Talk:Ramona/GA1

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

I am reassessing this articles GA status as part of the WP:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria assessment No problems when checked against qf criteria, proceeding to substantive review. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
 * 2) The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
 * 3) There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.
 * 4) The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
 * 5) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * 1) The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
 * 2) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * 1) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * 1) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

Checking against GA criteria
In order to uphold the quality of Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of June 22, 2009, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose):
 * The prose is reasonably well written, but could be improved throughout by attention to copy editing, grammar and style. The lead introduces information which is not present in the article: Originally serialized in the Christian Union on a weekly basis, the novel became immensely popular. Overall, it has had more than 300 printings, been made into four film versions,.... Jezhotwells (talk) 22:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * b (MoS):
 * The article complies sufficiently with the MoS. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references):
 * OK for those references present, but some other citations are needed:
 * Major themes: Her success was limited, however.; Ramona was intended to appeal more directly to the emotions of the American public. The emotional appeal was successful, but it went by and large down the wrong path. The novel's policy criticism was clear, but it was not the most potent message. Jackson had become enamored of the Spanish missions in California, which she romanticized.; A number of Americans had not always thought kindly of the Hispanic population who inhabited California at the time of their own arrival.; They looked with a disparaging eye on what they saw as a decadent lifestyle of leisure and recreation among a people with enormous tracts of land, excessively mild weather and unusually fertile soil, who relied heavily on Native American labor. They cherished rather the Protestant work ethic. This view was not universal, however, and was swept away by Jackson's escapist fantasy.
 * Reception: Another reason for the novel's initial popularity may have inadvertently been subtle racism. Ramona was only part Indian, and she was described as beautiful, with black hair but blue eyes; Unfortunately, because the general public was more attached to the romanticized vision of Southern California, Jackson was disappointed that she was unable to raise the profile of Indian issues.; However, historian Antoinette May argued in her book The Annotated Ramona that the novel was partially responsible for the Dawes Act being passed in 1887.
 * Cultural impact: Because of the romanticized myth, there was a great increase in tourism, with many people wanting to see the locations that appeared in the story.; Camulos became the most accepted "Home of Ramona" due to several factors. The location of Moreno Ranch is roughly the same as the location of Camulos. Influential writers such as George Wharton James and Charles Fletcher Lummis avowed that it was so. ; Finally, the Del Valle family of Camulos welcomed tourists and eagerly marketed the association, labeling their oranges and wine as "The Home of Ramona" brand.; In contrast, Guajome did not publicly become associated with Ramona until an 1894 article in Rural Californian made the claim. However, as the house was nearly four miles (6 km) away from the nearest Santa Fe Railroad station, getting there was not so easy.; A third location, the Estudillo House in Old Town San Diego, declared itself to be "Ramona's Marriage Place" due to brief descriptions of Ramona having been married in San Diego. Despite there being no records of Jackson having visited there, it too became a popular tourist destination and remained so long after the novel's publication.; The Estudillo House was also unique in that it marketed itself solely in terms of Ramona-related tourism. The caretaker sold pieces of the house to tourists, which naturally hastened its deterioration. In 1907, new owner John D. Spreckels deliberately remodeled the house to more closely match descriptions in the novel.; Other notable Ramona landmarks included "Ramona's Birthplace", a small adobe near Mission San Gabriel Arcángel, as well as the grave of Ramona Lubo on the Cahuilla Indian reservation. Lubo called herself the "real Ramona," and her life bore some resemblance to that of the fictional Ramona.; Not only that, but because of the explosive popularity, fact and fiction began to merge in the public eye. ; One result from this was the sudden popularity of Mission Revival Style architecture from about 1890 to 1915, which still survives in a reduced form today. It may be that these statements are covered in the references which are already present, but it needs to be made clearer, if neccessary by multiple citing. Jezhotwells (talk)
 * b (citations to reliable sources):
 * All sources used appear to be RS. Jezhotwells (talk)
 * c (OR):
 * No clear evidence of OR. Jezhotwells (talk)
 * 1) It is broad in its scope.
 * a (major aspects):
 * No mention in the body of the film adapations mentioned in the lead. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * b (focused):
 * OK. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Some passages are not NPOV:
 * Major themes: but it went by and large down the wrong path.;
 * Reception:  Unfortunately, because the general public was more attached to the romanticized vision of Southern California,...; This well-intentioned but ill-fated law  Jezhotwells (talk) 23:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * IF these POVs are represented in sources then perhaps these phrases should be quotations, correctly cited. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * Article appears stable. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * tagged, with rationales. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Captions to photographs could be improved, with some location detail, but acceptable. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I am going to de-list this as there are a number of issues with style, referencing and WP:NPOV. this has the makings of a good article and once these points are addressed it should be brought back to WP:GAN for consideration. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I am going to de-list this as there are a number of issues with style, referencing and WP:NPOV. this has the makings of a good article and once these points are addressed it should be brought back to WP:GAN for consideration. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)