From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Latest revision as of 07:57, 19 November 2025
 |
Peer review
Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects: LeadGuiding questions:
ContentGuiding questions:
Tone and BalanceGuiding questions:
Sources and ReferencesGuiding questions:
OrganizationGuiding questions:
Images and MediaGuiding questions: If your peer added images or media
For New Articles OnlyIf the draft you’re reviewing is for a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.
Overall impressionsGuiding questions:
Examples of good feedbackA good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved. Additional ResourcesCheck out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions. |
- Whose work are you reviewing?
KrisGill
- Link to draft you’re reviewing
- User:KrisGill/Hui Aloha ʻĀina
- Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
- NA
Evaluate the drafted changes
[edit]
The lead can be improved. It is too detailed, with too many names, such as Emilie Widemann Macfarlane’s and Martha Widemann Berger’s, which should be in the “Prominent Leadership” section, and too much detail, such as the exact dates for internal disputes. Furthermore, it is too wordy. For instance, the lead does not introduce the most important parts of the article (the group’s founding and its key leaders, such as Campbell and Nāwahī, and its 1897 anti-annexation petition campaign), and it should summarize them, not just state their basic theme (for example, don’t just explain that the article discusses the women’s branch of Hui Aloha ʻĀina). Along with explanations of Article Five, which required that all members be Native Hawaiian, and the 11000 women who were members by late 1893, this would be the only additional information which would be valuable. To compare to the men’s Hui Aloha ʻĀina would help, as people continued to mention men’s groups throughout with no real distinction between them. The tone is mostly neutral, though sometimes adjectives like “significant” or “highly coordinated”, which seem to come from sources, should be more explicit. The sentence which claims that Campbell was “widely recognized as one of the most influential Native Hawaiian leaders” should actually name the historian who said it. All the new major sections are well cited, although there are some facts which should have citations, such as the fact that the women tended to imprisoned men’s families after the 1895 counter-revolution. The sources are strong but many are from the same few authors. It sounds biased, lacking the perspective of Native Hawaiian scholars. The article is well-organized, but “Political Activities” is too full of long paragraphs. The paragraph discussing the petition campaign would benefit from being split into two paragraphs, one discussing the collection of signature and one discussing the political impact in Washington D.C. While no images accompany the article, it would benefit from being included, as images of Abigail Campbell and the Kūʻē petitions are available on Wikimedia Commons as public domain. The article clearly meets Wikipedia notability guidelines and is similar in scope to other articles about historical topics like this one. Add internal links to Queen Liliʻuokalani, the Blount Report, and the Newlands Resolution. In general, the added content is an improvement, particularly with respect to the political, social and organizational context. The main changes needed are to shorten the lead, increase citation density and break up large chunks of text with images, particularly ones related to the content of the respective section.
