# Talk:Pūnana Leo

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write.  This is how the article, as of December 17, 2007, compares against the  six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: 
2. Factually accurate?:  Most very good, but there are a few issues.
The etymology of the name needs a source, as there are differing translations (from what I can tell).
Comment I think a source on the translation of the term would be unneccessarily distracting. Multiple references can be found, for example here, or on one of the schools' official websites here. I'm also not sure that the difference between "language nest" and "nest of voices" is significant enough to warrant the additoinal cite. I'm interested in your further thoughts. Ling.Nut (talk) 09:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
The GA criteria supports adding citations for material that may be controversial. The translation of foreign languages into English is very often a contentious issue, and where multiple definitions (and yes, I do think they are significantly different) exist a dispute is distinctly possible to arise. I pretty firmly think that if they exist for an issue that is reasonably likely to be disputed, it is improper to not include citations for purely aesthetic reasons. Calling sources distracting is an extremely subjective reason for not including them in my view. VanTucky talk 04:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Should Harvard refs be inside the punctuation? If they are like the footnote system in this, they should be outside always.
Comment: Harvard refs go inside. :-) Ling.Nut (talk) 04:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
3. Broad in coverage?:  Things that were not clear to me:
You say that they were first illegal, but it isn’t made really clear if they are now accepted by the state government. Maybe I missed something here.
Done I had forgotten that the text has always said that the laws were revised. It now also contains a note pointing interested readers to a full discussion of that process.
Also, have there been any studies of their educational impact?
Comment:If you mean formal, quantitative studies, then I haven't found any. Persuasive anecdotal evidence exists, however (see below).
Are students disadvantaged, linguistically or otherwise, at all when it comes time to enter into the regular school system?
Done, see new paragraph at the end of the article.
Most importantly, how widespread are they? Which islands have them?
Done, thanks! Ling.Nut (talk) 04:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
4. Neutral point of view?: 
5. Article stability? 
6. Images?:  Having no images is fine, but I’m gonna look on Flickr.
Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved.  After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again.  If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice.  Thank you for your work so far.— VanTucky talk 01:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I'll get on them ASAP. The schools are no longer illegal, but I think it might be difficult to find a source that says that explicitly. The fact that they are now legal is implied. I'll try to find something, though... As for everything else, I'll try to find more info. Cheers! Ling.Nut (talk) 04:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


### Failing GA
Forgive me if I'm stepping on VanTrucky's toes by failing this GA, but I notice that it has been sitting at WP:GAN for well beyond the standard seven days, and neither this talk page nor the article have been significantly edited for about two full weeks. Given that, I feel pretty confident that this has either been forgotten or simply set aside. Rather than let it sit, I thought I'd go ahead and review it myself.
Adding my own review:

I realize that VanTrucky commented differently, but to me, the lack of images means that this article does not meet criterion 6: "It is illustrated, where possible and appropriate, by images." Images illustrating this article are certainly "possible and appropriate" -- I'm imagining children learning in a school, the physical structure of one such school, etc. etc., which seem easy enough to create and license freely. I'm sure that there might also be some more tangentially-related images that could be included if those above-described images are unavailable (e.g. a photo of written Hawaiian text, or even a photo of native Hawaiians).
There seems to be some subtle POV:
Frankly, I find it ridiculous to suggest that one's professional or university success can be traced to preschool education at the age of 5 (Graduates from the Pūnana Leo schools have achieved several measures of academic success in later life). Based on the excerpted quote in "Goals", it seems like the presentation of this information (in the original work) was more to disabuse skeptics of the notion that Punana Leo schools offer substandard education. I guess that would bear mentioning that Punana Leo schools have been shown to be just as good as other preschools, but it's currently presented in a way that implies that later success in life is attributable to the preschool education.
Comment: Done. You are correct when you say the text was added to refute explicit claims that Punana Leo schools would harm students' academic development. made that explicit in the text. Ling.Nut (talk) 11:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
There is no discussion of the arguments against of this kind of education. Given that it came with an intense legal battle, I'm sure there must have been arguments against this form of education, which are not discussed at all, only alluded to. That omission results in only presenting one side of the argument. Why was the establishment of these schools opposed? On what grounds? Who opposed them? Do they still oppose them?
Comment: Done. Added the concerns of the opponents, and a statement regarding who those opponesnts were. Ling.Nut (talk) 11:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
The topic of this article seems to shift from the preschools themselves (as defined in the lead) to Hawaiian language education in general, including post-preschool education and the later boycotts. Perhaps this article should be retitled to Indigenous language education in Hawaii, or something. For instance, why is the University of Hawaii's master's program in Hawaiian mentioned? I can see that it's indicative of the changing attitudes towards Hawaiian language education, but this article isn't about those trends, it's about a series of preschools. If there is some relationship there -- that the establishment of Punana Leo schools somehow influenced university programs -- it should be stated explicitly.
I don't get any sense of the organization of these schools; their relationship to 'Aha Punana Leo is unexplained. Does that organization directly administer them? Does it set the curriculum? Membership in that network seems to contradict that the schools are run by families, as said in the lead. If individual families run them, then I would expect variation from school to school, but they're consistently presented as homogeneous in their offerings and goals. Is the 'Aha Punana Leo involved in coordinating a common educational experience at each one?
Comment: Done. "Today the Pūnana Leo preschools form the core of the ‘Aha Pūnana Leo "Language nest corporation" or "Language nest gathering" (Wilson & Kamana 2001:149), the organization which has provided the impetus for the reestablishment of a Hawaiian-language educational system which also includes K–12 immersion  schools and doctoral-level programs in the language (McIvor 2005:10). The ‘Aha Pūnana Leo produces curriculum and teacher training for its preschools.  "
What is the extent of these schools? Are they popular? How many students attend them? Proportionally, is it a high percentage of native Hawaiians? Is the popularity of these schools increasing since their establishment? If so or if not, why?
Comment: All thi isinfo is already there. the number of schools is there. They are relatively few (11) have been growing in number. Ling.Nut (talk) 14:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
The main issue here is comprehensiveness. The article touches on the basics of the history (once illegal, now not) and the basics of the education (Hawaiian language and culture), but otherwise ignores or confuses other major questions, like basic organization, popularity, and opinions about them. Perhaps most importantly, I don't come away from the article with a strong sense of how these schools operate now. I found it difficult to read through and gain a quick understanding of those issues; this isn't a very helpful criticism, but something about the way the information is presented I found confusing. The article is very short and needs expanded coverage of these fundamental issues to be satisfactorily comprehensive for criterion 3. It also needs images. Dylan (talk) 21:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply': When I find time, I'll see if i can find a couple sentences to address some of your concerns (if they need to be addressed). I disagree with many (perhaps most) of your comments, but will take them up later. I flatly won't be adding any image, 'cause I don't wanna wade into Fair Use land. If you fail based on that, we'll take it up at WP:GAR. Thanks! Ling.Nut (talk) 01:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
PS: This one is headed to WP:GAR anyhow. It should have been failed based on original criteria alone. Additional criteria is grounds for hold, not fail. Plus... well as I said I think several comments from one or both reviewers are unfounded. Thanks! Ling.Nut (talk) 01:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to battle over this, as I was delinquent in my reviewing. But according to WP:WIAGA and the related page on the differences between GA and FA, having no images should not be a primary failing criteria for candidates. Basically, GA ideally has images, and FA must. Them's the rules. VanTucky talk 01:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Per my comments in the first GA review here, it is my evaluation that the article meets or exceeds all of the GA criteria and should be listed. You may wish to use an appropriate infobox from WikiProject Schools, but it is not required. Congratulations, and thank you for your hard work. VanTucky talk 21:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

1/11/08 COMMENT: this article on Pūnana Leo is so lame. I wish that it wasn't a professor/professor wannabee tackling the subject. Better instead an ʻōlelo warrior like a parent or teacher would provide better perspective and can help us wrap our brains around the magic of Hawaiian being used again. The history of Pūnana Leo is downright cool, but one would never know it by reading academic treatments such as this. This is Wikipedia; give us a great blurb and don't expect this site to be a vehicle substantiating research, kwim?

This is an encyclopedia, not a brochure about "the magic of Hawaiian". Save that for the press release, and don't expect a reference work to talk about things being "downright cool". VanTucky 01:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It would be usefull to know how many children attend such immersion schools.
I cheched the website of the association and it didn't provide such information. 69.157.84.119 (talk) 15:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)