default. I specifically made clippings of the newspaper articles, so the reader could access them as free access. No reader can access Newspapars.com without a subscription, unless it's a clipping. There's no reason we can't let the reader know they can access the clippings. And again, I was told to use the free access symbol. And I am leaving HathiTrust on there, beause it's one of the most valuable free sources Wikipedia editors can have. The more road signs you can leave to help other Wikipedia editors, the better. Links to Google Books is standard usage on Wikipedia, and you can get whacked down on reviews for not having the links. Back later on the rest, but I stand firm on what I just stated. — Maile (talk) 01:05, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Catrìona I've gone through everything you listed and changed what was appropriate. What was not changed, has been explained. I truly do thank you for your time and consideration on this. Hope you can understand that on some things, Wikipedia tends to be the right hand doing something different than the left hand, and both hands having their arguments for or against. Neither right, and neither wrong. I'm sticking with what I have explained above. So, whether you support this, or oppose this, I still thank you for taking your time to look at it. — Maile (talk) 02:14, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those issues are not anywhere in the FA criteria, so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Support on sources. Catrìona (talk) 11:09, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: We seem to have hit a little bit of an impasse here. By my reckoning we have 2 supports (plus a support on sourcing) and 1 oppose. I think we would require more input from other reviewers on the lead. My view is that it could stand a little more polish, for example we have "His arrival at San Francisco on November 28 was the beginning of a state visit, making him the first reigning monarch to visit the United States" and "Upon his arrival in Washington, D.C., the United States Congress held the first joint meeting in the body's history, less formal than a joint session". I'm also conscious that this has been open for 2 months, and even were the oppose to be struck, there is still no consensus to promote after a considerable length of time. I think the best course may be to archive this now and start again in two weeks. Obviously, those who reviewed here can be pinged when this is renominated. But I think at this stage, a fresh start would be the best course for this FAC. Sarastro (talk) 21:56, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In case somebody opens this to see your comments. A technical note, for your information on your above comments. The reason it says "joint meeting" and "joint session", is that those are official names of Congressional processes, both of which take congressional approval to be held. It means both the House of Representatives and Senate, which usually meet only separately, formally agreed to meet in the same room. And it's a big deal when it happens. Meaningless without the word "joint". And as explained in the article, a joint session is a completely different type of gathering than joint meeting. — Maile (talk) 00:13, 14 January 2019 (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/Kalākaua%27s_1874–75_state_visit_to_the_United_States/archive1&oldid=878442585"