Talk:Yogo sapphire/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jessemv (talk · contribs) 01:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Object There are multiple text issues that need to be addressed before it can pass. Here are some of the issues that I see:
 * In the lead: "They are considered among the finest sapphires in the world, and by some gem experts, the finest." Seems redundant, and "some" is a weasel word.
 * How about that?. Dreadstar  ☥   22:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * For this instance, I'm considering this ✅. Jessemv (talk) 22:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool! Dreadstar  ☥   22:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * In the lead: "is said to mean". Who says this? Does it actually mean that in the Blackfeet language? If so, it should say so directly.
 * ✅ Fixed and expanded upon, with ref. Dreadstar  ☥   22:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * In the lead: "Yogo sapphires are rarer than diamonds." is really short and should be merged with adjacent sentences. At the very least it should have a connecting words like "moreover", "Indeed", etc.
 * ✅ I combined it with the info on it's discovery, hopefully that makes sense. Dreadstar  ☥   22:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "Yogo Gulch is located in what today is" Confusing, and historical wording seems unnecessary. Perhaps just "Yogo Gultch is located in ..., east of Great Falls, Montana"
 * Not sure if this should be in parenthesis or not,. Figured it would be good to say what it was called at the time.  Dreadstar  ☥   22:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps "historically called..." works better. Just a thought. Jessemv (talk) 22:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea, I'll give it a try! I'm now looking at the entire section, as you mention three points below with the request for breaks in the location section.  Might have to restructure that whole section.  I'll work on that next.  Dreadstar  ☥   22:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ in conjunction with the below section break request. Dreadstar  ☥   01:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * There are three citations following that statement, which seems a little on the high end. In fact, excessive numbers of sequential citations are used throughout the article. They distract from readability, and are likely redundant. Choose the best, and reduce the number down to one or two. See Citation overkill
 * ✅ Cite overkill indicates 5 or more is overkill. Thomas the Slav was the main page FA only 3 days ago and it has cases of three refs in a row. I've reduced cases in Yogo sapphire to three as you do not make a valid case that over 2 is overkill. Pumpkin Sky  talk  19:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * " the word "Yogo" is alleged to mean "blue sky" in Piegan Blackfeet" Again, same issue as in the lead. Does it mean this in the language or not? If so, say so, but keeping the " there is some dispute about this translation" statement is probably appropriate. However, this statement doesn't seem to really fit with the section title. It could however be cleverly placed in the opening lines.
 * ✅ Fixed and expanded upon, with ref. From the way I'm reading it, the name (romance, blue sky) seem to relate to the actual location being...well, romantic with blue skey...but if it still doesn't fit that section, I'll try to fix further.  Dreadstar  ☥   22:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd recommend some paragraph breaks in the Location section, it seems a bit long and the sentences don't flow together as well as they could. Perhaps there could be two paragraphs: one on historical locations, and one about the current location. The relationship of the sapphires to the gulch needs to be more clear. I'm assuming the location of the gems hasn't changed over time, except in where we politically classify it.
 * Dreadstar worked this. Pumpkin Sky   talk  00:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Much better! I concerned though with the two-sentence paragraph at the end of the section. Since its short, it should be either expanded or integrated into the above text. If the latter, it might work best at the end of the first paragraph. Jessemv (talk) 00:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Made it part of the preceding paragraph. Pumpkin Sky   talk  00:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Works well. ✅. Jessemv (talk) 01:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "East of the river is Pig-Eye Basin—where Jake Hoover, claimed to be the discoverer of Yogo sapphires, had a ranch" I'm not sure why this statement is important, or the information following it. I'm assuming its there for some context, but it doesn't really mean much to me. If it is important to the formation of the sapphires, please tell why. The ranch mention seems like an excessive detail.
 * Don't think it's excessive, ties in Hoover to the locale. Pumpkin Sky   talk  00:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * So it does. You do mention his ranch twice though, but I don't it's that big of a deal. Issue ✅. Jessemv (talk) 00:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "in situ" See scare quotes. This should italicized, by wrapping the word in double apostrophes, like this. The wikilink is fine though.
 * ✅ Fixed, valid point. Pumpkin Sky   talk  19:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I do like the "Yogo sapphires are unique among the world's sapphires: ..." paragraph, nice job on that. Although there's a sentence that starts with "because" and I don't think that's grammatically correct.
 * Chg'd to "since...formed" Pumpkin Sky   talk  00:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice. I'm considering this ✅. Jessemv (talk) 00:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "Some gem experts consider them the finest sapphires in the world." Again, weasel word. I don't doubt the statement, but who said this? Also, this paragraph has excessive citations, in one case six, which is definitely overkill. Like I said above, reduce them and use the best you can find.
 * Changed to "According to...." Pumpkin Sky   talk  15:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's better, but unfortunately I believe "many" is still a weasel word. See Weasel words. I understand what you are trying to say, but its a "Numerically vague expression". Personally, if the US Geological Survey considers yogo sapphires the finest, and as such an authoritative figure that completely convinces me. If you feel that the mentioning of these "many" gem experts complements the USGS's statement, then perhaps you should find a few of the more notable experts and use them instead. I don't know if "many" implies that the majority of all gem experts everywhere agree on this statement, or if the "many" was extrapolated from Stephen Voynick's observations of a smaller group. So I believe that still needs to be fixed in either way I described. Jessemv (talk) 21:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Jeez dude, USGS says "AMONG the finest". Voynick says "THE FINEST". That's NOT the same thing. Voynick doesn't list specific names in his book. I really don't see there's much else to do on this one. Pumpkin Sky   talk  21:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well if Voynick doesn't specifically mention names, then weasel words are the only thing that can be used. Since they're frowned upon, if Yoynick says they are the finest in the world, then put down his notability/authority on the matter, and just say that he states that. Jessemv (talk) 22:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Changed. Pumpkin Sky   talk  22:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC)...Changed it back. As it was a minute is not accurate as Voynick didn't say that, others did.  Pumpkin Sky   talk  22:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * From this in your point below, I'm dropping this issue, so ✅ Jessemv (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "It is believed that the reason Yogos are almost always blue rather than coming in as wide variety of colors as other Montana sapphires is that their bedrock had a much longer cooling time" I think "It is believed" could be reworded. Try "Current theory holds", "Yogo sapphires are almost always blue because", "X believes that Yogo sapphires are almost always blue because", or something like that. On top of that fix, commas or parentheses should be used in this statement. For example: "In contrast to traditional Montana sapphires, Yogo sapphires are almost always blue because their bedrock has a longer cooling time."
 * I liked the last suggestion and put that in. Pumpkin Sky   talk  15:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * So I see. ✅ Jessemv (talk) 15:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "It contains large amounts of biotite and pyroxene." I'd recommend that this be merged with another sentence, such as the first one in the paragraph.
 * ✅ However I tried it this sounded clunky and awkward, so I did some rearranging that I think sounds better Pumpkin Sky  talk  20:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "There had been considerable debate ..." paragraph: the citation is way at the end, which makes me a bit suspicious that the sentences at the beginning could be original research. Name the citation on the first use, and then place it at the end of every two or three sentences, so its absolutely clear the material is covered by said citation. While citations can detract from readability, having it only at the end of the long paragraph like that is too far off balance I think. See Citing sources. Also applies to some of the paragraphs in the Mining History section.
 * ✅. Good point, this para is pulled from an 8-page discussion. Pumpkin Sky   talk  20:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * " surface. This is why the Yogos found to date are generally small." I suggest better linking between these sentences, like "surface, causing the Yogo sapphires to be generally small."
 * ✅. Pumpkin Sky   talk  20:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "The Yogo sapphire deposit is located in a silica-poor lamproite igneous rock dike cutting into limestone that intruded a fissure into the earth" Wording issues. Try "The Yogo sapphire deposit is located in a silica-poor lamproite igneous rock dike, which transitions into limestone as it intrudes into a fissure." Does this sound better?
 * So changed. Pumpkin Sky  talk  15:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Jessemv (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "Mining at the English Mine confirmed this as the deeper the digging there got, the more likely miners were to find bigger Yogo roughs." Probably change to something like "Subsequent mining at the English Mine confirmed this" or "This was confirmed by subsequent mining at the English Mine."
 * Done. Pumpkin Sky   talk  20:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's better, but it's still a bit redundant. How about "... generally small, which was later confirmed by subsequent mining at the English Mine." If the geology does indeed cause the smaller roughs to be near the surface, then this will be confirmed by digging. I don't think you need to describe the size-depth distribution twice. Jessemv (talk) 22:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Changed, agree that's better. Pumpkin Sky   talk  02:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Jessemv (talk) 02:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "... and initially gave Montana sapphires a bad name". I realize the "a bad name" comes from the citation source, but it just seems informal. Try a synonym like "discredit", or perhaps there is a better word.
 * Changed to "poor reputation" Pumpkin Sky   talk  03:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I was thinking more along the lines of "and initially discredited Montana sapphires", but that works as well. ✅ Jessemv (talk) 03:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "have very good color". Is there better word choice?
 * ✅ Pumpkin Sky   talk  20:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Mining history section: no real issues that I can spot, just make sure you follow GA criteria by not delving into unnecessary details. In that regard, the monetary values given raise the biggest alarm in my mind. Perhaps someone can follow up and say one way or the other here, but just really think about keeping with summary style.
 * Totally disagree. Monetary values are not trivial, especially when the mine and its production of Yogos has been an economic yoyo. Pumpkin Sky   talk  21:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ahhh. I did not understand that the prices fluctuated that much. In light of this, yes the values would be important. If the fluctuation is important, perhaps that should be more clear. Otherwise, it just sounds to me as a "so-and-so did this for $X" with little connection between them. Jessemv (talk) 22:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I thought it was obvious but maybe it's because I know the history so well. Will think on how to do this. Open to suggestions. Pumpkin Sky   talk  02:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's stated, or at least hinted at in the beginning of the section where it talks about the geologic nature of the site making Yogos expensive. Pumpkin Sky   talk  15:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I know absolutely nothing of the underlying history. I've also thought more about this, and after you pointed it out I realized that the numbers illustrate the growing apparent value of the mine. So this is ✅ as well. Jessemv (talk) 21:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "95% of the time". The word "time" was just used. Consider something like "with an accuracy of 95%"
 * ✅ Pumpkin Sky   talk  20:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The "Notable Yogo sapphires" section I think delves into unnecessary details, and one sentences is followed by four citations. Consider honing this section a bit more.
 * Disagree here too. It's only two paras long and many people like to know these sort of historic and notable connections. Pumpkin Sky  talk  21:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, each is a pretty long paragraph. I for one am interested in the historical connections, but I'm looking at lines like "... if she would take a set of sapphires from Montana and create a piece of finished jewelry" and "Crevoshay named the brooch "Conchita" in honor of her mother." and "The brooch can also be worn as a pendant or clasp and can be beaded." as examples of information that, although interesting, may not be particularly notable. If these actually are important aspects of the historical connection, then I would suggest trying to summarize them a bit more, and connect them to adjacent sentences. The second paragraph doesn't really have this issue, although it could use better transitions in the sections including and in between "Yogo sapphires also won a bronze medal ..." to "... Bess Truman, and their daughter Margaret Truman." The citation issue is fixed. Jessemv (talk) 22:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Did some trim and ce here. Pumpkin Sky   talk  15:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅. Jessemv (talk) 21:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "The gems in question were being donated to the Smithsonian's Gem and Mineral Collection by gemologist Robert Kane of Fine Gems International in Helena, Montana, which has the largest selection of Montana sapphires in the world." There's a passive voice here which could be addressed by placing the subject, verb, and noun in better order. Something like "Gemologist Robert Kane of Fine Gems International, which has the largest selection of Montana sapphires in the world, donated these gems to the Smithsonian's Gem and Mineral Collection." Is that better?
 * So changed. Pumpkin Sky   talk  15:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Very nice. ✅. Jessemv (talk) 21:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The article has some good potential, but there are some stumbling blocks that I think are holding it back. This is my first GA review. I hope what I have listed helps with improving the article. Getting it to Good Article criteria takes significant work, and I wish you best of luck. Jessemv (talk) 01:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I just noticed the banner at the top of the Talk page changed when I saved my review, and it said that it was up to the first reviewer (me) to pass the article. Over the next week or two, I don't believe I'll have enough time to follow up, so I'll need someone else to do that. Sorry for any confusion this generated. Jessemv (talk) 02:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC) Correction, I'll do my best to follow through, now that I've started this. Once again, I apologize for this apparently uncouth statement. I do still welcome further reviewers. Jessemv (talk) 04:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm impressed at the speed in which these issues were addressed. Thank you very much; the article is looking much nicer now. Here's the results from my re-read, and the test of the GA criteria:


 * It does contains appropriate images, which have proper licenses and captions. However, there are several images that seem pretty blurry, and I'd recommend you try to get ones that are cleaner. For example, why in File:Point-19 carat diamond cut blue Yogo sapphireCROP.jpg does the camera's focus drop so quickly? Surely there's an image of the entire sapphire. The image of a "one-carat Yogo sapphire" on a pedestal would be much better if it wasn't "taken with blurry cell phone camera". And the last image of the blue shallow sapphire could be better, as I'm not positive what I'm actually looking at. See How to improve image quality. Now, I don't see the GA criteria specifically stating that the images have to be clean and crystal clear, so I'm debating about whether this holds back the article from GA or not. I guess they're not as "illustrative" as they could be. I'll research policy a bit more, but in the meantime I advise you to improve their quality.
 * Now you're being really excessive picky. Blurry pics won't even stop something from being FA. Pumpkin Sky   talk  21:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Besides while free sapphire photos aren't hard to find, free YOGO sapphire photos are VERY rare. Pumpkin Sky   talk  21:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * In light of this and your statement below, I've reconsidered and this is ✅ Jessemv (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The article is factually accurate and verifiable and as far as I can tell does not contain original research, so that passes. It's broad in its coverage, neutral, stable, and maintains proper summary style without going into unnecessary details, so that works as well.


 * I do have a few additional issues with the text, but they are pretty minor now.
 * A FEW? Call a spade a spade. It's NOT a few, but I'll get working on them. Pumpkin Sky   talk  21:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Location section: "The Yogo area to the west." What? Insert a missing "is", but perhaps its better to connect it to another sentence. What is "Yogo area"? The mine itself?
 * copyedited. Pumpkin Sky   talk  21:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Jessemv (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Minerology section: "... other than blue, almost always purple,[14] very rarely reddish." How about "other than blue: almost always purple, and very rarely reddish.[14]"?
 * Changed. Pumpkin Sky   talk  21:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Jessemv (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Minerology section: "The largest cut Yogo is a 10.2 carat gem held by the Smithsonian Institution." The paragraph talks about how fine they are, describes how large Yogos are rare and expensive, details their color, and then ends with a statement which complements the size descriptions again. Perhaps this sentence better belongs earlier in the paragraph, or change the order of the sentences in another way. I'm hoping I'm not stepping into FA text requirements, but I'm just trying to say that the organization in this paragraph could be a bit better.
 * Moved before, forgot to comment here. Pumpkin Sky   talk  00:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. ✅ Jessemv (talk) 00:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Mining history: "Nonetheless, sapphire mining at Yogo Gulch began in 1895[19] when someone finally thought to investigate the nature of the "blue pebbles." If the citation covers the entire sentence, it should be placed at the end. If the citation does not cover the end of the sentence, it would probably be best to apply after the period the citation that does.
 * SOmeone else did that because I never put refs in the middle like that. Moved. Pumpkin Sky  talk  21:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Jessemv (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Mining history: "western portion of the Yogo dike; areas Hoover had" I believe a colon is better here, since the two clauses aren't independent.
 * Swapped. Pumpkin Sky   talk  21:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)...Changed my mind, a : is not correct.  Pumpkin Sky   talk  22:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I still think a colon is better. The latter clause further explains the first. See Colon (punctuation). Jessemv (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Changed. Pumpkin Sky   talk  00:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. ✅ Jessemv (talk) 00:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Mining history: "Like so many other Yogo ventures," The word "many" again. Try "Similar to the previous Yogo ventures,"
 * Changed. Pumpkin Sky   talk  21:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Jessemv (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Mining history: "Baron organized some German and Thai gemcutters". The word "some". I believe you can remove that word entirely without changing the meaning of the sentence.
 * Cut. Pumpkin Sky   talk  21:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Jessemv (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "when Herman Yaras bought it for $585.000." Shouldn't this be "$585,000."? I'm assuming the period should be changed to a comma.
 * Fixed. Pumpkin Sky   talk  22:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Jessemv (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "Yaras was from Oxnard, California." Unnecessary detail? If not I'd recommend merging it with another sentence, as I was initially confused by "Yaras' firm was called Sapphire Village, Inc. Yaras was from Oxnard, California." since the sentence break wasn't obvious at first.
 * Not excessive. Shows interest from California, a state most Montanans detest. Tweaked this. Pumpkin Sky   talk  22:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * All right. Much better now. ✅ Jessemv (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * ""Mining" on these homesites was limited to hand tools." I don't see why its important to put this in quotes, because it seems like it's a scare quote.
 * Fixed. Pumpkin Sky   talk  22:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Jessemv (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "due to the world wide oil crises" The word is just "worldwide"
 * Fixed. Pumpkin Sky   talk  22:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Jessemv (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "the whole specturm of the business" Typo.
 * Fixed. Pumpkin Sky   talk  22:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Jessemv (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "Brown discovered he could get the best gemcutters for the best price, who were also willing to improve their skills, in Thailand. This is where American Yogo Sapphire Limited set up its network of cutters." Perhaps "Brown discovered quality gemcutters in Thailand who were willing to improve their skills, and accordingly set up the American Yogo Sapphire Company at that location."
 * Changed. Pumpkin Sky   talk  22:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Jessemv (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I recommend interspersing the appropriate citations throughout the "Kunisaki then put his mine up for sale, asking $6 million to recoup his expenses." paragraph.
 * Completed. Pumpkin Sky   talk  22:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Jessemv (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "which contained a lot of dirt." Perhaps just remove this, and replace it with "However," to join it with the next sentence.
 * Reworded. Pumpkin Sky  talk  22:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There's now a long run-on sentence. Try just "... purchased Citibank's four sealed bags of Yogo material. However, only one of the bags was truly valuable." This way, the fact that dirt isn't valuable is implied as well. Jessemv (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Pumpkin Sky  talk  23:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed so. ✅ Jessemv (talk) 00:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "using methods such as recycling all water and not using chemicals." Water is a chemical, so try another word. See Dihydrogen monoxide hoax.
 * Yea, but most don't think of it as one. Inserted "other". Pumpkin Sky   talk  22:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Works. ✅ Jessemv (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "Most are from the Rock Creek deposit." Most is a weasel word. How many? Perhaps insert this back into a previous sentence, such as the "He provided 333 Montana sapphires weighing 27.97 carats along with 98.48 grams of 18K yellow gold for the project." If this is done, of course remove the "however" in "The largest one, however, is a blue Yogo..."
 * Not all Montana sapphires (non-Yogo) are from Rock Creek. As the article says, there are others. This let people know which one. I'll say majority. Pumpkin Sky   talk  22:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This works much better. ✅ Jessemv (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "...Montana gold. In 1952 Gadsden gave cut Yogos..." Try inserting "Then", since you have two adjacent "In [year], ..." sentences.
 * Inserted. Pumpkin Sky   talk  22:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Jessemv (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Now, these issues are relatively minor. Overall, the article is put together well, and I congratulate you on your efforts. The text issues I've suggested will simply improve readability and the quality of the text, but the information is already there. Provided they are taken care of, I should have no problem passing the article for GA. Jessemv (talk) 21:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Jesse, I am going to review recent edits and put in changes I think need to happen. I have a few concerns about your review and do not concur that all of your recommendations are correct or necessary. First, I am going to recommend that you not nitpick punctuation, particularly when you are not correct (as in your suggestion that a colon is better than a semicolon; the semicolon was proper in that instance, though there are multiple ways that sentence could be punctuated). There are numerous ways to do things, and there is a place for stylistic differences. Also, on a GA-class article, the criteria is not as stringent as for FA, and you need to back off a little and let the editors do their job. Second, you are not understanding the purpose of "weasel" words ... sometimes these indefinite terms are needed because that is what the sources themselves say, they give us no more, we are stuck with "some, many, most, and few." Not all topics have the benefit of access to scientific studies or opinion polling. Thus the mere presence of an indefinite term does not mean it violates WP guidelines. Third, while the detail here may in places need to be tightened up a bit and the prose made a bit more "sparkling" (as the WP guidelines suggest) these sections do not present undue weight, they are needed because the history of the gem and the mining activities are crucial to the topic and covered nowhere else. And fourth, as for the photographs, they are as good as we can get at the moment -- the problem is that we need free images, Yogos are hard to find, and so we basically have amateur photographers doing the job. We don't have expensive cameras with macro lenses -- gem photography is, as I just discovered personally, a challenge. I took one of the images in this article, here's how: on short notice I only had my cell phone camera handy to spontaneously get an image after sweet-talking a jeweler into taking his time to let me see a $5000 unset gem he knew I clearly was not going to purchase...! When I get my courage up, again, and have time, I am going to have to see if my regular digital camera is even capable of taking a marco image (It's a point and shoot with some macro capacity -- I'll have to practice on a ring I have at home or something) and if it is, I MIGHT be able to talk the nice jeweler into letting me photograph that gem again. He might say yes, he might not. Even then, the image might not be much better! Montanabw (talk) 22:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * All right. In the future I'll work on not being so picky about GA text requirements. When someone else GA reviews the article I'm working on, I know I would appreciate it if they really looked over the text and informed me as to how I could really hone it. Since there's no guarantee as to how quickly editing is going to happen after the GA passes, and I don't know what PumpkinSky's plans are, I thought I'd try to point out what I was having issues with. I understand FA has to have the best possible text, and I didn't think I was that good of a writer to analyzing the text that deep. I'm sorry if I caused offense there, as its clear that as the primary contributor PumpkinSky's put significant work into the article, and is motivated to improve it, so I thought I could help to that end. That way when it passes GA we can really sit back and be proud of this fascinating article. But I've learned from my mistake and I'll try to avoid that there. As for your second issue, my understanding came from the weasel words article. I was just trying to reduce any possible confusion into what the statement actually said. Several Wikipedians have corrected me on my application of weasel words, so I thought it was a requirement that needed to be taken care of. After further review of this Manual of Style page, I see that they are words to watch for and avoid if possible, but you are correct, their presence shouldn't hold an article back. Thus, a suggestion like that would have been better outside of a GA review, I stand corrected here. PumpkinSky has addressed my issues with those long sections, so there's not a problem here anymore. Finally, thank you for explaining the situations with the gem images, I have a better understanding of how difficult it is to get a better photo. The images are adequate (abeit not optimal) so do work in the article. Improving the quality would be beneficial to the article and Wikipedia at large, so I wish you the best of luck with that. As stated above, I marked the images as fine. Jessemv (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Jesse, you did good, just went overboard a bit on a few things (weasels and photos). I'd gladly work with you again. Your copyedit ideas (reword this to that) were really good. Most people just say "your writing sucks, fix it" and don't tell you how. Pumpkin Sky   talk  23:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well thank you. I'll try to avoid going overboard on the weasel words and images, I'll think more on how I can handle those better next time. I'm glad you appreciated my copyediting ideas; I mean if I'm going to take the time to point out a specific issue I might as well take it one step further by offering some thoughts. As I've said before, this is my first GA review, so its been a very educational experience for me. Even though I'm wincing a bit at Montanabw jumping in and correcting me, I'll consider what she said for next time. Anyway, as of right now you've got two remaining issues left (both are from my re-read, near the top) and as soon as those are taken care of I'll be happy to pass it. Thank you for your hard work. Jessemv (talk) 00:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * He's a she. Pumpkin Sky   talk  00:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Once again, I stand corrected and apologize. Fixed. Jessemv (talk) 00:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Aw, heck, ya did good kid! Nice job!  Expecially for a first time!  A pleasure working with both of you on this.  Dreadstar  ☥   01:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds like we can now all hold hands and sing Kumbayah. I'm glad to see the good-faith tone here.  I sort of gave up on seeking GA status for articles because I got tired of being nitpicked to death, the last one I did on my own nom went OK, but I hadn't initiated one for almost two years due to my frustration with the process, I was mostly (like this case) supporting others' leads.  For future use, I think there is a "on review" tag (purple in color) rather than an "on hold" tag that sometimes is a bit milder but keeps the article in the queue and open to improvements.  Sometimes, it's a good idea to start with general suggestions, like "section X is a bit wordy, you may want to review it and tighten up the language," or "I think you have too many run-on sentences (or too many short, choppy sentences), can you take a look at that?" Just some thoughts.     Montanabw (talk) 01:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm happy now ;-) As for me, I liked the specific copy editing suggestions because I'm not that good at copy editing. Pumpkin Sky   talk  01:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry for your bad experiences there Montanabw. Not sure if I'll regret saying this later, but I'm looking forward to being nitpicked, since when I get Folding@home up to GA I'll probably take a Wikibreak, and I want to do so that knowing that I left behind a quality piece of work, with 500-600 views per day, and no regrets of "well I COULD have done this..." Actually, I started this whole thing because I believe I'm good with copy editing, but its nice to carry it through. I'll keep that On Review tag idea in mind; I didn't see it under Good article nominations. Now that I know a bit more about how GA Reviews go, perhaps I'll do more. Apparently there's quite a backlog. :D Thanks to both of you. Jessemv (talk) 02:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)