Talk:Kalākaua

message: maybe you and I should go over this whole article, section by section, before the GAC proceeds.  I guess it's been more than a year since I really looked at this.  At that point, I think we had a consistent flow, content and sourcing.  There have been considerable changes since then.  I just ran through a newer section that, as written, was hard for me to keep up with. Parts of it didn't make sense to me as written.  Really obvious errors in grammar and spelling, and not encyclopedic in style. Introduction of new names and not necessarily clear who they are. I haven't checked the sourcing on that one section.   Can we put the GAC temporarily on hold and take a few days to go through this, section by section, to make sure it's up to standards and consistent throughout?  — Maile  (talk) 13:36, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah that’s not an issue. We can go over this and give it a copyedit first. I’ve asked the nominator to hold. KAVEBEAR (talk) 14:08, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  Also, consistency in sourcing style needs to be gone over before we release this back to GAC.  — Maile  (talk) 14:44, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think you mean inconsistency be gone. I have converted all book sources to Harvard reference style footnotes except court cases and newspapers. Can you add two sentences or around there about the two state funerals? I have included where he was buried. I also made a copyedit request that can help further improve the writing once we are done with our runover. KAVEBEAR (talk) 15:46, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it's a regional thing, but "be gone over" pretty much means, "have a look at" or "proofread". I'll add the state funerals wording for you. — Maile  (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

text: * Yeah I agree it should be whittle down to the essential to prevent undue weight since it is one episode of his long reign. Ideally, the main focus in that section should be the constitution not an overemphasis of the scandal that led to it. Any extraneous content should be moved to Tong Kee. Do you want to go ahead with that? -KAVEBEAR (talk) 17:55, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: OK.  Just wanted to make sure we discussed it here first.  Thanks. — Maile  (talk) 17:59, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

text: Also, I made a comparison with last year's version as I left it, and the version we just replaced.  It looked like the editor left much of what I had written in place, added new sub sections, and replaced the main section's lead paragraph about Dole's account of the Bayonet Constitution with that rambling tale about Aki.  Dole's account is more appropriate here.  — Maile  (talk) 23:05, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

text: Agree.  The more eyes on this, the better. — Maile  (talk) 12:04, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I returned much of it. While I am sure Maile feels it was a ramble I disagree enough to return it and attempt a good faith condensing. But we may need more discussion.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:32, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It’s undue weight. Three paragraphs deal with Aki when a few sentence summary is enough given the existence of articles on Tong Kee and Junius Kaae. The Aki incident was not the sole cause of the coup which is the impression given the undue weight. Just to name a few, the Hawaiian League had issues with the king’s association with Gibson and Spreckels, his spending, his cabinet choices, his meddling in local elections in favor of royalist candidates and the leagues own ambitions to rid themselves of an absolute monarch. The article should ideally only focus on 1. The causes of the coup with the Aki scandal being one of many, 2. The coup itself and the Hawaiian league’s involvement, 3. The ramifications of the coup and constitutional change. Also currently multiple paragraphs in Forced constitution and Hawaiian League are duplicates KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:05, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You bring up excellent points. But as a GA article we want as broad a scope as possible. Reducing the Aki issue to sentence is cutting out way too much sourced content however, I also agree that a GA article needs to be concise and use brevity. As a biography of the Kalakaua, this article needs to deal with what the sources claim about the figure even if they are uncomfortable. I want to thank you for your patience with my contributions and for that and many other reasons I want to make sure there is no duplication of content. I have removed much from the initial re-addition to take into consideration all of yours and the other editor's objections. I became too sick yesterday to get to the computer but will endeavor to double check the issues you bring up and make changes where they can to support your concerns as much as possible. There is also a reference that has been lost and I ned to remove the claim or add a new source and will make sure to deal with that as soon as possible. I haven't read through the rest of the article but congratulations to you both on raising it to GA.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:48, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

text: I believe I have reduced the referenced text down to a very minimal amount that keeps the full heart of the original contribution with brevity and in a concise manner. Thank you for your patience. If you do not object to the section as edited and trimmed down and there is no other objection, I have no other major issues for this to move forward for A class review.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:01, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I condensed it further. It needs to be copyedited and check further. Revert if you disagree with my edits. As for the review, I have no time to work on any heavy editing on Wikipedia at this time because of the real world, so I’m declining to participate in it at the moment. KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:44, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I can live with those edits. They seem reasonable and still maintain the original information. I disagree that it "needs" further copyediting. Could you be more specific about your concerns or do you mean it might still be copy edited depending on other input? I certainly wouldn't mind seeing 's input. If you are too busy perhaps one of us can put forward the nomination unless you would like to wait until you can participate in full? I can hold off if you prefer.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:58, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs a copy edit 

message: There was a huge contribution that was pertinent to this section that was fully referenced with reliable sources. Since it was removed without discussion as undue I felt that it should be returned per policy - WP:BURDEN however, that does not mean the section could not use some trimming for brevity and a discussion of what might be undue weight or not needed in such detail. But the amount removed was excessive. Let's discuss.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:12, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bayonet constitution 

message: The nomination has bee withdrawn. Please allow me a small amount of time to fix one issue and continue to address concerns of the nominator as quickly as possible so that this may return to its nomination through Project Military History. Thank you!
I hope the nomination can move forward now. Mahalo for allowing me time to trim for brevity.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:07, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A class nomination 

message: Docking this here since I don’t know where to put it in the article just yet without creating a new section in the article. But in his first year as King, an amendment (originally created during Lunalilo’s reign) to bring back universal male suffrage was ratified during his 1874 legislative session. The kingdom had universal male suffrage from 1874 to 1887 before the Bayonet Constitution. (Kuykendall 1967, pp. 189-190) KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Universal male suffrage