Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Prince Romerson/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 promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 12:22, 4 February 2017 [1].

Prince Romerson[edit]

Nominator(s): KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:38, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Prince Romerson a Civil War soldier who saw service on land and sea and fought in the colored regiments during the war and after the war as a Buffalo Soldier in the frontier. He is uniquely claimed as a Filipino and a Hawaiian soldier who fought in the war today. This article was written and sourced on the same level of standard as my previous FA nominations Henry Hoʻolulu Pitman and J. R. Kealoha and has been an A-list quality article for a while. At this point, this article contains all existing knowledge about this figure. I believe it is not far from a Wikipedia:Very short featured articles.... KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:38, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:16, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Iry-Hor[edit]

I apologize if this is a stupid question with an obvious answer, but how is Prince Romerson particularly notable? I understand that the involvement of Hawaiian people in the civil war can be of interest and is notable within the history of Hawaii / US relations, but what makes any one of the involved soldiers important? Is there a reason why he stands out more than the other Hawaiian soldiers who served during the war? I have looked for an answer in the article, but couldn't find it. Iry-Hor (talk) 14:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, he might not be "particularly notable"...I mean I have chosen a few of the most notable combatants Pitman, Kealoha, Bush and Romerson to write quality articles for. And this was just my next step attempts to get another one of them to a feature article. They were not general just soldiers and none much known about them have survived or have been written about them, so a basic look may make them not so notable. Would this not qualify then for FAC? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
KAVEBEARThere is nothing in particular in the FA guidelines pertaining to this problem. As the article is well written, seems resonably complete and neutral and its sources are reliable etc. I would think it does meet these criteria. The guidelines state however that the article should also fulfill the criteria for standard wikipedia articles, including notability WP:N. However, I don't want to contest notability: i) I think individual biographies are important in as much as they provide illustrations of the broader history; ii) contesting notability could logically lead to deletion if the subject is seen as not notable, which would be a shame given the article quality; iii) I am an inclusionist. Could you somehow emphasize how Prince Romerson's life is an illustration of the involvment of Hawaiian in the civil war? I think you could write a small introductory section "Context" starting with the first paragraph of the section "Life". This context section could be further expanded to discuss Hawaiian people in the war and the broader implications their enlistment had. In any case, the first paragraph of the "Life" section would seem more at home in a "Context section". Iry-Hor (talk) 10:24, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Iry-Hor I have made some additional changes. The shortness of the context section has to do with the fact not much is known relating to the native recruits side of the story while much is written about the war's effect on the home front or why the missionary children joined for example which are not relevant here. Also other parts that I can think of adding to a context section like records of enlistment and segregation are already included in the life section sprinkled here and there. There isn't much written about the significance of Hawaiian participation and one can argue that it might be considered trivial considering how only a small number of them enlisted (100+ out of the three million who fought); what I can think of it is that it illustrated how Hawaii was a part of the early American story and how their contribution give modern Hawaiians something to be proud of. I have also brought in the quotes of McCunn speaking about him since she stated it best about how Prince Romerson's life is an illustration of the involvment of Hawaiian in the civil war: "The military records of Hawaii-born Prince Romerson reveal both his service the US and the diverse attitudes of officers toward people of color."--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:16, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
KAVEBEAR Excellent, McCunn's remark is precisely what I was looking for as it places Prince Romerson in his historical context and gives him a role as an illustration of a topic of wider importance in US history. I think it would be good if you could include a remark in the lede, perhaps at the end, to emphasize this aspect, that is a short sentence, perhaps after "He died in 1872", with "Romerson's military career shows the diverse attitudes of officers toward people of color during and shortly after the civil war", although a less close paraphrasing of McCunn would be even better. I also have a remark concerning the two citations in the lede. The use of citations in the lede is discouraged by the MOS unless they pertain to a controversial statement that is likely to be challenged by a reader encountering it the first time, see WP:LEADCITE. I don't think your lede is controversial in anyway, so I would argue that these two citations need to be removed from the lede and put in the main body of the article, where relevant. Iry-Hor (talk) 09:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Iry-Hor I made the recommended changes. Please let me know if you have any other concerns.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 10:37, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support I think you have well addressed my concerns and this article, while short, is of good enough quality to be FA. I wonder what Prince Romerson would have thought about this whole thing. Iry-Hor (talk) 10:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 10:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comment by Ian Rose[edit]

Recusing from coord duties, I supported at MilHist ACR and apart from a couple of minor things that I've tweaked I'm happy prose-wise with minor changes made since then. Not being an expert on the subject matter, I'm leaning support but would prefer someone more familiar with the subject matter (at least in general) to look it over before I commit. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:36, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: Is there anything else that you would recommend? Two users have added their opinions since. Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:01, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm good, I just wanted people like Coemgenus and Wehwalt to have another look following their comments at the MilHist ACR -- no probs with the few changes since I last looked at it so happy to support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:49, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Coemgenus[edit]

As usual, I can find little to criticize about an article that has gone through a MILHIST A-class review. The subject's notability is borderline, as Iry-Hor mentions, but I think there has been enough written on him in reliable sources to qualify, if only barely. With that, I'm happy to support. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:10, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

I don't find much to criticize:

  • "Prince Romerson (c. 1840 – March 30, 1872) was an American Union Army soldier of Native Hawaiian descent. " the term "American" here may be mistaken as a nationality. I would say something like "Union Army soldier of Native Hawaiian descent during the American Civil War" or similar.
  • "After being discharged from naval service, he continued fighting and reenlisted" I might cut "he continued fighting"
  • Union Army is linked in the two first paragraphs of the lede.
  • "USCC" this is short for?
  • "he fought in the frontier army" consider "he remained in the army on the frontier"
  • "several captured sailors" captured?
  • @Wehwalt: What's wrong? There were a few sailors who were captured (sort of like impressment) from whaling ships who served on the Shenadoah.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The phrasing doesn't make that explanation clear.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: I changed it to "sailors on whaling ships captured by the Confederate Navy who served on the CSS Shenandoah"--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly the two references to the missionaries could be consolidated.
  • @Wehwalt: Not sure how. One reference is about the descendants who fought and the other is about the influence they themselves had on the pro-Union and abolitionist attitude of the Hawaiians.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "military's segregationist policy." I would cut the "ist"
  • "Confederate prison camp" I imagine this should be "prison camp for Confederates"
  • Support All my issues have been dealt with. Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:29, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: Have I missed a source review anywhere? If not, this can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:29, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Maile[edit]

I believe this article to be well researched, well written, and within FA criteria requirements. Every once in a while, it's good to see an FA article that manages to be comprehensive without overwhelming on prose. Good job.

Source review from Cas Liber[edit]

  • References formatted consistently.
  • Earwigs copyvio too clear
  • FN 10 used twice, checks out
  • FN 13 used once, checks out
  • Like most Native Hawaiians who participated in the war, he was assigned to the colored regiments probably because of his dark skin color and the military's segregation policy - has FN 4 & 14 as refs. Neither mention Romerson but do describe the policy. I think this needs rewording. - or adding FN 13 after the mention of his name in the colored section.

@Casliber: I've added FN5 to the sentence. This is a piece a piece in the NYT Opinionator which mentions: "native Hawaiians who fought for the Union risked segregation because of their skin color. One volunteer, Prince Romerson, served in the 5th Massachusetts Volunteer Cavalry, an all-black regiment, and mustered out as a sergeant". Please let me know if there any other concerns. Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 13:29, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

all good then. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:57, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: I think this is ready for promotion, just a couple of little points before I do so. However, neither of them are worth delaying this for. Sarastro1 (talk) 12:21, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "It is thought that he came to the United States..." and "Regardless, it is known that Romerson was living in New York...": Is there any reason that we can't just say "He came to..." and "Regardless, he was living..."? If there is any doubt, perhaps we need to attribute in the text where the thought comes from.
  • "Romerson's military career shows the diverse attitudes of officers to the Native Hawaiians and people of color who served on segregated units during and shortly after the Civil War.": I'm a little uncomfortable with this in the lead; I think we need to say who is saying this, as we are currently using wikipedia's voice for a statement which is an interpretation. Sarastro1 (talk) 12:21, 4 February 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/Prince_Romerson/archive1&oldid=763731599"