Talk:Aboriginal title in California/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: AGK  [&bull; ] 19:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Concisely written; flows well.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Meets WP:V; no obvious factual errors or content of questionable accuracy.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * The "Statehood" section reads "to create five militarized Indian reservations". As militarised is a somewhat general term, it would be useful if there could be some expansion on that. I would do it myself, but I'm not familiar enough with the subject matter.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Satisfies WP:NPOV
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * No ongoing edit wars or substantial expansion of the article. Incident is not a current one and is not rapidly unfolding.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Generally, there is a sensible and engaging (if a little sparse) use of images. But the map in the lede has no key and its purpose was thus unclear to me. Is the various colours intended to simply demonstrate the variety of different Aboriginal territories that exist in California; and, if so, could that be made more clear in a caption, or at least on the image description page?
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Overall, this is a well-written article and will qualify for good article status once the areas I highlighted are remedied or clarified. Pending a response from the nominator (who I've notified), I'm placing this on hold for now. Good work! AGK  [&bull; ] 19:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. I hope my recent edits have resolved your concerns. Savidan 23:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's much better. I've passed the nomination. AGK  [&bull; ] 15:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)