Talk:Irataba/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 23:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Taking this review as requested - should have this to you within a day or two ☯ Jag  uar  ☯ 23:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Initial comments

 * "but the Mohave did not believe his fantastic story" - sounds a little informal, I think this can be cut safely
 * I agree; removed. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:43, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The lead summarizes the article well (an important part of the GA criteria), but I notice the only section missing from the lead is content from the Rose-Baley Party massacre section?
 * Agreed and done. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:43, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


 * "The Mohave Desert stretches" - why not Mojave Desert?
 * Both Mojave and Mohave are acceptable spellings of the word, but I've chosen to use Mohave consistently throughout. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:43, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


 * "Irataba excelled at archery, hunting game such as rabbits and deer in the mountains to the east" - doesn't make grammatical sense here. Was there meant to be something after "hunting game(s)"?
 * Hunting is a verb here, and game is a noun that refers to rabbits and deer. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:43, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


 * "Ives was leading an expedition to the Grand Canyon in a steamship named the Explorer" - should Explorer be italicized if it's the name of a ship? I could be wrong as in some cases it's different
 * I think you're right, so I've italicized them. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:43, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


 * "And so, with his services no longer needed, he returned home to the Mohave" - is this referring to the Mojave Desert?
 * I've clarified this as Mohave villages. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:43, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The opening of the second paragraph in the Turning point section sounds like a story! "The sub-chiefs remained silent, and so Cairook continued" - this part could be re-worded slightly
 * I agree; fixed. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:43, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


 * "they burned his body, hut, and belongings according to tradition, "as was proper"" - what is "as was proper" meaning here?
 * Clarified with "for a Mohave head chief". Rationalobserver (talk) 16:43, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


 * , I believe I've now addressed your above concerns. Thanks for the excellent review, and please let me know if there is anything else I should do regarding the GAN. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:43, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

On hold
This is a very nice article; well written, comprehensive and also well sourced. I couldn't find anything wrong with the references and the prose issues I mentioned above were only relatively minor. I also apologise for leaving this review late as I'm having troubles with my PC, so I should have the other one to you by tomorrow. Anyway, I'll leave on hold for at least the standard seven days (although it won't need that) until they have all been addressed. If you have any questions please let me know. Thanks! ☯ Jag  uar  ☯ 22:29, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Close - promoted
Thank you for your improvements made! I'm confident that this article now meets the GA criteria so I'll promote this. I should have the other review complete shortly ☯  Jag  uar  ☯ 18:16, 15 February 2015 (UTC)