Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/King Kalākaua's world tour/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 21:59, 18 February 2017 [1].

King Kalākaua's world tour edit

Nominator(s): KAVEBEAR, — Maile (talk) 00:14, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The world tour was an effort by Hawaii's last king to save the dwindling Hawaiian race by supplementing the population with imported labor from similar cultures. One nation at a time, he brought Hawaii to the world's attention. Kalākaua was successful in jump-starting new immigration. He was a consummate tourist and an impressionable royal who returned home and tried to recreate the splendor of European monarchies in Hawaii. Kalākaua had no security guards to protect him, yet his safety was never in jeopardy, even though he chose public transport on ships and railways to circumnavigate the globe. It was just Kalākaua, a couple of friends, his cook, and here and there an extra person or two. One can only wonder how many days they all slept to recover from 281 days of non-stop globe trotting. — Maile (talk) 00:14, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment still working on it, but see comments below.

  • Checked" from nations that shared a common culture with Hawaii." I would move this phrase up in the sentence, it is too far from what it relates to. An example would be good. My first reaction was "such as"?
  • Checked"While in Asia, he tried unsuccessfully to prevent the United States takeover of the kingdom " This sounds like Hawaii was taken over then and there. I might say "While in Asia, he tried to forstall American ambitions in Hawaii ..."
  • Checked "Queen Victoria and the ambiance of the British crown" maybe "Queen Victoria and the splendor of British royal life ..."
  • Checked The lede's ending seems not really an ending, it feels like leaving off in the middle.
  • Checked"According to the personal writings of Queen Dowager Emma, a political opponent of his,[FN 1] Kalākaua allegedly" I would change "allegedly" for "supposedly"
  • Checked"acknowledging an immigration system troubled by corruption, " more directly, "acknowledging corruption in the immigration system" (probably you should insert an "and" after this phrase whatever you do.
  • Checked [Picture of Armstrong] The reader encounters this well-decorated individual sans link with the picture well before they meet him in prose. Suggest a closer coincidence, or at least a link.
  • CheckedYou might want to explain the population drop.
  • Checked"Dovetailing" Suggest at least a wiktionary link, or, better, a synonym that doesn't require one.
  • Checked" the islands " exactly what you mean by this is unclear.
  • Checked "Hawaiians" as you have not yet contrasted Native Hawaiians with any other group, the reader may not understand that Native Hawaiians are meant here, rather than random inhabitants.
  • CheckedDon't use contractions except in quotes.
  • Checked"Inasmuch" delete, not really needed.
  • Checked"world consulates" delete world
  • Checked"stating the end goals expected.[17]" this seems unclear. Possibly, "stating the goals for the tour".
  • Checked"otherwise been alerted" I would strike "otherwise"
  • Checked"Believing their protocol was bound " maybe "Believing a formal reception was required"
  • Checked"sightseeing trip" since they remained in Kobe, maybe "sightseeing tour"?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:41, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed everything above so far. I found two contractions, which I fixed. If you see more, let me know - my eyes are a little buggy looking at this article day and night for weeks, and I probably missed tiny things like that. — Maile (talk) 01:03, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I saw two. More coming, once I get through the remainder of the article :)--Wehwalt (talk) 03:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here's more.
  • Checked New matter (Lede). You speak of personal days, twice. That's a bit of an odd phrasing to begin with, and probably not worth using twice.
Um hmm. When you see that terminology as an explanation for "not official business", you know you're dealing with someone who's spent a lot of time in a corporate environment.— Maile (talk)
  • Checked"foreign government diplomats" cut government as implied
  • Checked"facilitate such an emigration conjointly with the Hawaiian government." feels clunky, maybe "co-sponsor such an emigration with the Hawaiian government"
  • Checked "interact with the city's influential persons. " maybe "meet the city's influential people"
  • Checked"Transcription of a proposed treaty" maybe "draft" for "proposed". And "A copy" for "Transcription"
  • Checked "bestowed with" This seems an odd phrasing.
Changed to "given". — Maile (talk) 14:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Checked "that presentation of medals" were what were given medals? They seem like orders to me. Possibly an overfine distinction.
Changed it to "an exchange of decorations" in quotes, directly from Kalakaua's correspondence. — Maile (talk) 14:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Uh huh. I guess it's the royal equivalent of swapping baseball cards. "What do the simple folk do ..."--Wehwalt (talk) 18:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Checked "for future governmental immigration discourse." Likely better, "for future talks on immigration". Emigration? That's the word you used regarding Japan.
Changed the phasing, but "immigration" is correct in this case. With Japan, it was "an emigrating labor force in Japan", which is referring to the outward flow of people from a country. "immigration" refers to the inward flow of people to a country. In the source, Kalakaua says, "..the success of any future movement our government may take to in desiring to procure immigrants from Japan, China, Siam and Johore." — Maile (talk) 14:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Checked*"military volley of shots" the term is "gun salute", I think.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:36, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Checked"a lengthy list of awards" possibly "decorations" for "awards" if it fits.
  • Checked"as a brother. As kindred souls," repetitive.
  • Checked"the Malaysian states" Malaysia implies the modern nation:, with its states in Borneo. I would say "the Malay states"
  • Checked"governments of both Great Britain and East India." East India?
I just linked East India, and should have done so before. That's a specific area of India that was under British rule in the 19th century. It had its own government. In the sources it refers to "East India" and "East Indian coolies". — Maile (talk) 19:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Checked Where did the discussions take place? I can see Calcutta, but they don't seem to have gotten there yet. There wasn't a big government center east of Calcutta in British India of that era, so where did they talk?
I've reworded it a little bit. The source itself is actually Armstrong's post-trip report to the Hawaiian government. They didn't have talks in India, because it had to be done in London. And other than his somewhat racist opinion of the Indian people, I believe his "study" on contract labor from India most likely came from his contacts in London. — Maile (talk) 21:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt I just now rewrote the section in India. There's still only two paragraphs, but you might want to re-review it when you get back to this nomination. — Maile (talk) 00:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Checked"King Umberto I and Queen Margherita of Savoy." this makes it sound like Umberto was king of Savoy
  • Checked"Civil Lord of the Admiralty and Lady Thomas Brassey" I am not an expert on the peerage but I don't think being Civil Lord made his wife a Lady (so to speak) I would say "Civil Lord of the Admiralty Thomas Brassey and his wife".
I don't know peerage, either, so I just changed it. But since @KAVEBEAR: is the one who wrote that, he can tell us if she really did hold the title of Lady. — Maile (talk) 20:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Checked It looks like he met with people pretty far down the food chain in Vienna, compared with other nations. Any reason?
I added a little and sourced it. The royal family was away for the summer. — Maile (talk) 20:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Checked"and an unanswered invitation for the king attend the Bastille Day celebration as a guest of President Grévy while he was in London; the French foreign minister had visited the king in the absence of the president who was not in the capital at that time." This is very confusing.
@KAVEBEAR: Can you assist on clarification of the unanswered invitation? — Maile (talk) 19:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Checked"Armstrong remained behind to execute the treaty."" Execute the treaty would probably be to formally sign an already-negotiated treaty, which would probably be the king's job. It's likely "negotiate" better carries what was going on (or since you've used that word recently, "work out" or similar, but if I'm wrong, I'm wrong.
Changed it to "initiate", Armstrong's word, is probably accurate since others were sent back later to finalize everything. — Maile (talk) 20:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Checked"for Portugal to send 300 emigrant families to the Hawaiian Islands in the near future" I would strike the word "emigrant" as implied.
  • I've also edited hands on a bit, feel free to revert or change anything you don't like.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with the edits you did. I've taken care of most of the above. Just waiting to hear from KAVEBEAR on that which he had direct input. — Maile (talk) 21:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Third batch done. KAVEBEAR took care of his part. We're ready for the next batch. — Maile (talk)
  • Checked"Real Museo de Pinturas y Esculturas" I doubt many know that name. They do know "the Prado", though.
  • Checked"the next three days", that is, August 28, 29, 30, he sightseed But you've said the king relaxed in his suite on Aug 30.
Changed it to two days. — Maile (talk) 14:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Checked "spend a day as private tourists on Coney Island" I would say "spend a day at Coney Island". While Coney Island was actually an island then, so "on" would be arguably proper, using the more current phrase shows the contrast between the official mourning for Garfield and what they actually did, which was go enjoy themselves.
  • Checked "The Sun newspaper" link?
  • Checked "the suite boarded at the Arlington Hotel." The "suite" seems a bit of a pun on hotel that could probably be dispensed with.
That was just a typo. Fixed it. — Maile (talk) 14:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Checked I would at least pipe the sermon in Honolulu to Parable of the talents or minas.
  • Checked"as a cover story to indulge in his own selfish desires to see the rest of the world" maybe "as a cover story to gratify his selfish desire to see the world".
  • Checked"All the awards and medals he was giving out on the trip were costing the kingdom additional money." maybe "The many awards and decorations he bestowed during the trip cost the kingdom additional money."
  • Checked You spoke of "the palace" in the account of the king's homecoming, and I assumed the Iolani was meant. However, it seems it wasn't finished yet. Could this be clarified?
Footnote added. He was living at Iolani Palace before it was completed. Liliuokalani mentioned in her book that in January of 1881 she was summoned by Kalākaua to Iolani Palace for the discussion on her being named temporary Regent in his absence. — Maile (talk) 15:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Checked The reference in the lede to the king being feted by Masonic lodges around the world doesn't seem to live up to its billing in the article.
Removed. — Maile (talk) 14:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find the ending of the article a little abrupt. Can the king's lavish spending be tied in with the ending of the monarchy? If so, I'd make that the end of the article and find a way to fold in the one paragraph on Armstrong a bit earlier.
I'll get back to you on that. I don't see that it's tied in with the end of the monarchy, because that was about the US self-interest in wanting to annex the kingdom. I can't even say it is a link to the 1887 Bayonet Constitution, which was a thread I looked into. That constitution was more about the annexation politics and his chosen cabinet. I agree the ending is abrupt, but it doesn't go as far as the overthrow of the kingdom. Thoughts on this, @KAVEBEAR:? — Maile (talk) 14:38, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think his opponents often use this trip with other expensive projects which follow as examples of the extravagance and corruption of the monarchy. I don't recall any good, unbiased source that can summarize this point nicely, but it is what Liliuokalani was defending in her 1898 autobiography. Also [2] History of Later Years of the Hawaiian Monarchy (a very biased source)] in its first chapter list out all the extravagances of Kalakaua's reign with their cost. This ultimately led to the Bayonet Constitution and the PR damage to the monarchy especially among the annexationist sectors of society continued into the reign of his sister. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:03, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is going to take some thinking to do a summary of that to wrap this up. I think you have it in the idea that the above expenses were part of what was used against him for the Bayonet Constitution. In and of themselves, they were not the sole reason for that event. I think Walter Murray Gibson and his schemes were more of a direct reason for that happening, but he came to power after the tour ended. So, I'll think on this. If you want to add anything in the article about this, go ahead. I'm thinking on how to write this. — Maile (talk) 22:12, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@KAVEBEAR and Wehwalt: I added a paragraph at the bottom of the Kalakaua section. Please have a look. I don't want the end to be overly large, because the Bayonet Constitution was not a direct aftermath of the world tour, just an offshoot resulting from Kalakaua's attempts to mimic the lifestyles of the European monarchies. — Maile (talk) 01:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Checked Fn 3, listing the territories of East India, I see West Bengal. I do not think the Presidency of Bengal was divided in 1881.
Removed West Bengal. — Maile (talk) 14:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Out of curiosity, is there any indication that the king arranged for Hawaii's major issue of coins (1883) while he was in the US? No change to the article is sought.
@KAVEBEAR: Do you have any information on this? Wehwalt does a lot of articles on coinage, and took Hawaii Sesquicentennial half dollar to FA. — Maile (talk) 13:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: You might be interested in this. — Maile (talk) 21:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Andrade, Ernest, ed. (1975). "Hawaiian Coinage Controversy - Or, What Price a Handsome Profile". The Hawaiian Journal of History. 11. Honolulu: Hawaiian Historical Society. hdl:10524/415 – via eVols at University of Hawai'i at Manoa.
  • I've skimmed it. It's really interesting. Thanks--01:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  • It seems it's good to be the king. That's all I've got for now. I'll give it a re-read when you're done. Very interesting article.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:22, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I added this to the second sentence in the lead, "... but in Hawaii there were critics who believed the labor negotiations were just his excuse to see the world" as a balance to the expressed purpose of the trip. I also added a mention there about the rumors sparked by the tour. — Maile (talk) 15:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • P. S., Wehwalt, I don't take for granted that you or anyone else knows that the monarchy did not end with Kalakaua. Just in case I gave you that impression by saying Kalakaua was the last king of Hawaii. He was. The next, and final, monarch was his sister Queen Liliuokalani. — Maile (talk) 01:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I know the basics of that, though it is absorbing to learn the details!--Wehwalt (talk) 11:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A few more comments:
  • Checked"Japanese newspapers gave him favorable coverage on how they viewed his accomplishments in Hawaii" awkward
Removed it as not necessary.
  • Checked The timeline in China seems a little confusing. They arrived on March 25 and left on April 2. You say they went to Tientsin. That's a good two or three days from Shanghai by sea. It sounds to me like the most likely course of events is that they went to Tientsin after leaving Shanghai on April 2, proposing to go on by land to Beijing but while there learned of the dowager Empress's death and left for Hong Kong (the travel time is more or less what it should be). But the reader shouldn't have to guess.
Well, in a past FAC, I had a reviewer complain that too many dates made them lose track of what they were reading. However, one of us here is confused on this issue. So, let me tell you what the source says:
March 25 - "His majesty and suite arrived off the bar of the Shanghai roadstead"
March 27 - " ... the royal party embarked on the Pautah"
March 29 - " ... arrived at the bar of the Bund" (I have no idea what the Bund is)
March 30 - " ... all the foreign representatives in the city waited on His Majesty on board the Pautah"
March 31 - " ... His Majesty and suite called upon the Viceroy Li Hang"
April 1 - " ... the Viceroy waited upon His Majesty on board the Pautah"
The next paragraph does not specify a date but begins, "At Tientsin the royal party met with old acquaintances ... "
Subheading below that is "RETURN TO SHANGHAI"
April 2 - " ... His Majesty and suite re-embarked on the Pautah, and streaming back over the Yellow Sea returning to Shanghai on the 6th April"
April 9 - " ... His Majesty and suite left Shanghai and arrived in Hongkong on 12th April"
I just changed "returned to Shanghai on April 2" to April 6, if that was the point of confusion. The way I'm reading the sources, they left for Shanghai on April 2, and arrived there April 6. Was that the change you needed, or am I missing something? — Maile (talk) 15:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Bund is an area of Shanghai, on the (very wide) river. So I think you are mistaken they were still in Shanghai.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Checked You are not consistent whether the abbreviation of the word "number" (thus, No or No.) bears a period.
I only found one incident in the body of a missing period, and fixed it. If you are referring to the "no" for the London Gazette, that's their doing in how it's displayed - it's not something input on the citation template. — Maile (talk) 14:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Checked The lede says he played billiards in Singapore. Johor is not part of Singapore, so the body does not bear this out. I will also note that the billiards reference in the lede is to stress the ordinariness of the king's travels, but few get to play billiards in a sultan's palace with the sultan.
Removed it as not necessary. However, looking as it as I did when I wrote it, while realizing your point that not everybody plays billiards in a sultan's palace ... even if they had been in a corner pub, a king and a sultan playing billiards shows on some level they had something in common with ordinary people. — Maile (talk) 14:33, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • CheckedYou are not consistent with the spelling of "Abu Bakar"
Typo. Fixed. — Maile (talk) 14:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Checked" In the end," odd phrase to use for a five-day wonder.
Removed the phrase. — Maile (talk) 14:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Checked The account of Germany is a bit muddled. You mention them arriving in Cologne, then visiting Potsdam. I would be surprised if they visited Potsdam from Cologne; they presumably relocated to Berlin from where they visited Potsdam.
I think you misread the article. "They arrived at Cologne on July 29, visiting the Cologne Cathedral before continuing to Berlin." That's the only place Cologne is mentioned. Then after he's been in Berlin a couple of days meeting with people, "On a visit to Potsdam with Prince Charles of Prussia, Kalākaua was awarded the Grand Cross of the Order of the Red Eagle." It's in correct order. I added "Berlin" in front of "accommodations" in the next sentence. I figure if you read that like they were still in Cologne, so could others. — Maile (talk) 21:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Checked "Onlookers were gathered at the Vienna train station" implies Vienna had only one train station (picky, I know)
Added "Northwest station", with only Northwest capitalized, per the source. — Maile (talk) 14:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Checked Your use of the serial comma is inconsistent. Contrast "the king toured the College of the Imperial Guard, Imperial Engineering College, and the Oji Paper Company." with "visiting the Royal Army, Museo del Prado and Buen Retiro Park."
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The latest batch is done. You might re-check to see if I took care of the China date the way you meant. — Maile (talk) 21:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Checked Why a link for the Sphinx and none for the Pyramids? And if you are going to mention Giza, I'd do it in connection with the Pyramids as seems more usual.
I've done it both directions, linking the Giza pyramid complex in the lead, and in the Egypt section linking both the pyramids and the Great Sphinx, with a link to the Giza Plateau at the end of the sentence. — Maile (talk) 13:19, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Checked"Returning to the capital, on October 3, they boarded a railroad train westward stopping at Cincinnati," the commas lead to ambiguity as to whether returning or boarding happened on October 3.
  • Checked"Speeches were made in both English and Hawaiian" I would link Hawaiian as a language, it is the first time you've mentioned it
  • I like the ending better.
OK, that's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: Assuming this is really the end of your review (or not ...), I want to thank you for making me go back through all the nitpicking stuff, because it gave me better instincts on what to look for in everything else I do. And as far as the article in general, of all the Wikipedia articles I've worked on, this one was absolutely the most fun. Kalākaua was a fascinating personality.— Maile (talk) 13:19, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, glad to. Yes, those are always the most fun articles. Support very well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:06, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the map
  • File:Kalakaua_in_Berlin_(ca._1881).jpg: when/where was this first published and what is the author's date of death?
@KAVEBEAR: If for any reason it turns out we can't use the Berlin photo, I think File:Kalakaua, painting by William Cogswell, Iolani Palace.jpg looks really good. — Maile (talk) 23:21, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: This should be the last problematic files minus the map below. E. Linde was ran by Sophus Williams (1835–1900).--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, looks like this now needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Maile66: Base on File:Cover of Hawaii Ponoi2.jpg, the lead image may be as old as 1874 so I suggest we replace it with the painting instead.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@KAVEBEAR: We can do that, but I've been thinking on this. What if we just use a caption that says it's King Kalakaua, without using the date or saying it's Berlin? Or, we could go with the painting. What do you think? — Maile (talk) 13:26, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@KAVEBEAR and Nikkimaria: The image has been moved by KAVEBEAR to File:Kalakaua, reprinted by E. Linde (ca. 1881).jpg. The description is better, and it has a PD tag. I've removed "Berlin" from the caption in the article. Is it OK to use this one now? — Maile (talk)
It's fine with me.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To use the 1923 tag we need to know that it was published, not just created, before 1923. When/where was it first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: It probably is not, and something we probably will not find out, so I removed it. You're confusing me with your previous request that they "will need a US PD tag". Are you saying we can't use the image even if it is just PD-old or PD-100.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All images not being claimed as non-free must be PD/free in the US. If you take a look at the wording of PD-old, it indicates that when using that tag you must also include a tag for why the image is PD in the US. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I really appreciate your thoroughness but I'm not sure then because I have no idea how to date the publication dates or their publication place of these images (if it is to be distinct from the creation of the work). For all we know none of them could have been published before the advent of the Internet. What do you recommend?-KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If we can be certain that the work was not published prior to 2002, then life+70 works per here. Does the image holder have any further details on its history? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:48, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm uncertain who the image holder is, so presumably it is an unpublished image with the original creator having died 70+ years ago. What tag is appropriate in this case.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PD-US-unpublished, if the criteria listed there are met. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:10, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria and KAVEBEAR: I think we can date the image to being published in 1874. File:Cover of Hawaii Ponoi2.jpg The fine print the image on this says "The photograph is respectfully dedicated to His Majesty by Bradley & Rulofon" That would be William Rulofson (1826-1878) and his partner H. W. Bradley (1813-1891). The fine print at the bottom says, "Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1874, by M. Gray, in the office of the Librarian of Congress at Washington." — Maile (talk) 14:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
True but there are some other images which may need to be tagged with PD-US-unpublished including the portrait of Li Hongzhang and the photograph of the arch, which I went ahead and did. Because they are archival images that have only been digitized or placed online in the last few years. I'm confident they have not been published.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:17, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Kalakaua_journey_round_the_world.jpg: source link is dead, and we should include a source for the data presented
  • No idea. This is an old file someone else uploaded. @ThT: maybe he knows better..--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @KAVEBEAR: Please be a second set of eyes on this, in the fact that I think it misses the return trip to Paris. What do you think about a different base map, maybe one that is not in color? The current one looks good if you click on it and bring up the full size, but it looks so modern for the subject matter. Can we get Graphics Lab to make one on an old-fashioned patina-colored map? Like maps looked in the 19th century? — Maile (talk) 12:38, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @KAVEBEAR: I just updated source information and description of File:Kalakaua journey round the world.jpg. The map is intended to show the visited countries in the general sequence only. --ThT (talk) 11:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Li_Hung_Chang_in_1896.jpg: what is the author's date of death?
  • No idea since Russell & Sons is a photograph company/studio probably with one or more photographer. But this one is in the public domain since it comes from a book published in 1903.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the US, yes. But it was published in the UK and is hosted on Commons, so we have to care about its status in the UK too. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:03, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria and KAVEBEAR: I replaced that image with File:Hubert Vos's painting of Li Hongzhang.jpg — Maile (talk) 01:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That one will need a US PD tag as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Maharaja_of_Johore_(PP-73-3-020).jpg: when/where was this first published? Same with File:Kalakaua_at_Normalhurst_(PP-96-13-006).jpg, File:Kalakaua,_Judd_and_MacFarlane_(PP-75-6-020).jpg,
  • File:Kalakaua,_Judd_and_MacFarlane_(PP-75-6-020).jpg, File:Kauikeaouli_Gate_decorated_in_honor_of_Kalakaua_return_home_in_1881.jpg, File:Coronation_of_Kalakaua.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@KAVEBEAR: Would you please address the image issues? Thank you. — Maile (talk) 21:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I generally have no idea where most of the images are published. Most exist in the Hawaii State Archives with no author identification. From my past correspondence with them, they don't have the staff capacity to keep their records straight and from what I know they are images lying around with minimal identifications. We may have to just replace them with PD images from books and newspaper articles unless we know the creator's death date. commons:Category:King Kalākaua's world tour--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and remove all the non-traceable images from HSA. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The coronation one has been replaced with a PD engraving from the Library of Congress. — Maile (talk) 00:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That one will need a US PD tag as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria and KAVEBEAR: somebody please bring me up to date. Are we OK on everything except the map? — Maile (talk) 00:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I tag the images as you recommended. Is there any image now that won't do?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Japanese tag on File:Meiji_tenno1.jpg is for photos, while this is a sketch. For File:Hubert_Vos's_painting_of_Li_Hongzhang.jpg, public display counts as publication - given that, are you certain of the tag? Where was File:Victoria-sm.jpg first published? File:Kalakaua's_Coronation_from_Illustrated_London_News,_1883.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:45, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I honesty don't know when these images (or how long the portrait has been public displayed for) were published. I mean that is impossible to answer unless they are taken straight from books or published sources which the images are used. But File:Kalakaua's_Coronation_from_Illustrated_London_News,_1883.jpg was published in the UK, so would a US PD tag be appropriate? File:Victoria-sm.jpg was probably created in the UK (where it was published is not known to me), File:Meiji_tenno1.jpg also not sure. To be honest, you are asking questions I have no answers to.----KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Change the Li Hung Chang painting to File:Li-hung-chang, Governor General of Pei-chih-li Wellcome L0040968.jpg, I am assuming this is properly licensed (being licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license). Switch the problematic images to photographs from Armstrong PD 1904 book instead. Just need your opinion on the Illustrated London News images and the tagging for that. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
{{PD-US-1923-abroad}} Nikkimaria (talk) 13:28, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: The Tag you suggest brings up this message at Commons: "Note: This tag exists for compatibility with Wikipedia; please replace this template with both {{PD-1923}} and the appropriate tag for the other country, such as {{PD-old-100}}". It's tagged with both. Have we now tagged all images correctly? Any other issues? — Maile (talk) 12:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All images now appear to be appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:32, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! — Maile (talk) 13:38, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Source review
  • I've made a couple of tweaks in publication locations to make the citation style consistent. Everything else seems to be in order: adequate cites to encyclopedic sources. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:44, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! — Maile (talk) 17:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

  • "He stated that Hawaii's monarchy ended in 1843 with the surrendering of the kingdom to British rule in the form of a warship, and the commander of the same warship restoring the monarchy.": I don't know what you mean.
@Dank and KAVEBEAR: I've removed the mention of this incident in Armstrong's speech. There's no way to know what he was referring to. The Paulet Affair lasted 5 months. In Armstrong's speech, it sounds like he was referring to a 1-day incident. But he's not specific enough to know exactly, and we can't assume to know what he meant. It reads like he threw this mention in to publicly dispute something Kalakaua had just said, which seems oddly rude and condescending, but not worthy of being in the article. — Maile (talk) 12:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: This has had a very in depth review from Wehwalt, and a subsequent support, plus a support from Dank, so I think we can leave this open a little while longer. However, we really need to see something happening soon if this isn't to stall. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie edit

I'll add comments as I go through the article; it might take me a day or two. Please revert any copyedits of mine as needed.

  • The lead is in six paragraphs, which is more than recommended in WP:LEAD; I think you could safely combine the last three into one.
    Checked Combined. — Maile (talk) 23:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Checked "The New York Tribune quoted Armstrong's July 16 "frivolous and utterly false" response to the rumors from London." This should be rephrased; his response wasn't frivolous and false; he was asserting that the rumours were.
  • Checked Is Lodge Le Progrés de l'Océanie worth a redlink?
  • Checked What's the relevance of the last two sentences of the article, starting with "He advocated"? I see they follow from the previous sentences, but are they relevant to the topic of the article?
I removed the last sentence as redundant, and worked the other one into the preceding sentence that it belonged to. Hope this is better.

That's everything I can find -- the article is in excellent shape. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:50, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for doing this. — Maile (talk) 14:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The fixes look good. A fine article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:26, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Hawkeye7 edit

The rumor mill
  • Checked Merge the one-sentence first paragraph into the second
  • Checked James G. Blaine, United States Secretary of State, began to hear the rumors in April Probably about another one of his many scandals, but if it was about Hawaii, you should make it specific.
  • Checked repeated them to President James A. Garfield Since he's already been introduced, just "Garfield" would suffice
  • Checkedshared it with Dowager Queen Emma Princess Likelike I think there's a comma missing here. And was Emma Queen Dowager or Dowager Queen?
  • Checked When the King was visiting England on July 15, The Sacramento Daily Record-Union reprinted No capital T. Link The Sacramento Union. And I cannot see the connect between the rumour and the quote
Moreover...
  • Checked Anew constitution called for a new cabinet that answered Should be "A new"
  • Checked Shouldn't "Hawaiian islands" be "Hawaiian Islands??
  • Checked The Royal party arrived the Gare de l'Est train station in Paris I think a word is missing

Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:12, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed everything. Emma was Queen Dowager. I have expanded on the quote from the Sacramento Union, and hope it is what you were looking for. In a nutshell, their remarks were referring to the Reciprocity Treaty of 1875 (that the quote didn't name) which gave the US exclusive trade rights, forbid Hawaii from making a trade treaty with any other nation, and they therefore concluded also gave the US the muscle to retaliate if anyone else thought they could acquire Hawaii. — Maile (talk) 01:16, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Would have been interesting if Germany had annexed Hawaii. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:07, 18 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/King_Kalākaua%27s_world_tour/archive1&oldid=766220552"