Talk:Rose–Baley Party/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)
 * I'm sorry this one is taking so long - I have limited internet access. I'll complete this by tomorrow morning! ☯ Jag  uar  ☯ 21:02, 15 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

 * I could find no issues with the lead - it summarises the article well and complies per WP:LEAD
 * "and Beale named the location where they crossed the river, en route to California" - why is 'en route' italicized here?
 * I thought it should be as a foreign phrase, but it's probably so common this isn't necessary, so I removed them. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Should the image in the Formation section be at the top instead of the middle? I'm not sure as I think it would depend on the monitor resolution...
 * I agree; done. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * "which, although 8,000 to 9,000 feet in elevation" - all measurements should be converted to their mertric equivalent using the conversion template ( 8000 ft )
 * Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * "carved their names into stone – a tradition dating back to 1605" - this part needs a citation, as 1605 is very specific!
 * Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * "reported that they had found water seventeen miles" - this would probably read better as reported that they had found water 17 mi (using the conversion template)
 * "Several white men were felled by arrows and clubs as the women frantically fled with their young ones" - little informal, children?
 * I agree; done. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

, I've addressed your above concerns with this series of edits. Please let me know if there is anything more I need to do regarding the GAN. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

On hold
This is an excellent article and it is also very well written, hence the short review again! Sorry for the wait too, it never takes me this long to review articles but it's only due to me having internet issues. I'll leave this on hold for you, so once the minor issues are out of the way then this article should have no problem passing the GAN! ☯ Jag  uar  ☯ 17:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Close - promoted
Thank you for your improvements once again! Don't worry about those access dates for Google books, as they're usually inplaced when references are first formatted - but it's not a worry for this GAN. I feel that some reviewers are too pushy for that, but nevertheless this is an excellent article and meets the criteria as it is. Well done! ☯ Jag  uar  ☯ 22:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Jaguar! It was really nice of you to take the time to review this article and Irataba. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)