Talk:Kepelino/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: 1.02 editor (talk · contribs) 08:32, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I'll be taking this review, expect comments soon. 1.02 editor (C651 set 217/218) 08:32, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Review

• The lead is too short, please either expand the current paragraph or create another paragraph with general or special information on him

• Expanded.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• Is the picture in the article of Kepelino? if it is, please move it to the infobox.

• No, that is a picture of his mentor. None exist of Kepelino.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:25, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• Then please specify this in the image caption. 1.02 editor (C651 set 217/218) 08:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• name- is this necessary?

• Yes, names are important part of Hawaiian culture. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:25, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• Biography- split into two sections- 'early life' and 'career'

• Done. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:25, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• it is mentioned that his name is meant to represent 'chief of the nine districts'. what are the nine districts?

• This is not given in the sources. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:25, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• is what is currently in the article everything about kepelino? maybe a section on his legacy or expansion of his role in the mission to tahiti?

• This is all that is known about him.

• could the references be converted to all inlines?

• This is the preferred referencing style for GA and FA though.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:25, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Hold

A main issue with the article is its size. more sections in the article would be good. I would be putting this article on hold, and you have 7 days to address the issues above. 1.02 editor (C651 set 217/218) 03:46, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

As per your comment that whatever is in the article is all that is known about kepelino, I am a bit unsure wether the article can be passed due to its short length. If you don't object I'll request for second opinion. 1.02 editor (C651 set 217/218) 08:40, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

requested for second opinion

Second opinion

This article is too brief to qualify. Even if this is all there is to be written, that doesn't mean the article should qualify for GA. My favourite example is de:Neuhaus (an der B 51), about a roadside hamlet. Sure, the article contains all the detail it could possibly contain, but that doesn't mean it should qualify for Good Article status. Some articles just don't have subject matters capable of sustaining GA. Sorry :/ --Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 21:00, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Verdict

@KAVEBEAR and Newbiepedian: as per the comments raised by Newbiepedian, this article is too short to pass GAN. Should more sources be available of him in the future, feel free to renominate the article. Thanks 1.02 editor (C651 set 217/218) 22:58, 15 April 2018 (UTC)