Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Irataba/archive3

< 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) 10:21, 31 May 2015 [1].

Irataba edit

Nominator(s): RO(talk), ·maunus · snunɐɯ·, and ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an important Native American leader named Irataba. I believe it should be featured because of the quality of the article, which has been edited and reviewed by numerous respected Wikipedians. RO(talk) 16:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note - For the edification of anyone revisiting this for review, can the nominators provide a high-level summary of what was changed since the last nomination? I recall substantive disagreement in FAC1 about the suitability of Waters. I see he his no longer cited in the article—but has all the prose written in consultation with his text been removed? Also from FAC2: "Maunus ... seems to have some specialist books now to further expand it". Was that done? --Laser brain (talk) 16:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Laser. Maunus had a book coming at the time of withdrawal, but I believe he has since added all he intended adding. I did tell him that if he began expanding it again during the FAC I'd revert it. He finished on it about ten days ago and believes it is now comprehensive and FA standard I think. He also took care of some of the past sources, including Waters I believe. RO has since copyedited it and everything should now be stable and above board. I opted out of the renomination though because I wasn't prepared to deal with possible catty comments, but I hope this continues to attract decent input regardless.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, yes I have removed the material that relied un unreliable sources, and added material from other specialist sources. I feel the article is ready for a review now.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All the sourcing has been checked, but I've also requested a source review: ([2]), and several parts of the article have been rewritten by Maunus, who has finished with his expansion/copyediting. RO(talk) 16:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Dr. Blofeld and Rationalobserver. --Laser brain (talk) 16:52, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This article has undergone substantial review and reworking since it was last put up for FAC. In particular, the copyvio issues The issues with sourcing and tone raised at the time of the pervious FAC have been resolved, as far as I can see, problematic edits have been fixed and overall the article is substantially improved. I do not believe I am eligible to review this FAC in this round because since the previous one I have made at least some minor contributions to the article, as has @Maunus:, who also was an FAC reviewer last time. However, the issues I raised then have been addressed, so though I am now an "involved" editor, I think I could support this FAC, though I do invite new reviewers to give it a thorough looksee. Montanabw(talk) 18:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Montanabw, thanks for the vote of confidence, but the "copyvio issue" you linked to above is a false positive set off by a Wikipedia mirror site. Please consider striking that part of your comment, which is not accurate, as copyvio did not even come up at any of the previous peer reviews or FACs. RO(talk) 18:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. Looks like you are correct. Will do. Should clarify my issues, the copyvio concern was less the issue for me anyway. Montanabw(talk) 18:36, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Alt text isn't required, but if it's included it should be accurate - File:Irataba_by_Balduin_Möllhausen,_1857.jpg is a lithograph, not itself a pencil drawing - and shouldn't duplicate the caption
Fixed. RO(talk) 17:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Irataba.jpg: recalling the conversation from the previous nom, suggest including source for date and authorship (and if authorship is truly unknown suggest not including it)
I am not sure about those. Dr. Blofeld found that awesome image. RO(talk) 17:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is the ideal main image, yup. I believe I asked We hope to look into it. It would have been taken about 1864, and given that he's in uniform, probably by the army. It's undoubtedly PD, but some more details about it might be good.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:15, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the previous conversations about the Irataba 1864 photo and others in the article. Right now, I don't know what the map listed below is based on--would need to start searching for something similar to try determining that. We hope (talk) 20:41, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:The_Colorado_River_Indian_Reservation_in_Relation_to_Arizona,_California_and_Associated_Counties.jpg: what is the base map here? The caption at the bottom suggests previous publication. Also, what is the source of the data reflected here? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:04, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really not sure, but I think it's the original work of User:Cenglish, who has been inactive since 2011. RO(talk) 17:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are a couple of other maps of the reservation online, but none that really look like this one except for the shape as far as I can find.[3][4]·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:52, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that if the uploader said it was own work, it probably is. If it comes down to replacing the image or sourcing, I did a search at the BIA web site and per US-PD, I think these could be replaced if need be, and in the meantime I will add citations to the image page at any rate (Nikki? Verify?) Montanabw(talk) 18:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Would need to see the potential replacement to comment on it. The source looks good for the second question (thanks), but I'm not sure about the first - often self-uploaded maps use a pre-existing map as their base and impose data on top of it. I've tried tracking the ID number at the bottom, no luck. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:19, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComment from John I took a wee hack at the prose which has been substantially rewritten since I last reviewed it. However and subsequently need to be used with care. I think on prose it now marginally passes FAC and the sourcing also looks ok to me, though I will defer to others on this. --John (talk) 19:43, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Irataba's travels Would he have used the Panama Canal Railway to cross the isthmus? It seems likely but I'd be interested to know. We can't just say he sailed to New York as modern readers may think he would sail via the canal, which was decades away at this point. --John (talk) 19:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you're right, but I don't think any of the sources specifically state that. RO(talk) 19:49, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Shame. Oh well. --John (talk) 20:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This source tells a little about how the travel from SF to New York was done in those years. We know he traveled on the SS Orizaba to Panama.[5]·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind. I think I am ok with the current wording, if everybody else is. If it isn't described in the sources we cannot describe it here. I just didn't want us to falsely imply that he could have sailed direct from SF to NYC before that was the route. --John (talk) 18:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing As this has been raised in the past, can I confirm whether supporters (Montanabw (talk · contribs), Tim riley (talk · contribs), Ssven2 (talk · contribs), Ipigott (talk · contribs), Jaguar (talk · contribs), Wehwalt (talk · contribs)) specifically support the current sourcing following review? I don't feel able to do this as I don't fully understand the questions that were raised in the previous FAC. I think I could support if this is the case. I am reasonably happy with the prose but a bit like Montanabw I have now edited the article quite a bit so may be thought to have a COI so my putative support would have to be read with that in mind. --John (talk) 18:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks John for double checking but I have already handled this with my support below.--Ipigott (talk) 18:37, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that Maunus (talk · contribs) addressed most of my concerns, I also tweaked some things myself, which is why I think it best I do not review the article for this FAC round. My concerns at the previous FAC were that when I looked at the actual sources available online, material was either attributed to a very wide page range (5-10 pages) and/or didn't actually fit the citation. There were also problems with the way primary sources were used and issues of tone. I believe all of those issues have been addressed. I do think that source spotchecks should still be done by independent reviewers, just to be sure we are all good now. Montanabw(talk) 19:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've requested an independant source review: ([6]). RO(talk) 19:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Any concerns I had about the prose, the tone and the sourcing have now been addressed. Support, with the proviso already expressed about COI. --John (talk) 20:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Replying to John, above: I have no quibble with the sourcing, but I repeat that I know practically nothing of the subject and certainly can't pretend to judge one source against another. If RO thinks an independent review is wanted I think it admirable, showing how seriously the nominators treat the matter. Tim riley talk 20:11, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – a couple of suggested tweaks, but nothing to fuss about:

  • In 1871–1872 general General George Crook – the MoS bids us use "1871–72" as the date-range style, and one General is enough for Cook.
  • Kroeber and Fontana: really "american indians" in lower case?
  • I didn't spot a gratuitous "however", but John's wise advice, above, on this is always worth following.

Those small points apart, very happy to support for FA. As a layman I find the content evidently comprehensive, the sourcing and citation are fine and the prose is pleasingly readable. – Tim riley talk 20:27, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support, Tim! I've fixed those points you mentioned ([7]); thanks for the heads up! RO(talk) 20:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • My support was based purely on prose, which looks good to me. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 01:40, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support — I am on a break. Having supported this article before, it does look better now. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 05:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support I'm glad to see there has been substantial progress on the points I raised during the last review.--Ipigott (talk) 14:07, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support I've reveiwed this four times now, why isn't this FA already!? JAGUAR  16:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thought it was one already!--Wehwalt (talk) 14:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Mirokado edit

I've made the odd copyedit since the last review, but I think I still count as an independent reviewer. The article is a good read and further improved since last time. Just a few comments and open questions:

  • Lead
    • ...he led several hundred of his supporters to the Colorado River Valley: is this including "Valley" a proper name? Even if so, does the new reservation represent substantially all of it? I suspect not, so a small "v" may be appropriate here.
    • wl Chemehuevi in the lead too?
    • the formulation "xx is mixed: yy but zz" should probably be relegated to film stubs, although it is sometimes difficult to think of an alternative.
    • In 2002, the US Bureau of Land Management designated 32,745 acres (13,251 ha) as Ireteba Peaks Wilderness.: Where? It is mentioned later in the article, but slightly more, brief, detail here would be good. Perhaps: "In 2002, the US Bureau of Land Management designated 32,745 acres (13,251 ha) in the Eldorado Mountains as Ireteba Peaks Wilderness."
  • Background
    • repetition of "present-day": can we find language that makes this clear enough the first time?
    • Irataba was a hereditary leader of the Huttoh Pah group, ...: Was he "a leader" or "the leader" of that group at the time he was leading? The is probably only unclear in this rather specific context of a particular group at a particular time.
  • Ives Expedition
    • is the plural of Paiute Paiutes or Paiute? similarly: Hualapais or Hualapai? "Paiute" and "Hualapai" seem more natural as plural forms to me (generally for such names ending in a vowel sound) and I see that Hualapai refers to "the Hualapai" rather than "the Hualapais". Further down, in the Later years section, we refer to "ongoing conflicts with Paiutes and Chemehuevi" which seems particularly inconsistent.

* Conflict with the US army

    • In spite of Irataba visiting the garrison several times arguing for their release, ...: "...visiting...arguing..." limps a bit. Perhaps "Although Irataba visited the garrison several times and argued for their release, ..."
  • Later years
    • Picture caption – who was Ah-oochy Kah-ma?
  • References / Sources
    • "Parker Troth". The Yuma Daily Sun has both the open access icon and (subscription required). Reading open access this looks incorrect and the icon should be removed. (Some pages via that provider are open, others not).

I can't see anything here which will prevent my support. Well done to everyone who has worked so hard on this article. --Mirokado (talk) 19:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mirokado, I've addressed most of your above comments here: ([8]), and I'll respond to the ones I didn't resolve. Paiutes is proper for plural, but one could also say "the Paiute", and refer to them as a whole. I'm actually not sure who Ah-oochy Kah-ma is. We hope found that image, and maybe they can shed some light on that person's identity. RO(talk) 20:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, another quick response! Supporting now, we can sort out Ah-oochy Kah-ma as convenient. As far as "Paiutes" are concerned, I will defer to you unless anyone else joins the conversation. Striking addressed comments. --Mirokado (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the LOC link and he's only identified as a friend of Irataba. The photo was taken by Carlos Gentile (who has no WP article, BTW). While traveling the West and photographing, Gentile adopted a small boy he named Carlos Montezuma.
I did some research on that Smithsonian portrait of Irataba and found it was part of Montezuma's collection and was donated to the Smithsonian by his widow. Montezuma did a lot of lecturing about the tribes of the West; the Irataba portrait was one of the slides he used for his talks. My belief is that the Smithsonian Irataba photo was also taken by Gentile, as Montezuma was only 8 years of age when Irataba died. We hope (talk) 21:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A couple of very minor MoS tweaks made to the citations, but all good throughout. - SchroCat (talk) 19:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I've been involved in the peer review of this article, and all my concerns were addressed there; the article has had plenty of experienced input, and the article is certainly in much better shape than when I first saw it; the referencing concerns raised at peer review appear to have been dealt with. Simon Burchell (talk) 11:29, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: did you want another spot check? I thought somebody already did one at the last FAC?♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tks DrB, unless I missed it, doesn't look to me that an independent spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing has been done on this article yet, and I think we should see that, as well as the usual source review for formatting and reliability. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:51, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Nikkimaria (spotchecks not done) edit

  • FN20, 76, 112: page?
Maunus, do you have these page numbers? RO(talk) 16:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What is source is FN?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you mean Foot Note twenty? That is a reference to the entire work. The Shumway et al is p. 89, Braatz is page 136 (supports the gunshot wounds, the additional bayonet wound is mentioned in the Wilson source and in the primary sources used by both Braatz and Wilson).·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done ([9]). Thanks for the assist, Maunus! RO(talk) 18:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether you abbreviate page ranges
Fixed. RO(talk) 16:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check alphabetization of Webb in Bibliography
Fixed. RO(talk) 16:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in when you include publisher/location
I think the only ones with location now are newspapers, and I thought they need to have it even if others do not. Is that right, or can I remove them? RO(talk) 16:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No source type requires the inclusion of locations. You may choose to include them for newspapers, but you would need to be doing so consistently (either for all newspapers, or for all those that don't include location in their titles) - currently that is not being done. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I removed the remaining locations ([10]) from the bibliography. RO(talk) 17:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shumway or all seems to have an identified publisher
Ssven2 fixed it; thanks Sven! RO(talk) 16:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Rationalobserver: No problem. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 11:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • ISBN for Wilson?
Ssven2 fixed it; thanks Sven! RO(talk) 16:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Rationalobserver: No problem. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 11:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further reading should be its own level-2 section. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. RO(talk) 16:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Although I'm crossing heavily-trod ground, I've looked over the article and I see no reason not to throw in my support before promotion. Nicely done.-RHM22 (talk) 14:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou. This article has now endured a combined 7 weeks or so of FAC!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:01, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source spot-check (recusing coordinator duties):

  • Fn 19, OK. Page given supports article text, no close paraphrasing.
  • Fn 34, OK. Page given supports article text, no close paraphrasing.
  • Fn 43(b), OK. Page given supports article text, no close paraphrasing.
  • Fn 67, OK. Page given supports article text, no close paraphrasing.
  • Fn 102, image caption might be WP:OR. All the source supports is that it's Irataba with "Ah-oochy kah-mah". What is the source for "possibly identical with Ohatchecama"? Also, the source appears to capitalize "Kah-mah".
  • Fn 108, OK. Page given supports article text, no close paraphrasing.
  • Fn 111, OK. Page given supports article text, no close paraphrasing. --Laser brain (talk) 16:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FN102, it is a mild degree of OR, which I think should be permissible. We know from Braatz that there are many spelling variants of Ohatchecama, we have another picture clearly of the same person labeled "Ohatchecama", and we know from the source of the photo that it was taken at Date Creek where we know Irataba and Ohatchecama were both present in 1871. So while the identification of the Ahoochy Kahmah with Ohactchecama is not directly supported by any source, it is a very mild degree of synthesis, similar to the kind of permissible deduction, I think, and the article would be poorer for excluding it.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:45, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can live with that. I didn't read the entire article thoroughly so I hadn't encountered the similarity. I wouldn't say any action is needed. --Laser brain (talk) 16:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes -- looks ready to promote but a couple of things:

  • I don't know that the word "important" helps in the first sentence, partly as it's a value judgement but also because it's about as redundant in a WP article as "notable".
  • What was the reason for the small text in the caption for File:Ah-oochy Kah-ma and Ireteba.jpg?

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:11, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changed both.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:43, 31 May 2015 (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/Irataba/archive3&oldid=1138464061"