Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chetro Ketl/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 07:33, 8 August 2015 [1].

---

Chetro Ketl

Nominator(s): RO^(talk) 17:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

This article is about one of the largest Ancestral Puebloan great houses in Chaco Culture National Historical Park. It was recently the subject of a two-month-long peer review, where eleven editors commented, including several of our most prolific and respected writers. One of the world's leading Chaco scholars and Chetro Ketl experts, Stephen H. Lekson, was kind enough to vet the article and give me notes via google docs. He said it was "great" and an "excellent" presentation of a complicated topic. Having benefitted from substantial input from others, I believe this article meets or exceeds the FA criteria. RO^(talk) 17:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Image review by Nikkimaria

• Maps and diagrams could generally stand to be a bit larger

I'm not sure what to do about this one, because several people have told me to not mess with images sizes. RO^(talk) 19:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Generally that is true - you should not fix a px size without good reason. However, MOS:IMAGES#Size explicitly allows for increased image size for "images containing important detail (for example, a map, diagram, or chart)". You could also play around with using the upright parameter to scale sizes. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• Alt text should be concise but accurate — for example, File:Chetro Ketl overlook.jpg is not a black-and-white image

Oops. Thanks for that. RO^(talk) 19:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• File:Ancestral_Puebloan_territory.svg: what data source was used to create this map?

I'm really not sure, but it looks pretty accurate to me. RO^(talk) 19:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

That's fine, but we do need it to be verifiable...Nikkimaria (talk) 21:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• Where appropriate, it's preferable to use the more specific NPS tag rather than the general USGov - the former links to their particular copyright policy

Will do. RO^(talk) 19:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• File:Chacoan_turquoise_pendant.jpg: is a more direct source link available? Same with File:Sandal-12thcentury_ChacoCanyon_NM_USA.jpg, File:Bowl_Chaco_Culture_NM_USA.jpg, File:Jar_Chaco_Anasazi_Obelisk_Grayware.jpg. File:Chaco_Anasazi_abajo_black-on-orange_trade_ware_NPS.jpg

I'm not sure how to answer this one. Maybe We hope can lend some assistance. RO^(talk) 19:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• File:Bowl_Chaco_Culture_NM_USA.jpg: because US does not have freedom of panorama for objects, we need to explicitly account for the item's copyright status as well as the photo's. Same with File:Chaco_Anasazi_abajo_black-on-orange_trade_ware_NPS.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:22, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to answer this one. Maybe We hope can lend some assistance. RO^(talk) 19:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Because of the age of the items, pretty much any age-based tag would work - pre-1923, life+100, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Added "old-100" tags to these photos. We hope (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I've just added direct links to the photos and their descriptions for all items from the NPS Museum photo gallery that are in the article. The photos were taken by the National Park Service. The dating of these objects is included on their gallery pages. They all seem to be 13th century or before. We hope (talk) 20:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, We hope! RO^(talk) 20:48, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Support from Jimfbleak, Brianboulton, and Jaguar

• Support My few concerns were addressed at PR Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support Echoing Jim, above: a most impressively researched article. Brianboulton (talk) 20:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support Before looking at this FAC I had the intention of leaving another review here, but after reading through this again I see that there isn't any need. This is an amazingly comprehensive article! JAGUAR  21:05, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the support everyone! RO^(talk) 17:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments and support from Mirokado

I also looked at this during the PR. It is a very well presented and thorough article. Just a few further comments:

• Timber
  • species of tree: perhaps "tree species" would be better?
• McElmo
  • McElmo black-on-white pottery, McElmo Black-on-white pottery: please decide on a consistent capitalisation (in this section and an image caption)
  • While McElmo Black-on-white pottery was abundant in later contexts at Chetro Ketl, the problematic McElmo style masonry was used in several later additions to the building, including very characteristic Chaco-style kivas. R. Gwinn Vivian (son of Gordon Vivian) notes, "The jury is still out on this question, a problem that poses intriguing possibilities for future work.": I haven't understood from this what is being contrasted by "while" and what the question or problem is...
• Abandonment
  • Chetro Ketl's great kiva might have been remodeled and used well after 1140: "may", since "might" would imply a following "but". After noticing this I looked at other occurrences of "might have been" and I think "may have been" would probably be better for all of them ("may" if scholars think something but there is no direct proof, "might" if it is a possibility but we go on to explain why it is unlikely).
• Rediscovery
  • Richard Kern: I suggest we refer to him as Richard H. Kern (see File:ZuniPueblo1850.jpg), since our article Richard Kern is about someone else.
• Excavation
  • reverse stratigraphy: I have wikilinked reverse stratigraphy (and added a general reference to that article, but it is still poorly referenced). There can be various causes. Can you add a brief explanation of the origin of the reversal in this case (flooding, mound collapse, previous excavations, ...)?
  • Twined sandals have also been recovered there.^[107] Bones from the ferruginous hawk and the great horned owl have been found at Chetro Ketl.^[108]: Perhaps combine these two sentences for better reading: "Twined sandals^[107] and bones from the ferruginous hawk and the great horned owl^[108] have been found on the site."
• Purpose
  • In-text attribution for the quote "confirming their affiliation with the larger ritual alliance" (presumably James Judge)?
• General comments:
  • I imagine you have already tried to track down Kern's lithographs? Incidentally, looking at File:Narbona 1849.jpg, it's a great shame he never met Irataba!
    • Yup. He did some nice work alright. I haven't come across anything pertaining to Chetro Ketl, but if I do I'll try and find a way to include it. RO^(talk) 17:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Are there any particular museums with collections from Chetro Ketl? If so it would be worth mentioning them.

--Mirokado (talk) 02:26, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

These are some great comments Mirokado. Thanks for the review! I addressed most of the points with this edit: ([2]), and expanded on the topic of reverse stratigraphy here: ([3]). I've made this edit regarding the Chetro Ketl artifacts and their present whereabouts: ([4]), which sadly explains that "one of the great archaeological mysteries of the Southwest ... [is] the almost total disappearance of the Chetro Ketl materials". Please let me know if I've missed anything. Thanks again! RO^(talk) 17:32, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the response and additions. All the above now sorted out (with one further copyedit taken from McElmo Phase).

• One final question: where does the name McElmo come from? The origin is not mentioned here, not in McElmo Phase. We need a brief explanation here, I think.

This is an easy one to answer, but a difficult one to source. McElmo refers to a creek and canyon near Mesa Verde (see: File:McElmo Creek.JPG). The problem is that RSs tend to say it's derived from the Mesa Verde region, but not the specific creek and canyon. I'll keep looking for something explicit, but I've looked at five sources this morning that all say the same general thing. The term was coined by Vivian and Matthews in Kin Kletso: A Pueblo III community in Chaco Canyon, New Mexico (1965), but I can't find a free copy of it online, and I'm reluctant to spend money on this for one point that is quite possibly a misnomer in the first place. RO^(talk) 17:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I am very happy to support this article. --Mirokado (talk) 00:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! RO^(talk) 17:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Support from Dr. Blofeld and Wehwalt

• Support I was the one who promoted this to GA during RO's absence a while back but I only had to make minor edits. Not enough to consider myself a co-contributor anyway. I found very little fault with it, and thought it read like the work of a scholar and had FA potential. I'm even more certain of it by the fact that an expert has been consulted to take a look at it and is impressed with the quality of it. I think this really illustrates what a great editor RO is. Excellent job. My only minor quibble is that I don't like the current main black and white image. Even when I click it I can barely see anything I'd prefer a better quality colour one for the main image like File:Chetro_Ketl_overlook.jpg, but I can see why you switched it to cover the site from above.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Dr.B! I basically agree about the lead image, but I worried that because the other one was flipped upside down compared to the site map it might confuse rather than enlighten. Maybe I can save some money and next year fork out for a helicopter ride and a much better camera! I've made a request at the graphics lab ([5]), so hopefully they can improve that black and white aerial. RO^(talk) 19:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually I think it would be possible to obtain a grant from wikimedia to cover that. Ask them to fund a trip which also covers some of the poorly photographed areas and tell them you'll take several hundred photographs to benefit the project.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

That's an interesting idea. RO^(talk) 16:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support My concerns were answered at the peer review.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:35, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Wehwalt! RO^(talk) 16:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Maunus

The article is really impressive, and has improved a lot since the peer review. I haven't had a chance to check the new material or read upon any new sources used, and I probably won't be able to before the review ends. My one reservation at the peer review is the way the Mesoamerican connection is presented in the Collonade section, which I still think is not optimal. It presents the argument in a muddled way, by not tracing adequately the chain of evidence and associations: the argument goes 1. Chetro Ketl has a collonade, 2. Tula, Hidalgo the center of the Toltec realm has a collonade (Toltec = people from Tula). 3. Tula style collonades are seen as suggestive of some kind of influence of the Toltec culture. 4. Tula is considered to have been the center of an expansion of a Quetzalcoatl cult. 5. Maybe then it was the quetzalcoatl cult that inspired the colonnade at Chetro ketl (as opposed to for example conquest y Toltecs). The argument here is presented backwards by posing the last link in the chain of the argument first and without making the reasoning explicit. At some points I find the prose a little off putting, especially the use of direct quotes where I think they are unnecessary. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC) Thanks for your support, Maunus. I left a more detailed reply at talk: ([6]). RO(talk) 00:22, 15 July 2015 (UTC) I have witrhdrawn my support.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:02, 15 July 2015 (UTC) How embarrassing. RO(talk) 17:15, 15 July 2015 (UTC) Yes, not having read the new material in detail, I gave the support as a show of good faith. Good faith which I no longer have, given your insistence in being combative, misrepresenting others' arguments on talk, using personal communication as a source and an argument from authority, and demonstrating poor understanding of the very sources you are using. I shouldnt support articles on good faith alone, and I will not make that mistake again.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:02, 15 July 2015 (UTC) The Toltecs are no longer mentioned in the article, so Maunus' above concern is resolved. I will say that Lekson gave me notes on the entire article and had no issue with my handling of the Mesoamerican issue. After bringing Maunus' comments to his attention he responded with: "I'm not sure I get the point of the criticism ... Maybe get rid of Di Peso/Vivian? He's not adding anything to what Ferdon said, and that sentence introduced Tula, which is a bit of a red herring; get rid of "Tula, Hidalgo" in the last sentence, too. There were colonnades all over Mesoamerica in the PostClassic." Which seems to refute Maunus' assertion: Tula style collonades are seen as suggestive of some kind of influence of the Toltec culture RO(talk) 18:21, 15 July 2015 (UTC) Yes, I think everyone is now aware that I said those things. Those who have read Lekson et al. 2007 will also be aware that the statements are correct. My concerns about the section have never been about the factual accuracy but about coherently and meaningfully representing it instead of representing disjoint bits and pieces of an argument. The section still does not do that since it now merely states that scholars have seen signs of Mesoamerican influence without explaining what those signs are and why they are considered to be so. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:19, 15 July 2015 (UTC) The signs that pertain to Chetro Ketl are the tower kiva and colonnade, both of which are mentioned in the proper context ([7]). RO(talk) 19:22, 15 July 2015 (UTC) And for the record my own personal communication with Professor Lekson (which I believe he will forward to you shortly) suggests that contrary to your claims we are in fact in substantial agreement.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC) Yes. I've seen it and I asked Lekson if we can post his response in its entirety to talk, so there's no confusion about what's been said. RO(talk) 19:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley

• Support – A most impressive piece of work, both scholarly (as far as a layman can judge) and readable. It has been further polished since I had the pleasure of reviewing it for GAN. The sources are broad and well cited, the balance of the article strikes me as well judged and the images are admirable. Happy to add my support. Tim riley talk 18:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Tim! I put the better part of four months into this, and I wanted to do the very best I could. Editors like you make the tremendous effort needed to get an article to this level seem worth it. Thanks for your encouragement and advice at the PR and here! RO^(talk) 18:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Support from Ssven2

• Support – Really impressive article, RO! — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 10:56, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Ssven2! RO^(talk) 15:46, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Coord note

Have we had a source review for formatting/reliability? Also I think this might be RO's first solo FAC if promoted, in which case I'd like to see a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Tks Squeamish for source review below, I think we just need a spotcheck of a few sources now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:13, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Review and support by Squeamish Ossifrage

It's nice to be back on the project, and I'm happy to return to my FAC reviewing work by looking at this excellent, (nearly) comprehensive piece. Chaco Canyon is amazing, and I'm happy to see an article about part of it here. This review focuses on sourcing comprehensiveness and reference formatting. I did not perform a thorough prose review.

Resolved concerns

Content: In the Timber subsection of Construction, the implication is that timber was transported from long distances solely due to local resource depletion, and precise sourcing for timber for the Chaco great house construction is not given. However, this paper uses radioisotope analysis to make more precise claims about the origin of timber used in Chaco Canyon construction; it's a more recent study that the ones you cite, and is one of the few important works I think this article overlooks. Happily, it's freely available! Awesome suggestion. Thanks for catching the omission, and double thanks for doing some research to aid in the improvement of the article. I'll get to this by the end of the weekend, but I have big plans for tonight. RO(talk) 22:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC) I added some text from that source: ([8]). Thanks again for providing it here. RO(talk) 19:52, 25 July 2015 (UTC) In the last section, Artifacts and deterioration, I might alter the causes of degradation to "Treasure hunting, livestock grazing, and 'early National Park Service stabilization efforts" (emphasis mine) to distinguish problematic period work from modern conservation efforts. Speaking of which, a hit against comprehensiveness comes from the lack of discussion of recent efforts, including partial reburying. There are a variety of sources that discuss this process; this one is not freely available but is probably the most direct coverage. The techniques pioneered in the Chetro Ketl reburial project have been used elsewhere in the southwest (as discussed in this paper), so this is quite a relevant topic. Another fantastic point. I'll add some text this weekend and ping you when there's something to look at. RO(talk) 22:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC) I added some text to address this point ([9]). RO(talk) 20:30, 25 July 2015 (UTC) Notes: Note i: Regarding the conch species, Species 2000 has reassigned it to Lobatus; the National Center for Biotechnology Information database still places it in Strombus. I'd follow the lead of our article on the conch itself and link to it under the Lobatus name (rather than piping), but I'm not sure there's a policy requirement. Regardless, binomial names need to be italicized. Done References: I'm better at checking template minutiae with the cite family of templates than with citation. Call it an anti-comma bias. Regardless, the same template was used throughout, so I'll largely assume it was done correctly unless something jumps out at me. I'm still not back my previous level of availability, so have not performed spotchecks for close paraphrasing. Regarding the various Reports of the Chaco Center: First off, for The Architecture and Dendrochronology of Chetro Ketl (Report #6) you link directly to the pdf, while for most of the rest of them you link to an archive accession page. Report #1 has no links given at all. Unless there's something prohibiting doing so, or a compelling reason to the alternative, you should probably link all of them to the pdf; that (and not the databse record) is the source, after all. Sadly, the Chaco Research Archive does not include a link to #1. RO(talk) 22:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC) Second, the "Reports of the Chaco Center, Number #" are not formally part of the titles as library science considers them. "Reports of the Chaco Center" should be moved to the |series field and the number to the |volume field throughout to properly match how OCLC and other library databases stlye these works. The public-domain template probably should also be edited to remove the series/volume information also. Because it's vaguely confusing, I'll confirm that Excavations at 29SJ 627, Chaco Canyon, New Mexico: Volume II. The artifact analyses (note the colon) is the actual title of report #11. Fixed/done Additionally, these should all have OCLC numbers since they were not issued ISBNs. #1 (Lyons) is OCLC 3907525. #3 (Powers, Gillespie, and Lekson) is OCLC 9416843. #6 (Lekson) is OCLC 10366311. #8 (Judge and Schelberg) is OCLC 11711668. #9 (Atkins) is OCLC 14755644. #11 (Mathien) is OCLC 28760356. Thanks for providing them here. That helped a lot! RO(talk) 22:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC) Similar issues apply to Great Pueblo Architecture of Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. I would link the pdf rather than the accession page. Its OCLC number is 15296586 (although the 1986 reprint was assigned an ISBN number, that's not the edition you're citing, so go with this). Likewise Culture and Ecology of Chaco Canyon and the San Juan Basin, which is OCLC 61717732. Thanks for providing them here. That helped a lot! RO(talk) 22:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC) The Architecture of Chaco Canyon, New Mexico should have its series title moved to the |series field. Done The Vivian and Reiter book source should have its title given in Title Case. Done The 2006 Lekson source should probably have its edition field changed to |edition=1st; Likewise, the Vivian and Hilper source to |edition=2nd. Fixed These generally minor topics aside, this is excellent work. Conditional on reference formatting cleanup and inclusion of more recent timber research and some coverage of modern conservation, I am pleased to support promotion to FA status. Nicely done, RO. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

That was a kick ass review, and thanks for your support, Squeamish Ossifrage! I'll deal with all these concerns by Monday morning, maybe sooner. RO^(talk) 22:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Squeamish Ossifrage, I've applied your advice with these edits: ([10]). If I missed anything, please let me know. Thanks again for taking a look and providing these helpful suggestions! RO^(talk) 20:30, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Glad I could be of assistance. All of my concerns have been neatly resolved. I look forward to seeing this with the bronze star. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Support by RHM22

Support (I also made a small contribution to the peer review, for the record.) First of all, I apologize for taking so long to get to this! As you might have guessed, I haven't been very active lately; this time of the year is busy for me and I don't get as much time as I would like to undertake work here on Wikipedia.

Overall, this is a very well-written article and quite informative. As an utter layman in the area of native architecture, I found this informative and easy to understand. I made a few minor changes, which you should feel free to alter or revert at your whim if I have made any mistakes or introduced any inconsistencies. Although I think this is generally up to snuff, I do have some minor considerations. (I don't care for the use of external links in the body of an article, but I believe that is widely accepted now.)

• Masonry: "Chacoan masons also frequently included intramural beams, horizontal logs completely enclosed in the wall core, which were probably intended to reduce horizontal deformation of the wall." I assume that the portion that I've italicized here is a parenthetical meant to describe the intramural beams. If that's correct, I would suggest using some other method instead of commas, which almost make it seem like you're running through a list of things the Chacoans frequently used. Maybe a pair of em dashes would do the trick.
• Phases: I'm not a grammar expert, so maybe someone who is could be of some help here, regarding this sentence: "Archeologists subsequently discovered that her second period (1030–90) structure was built directly over an earlier (990/1000–30) one-story tall, two-room wide row of rooms." It seems to me that "one-story tall" and "two-room wide" would be incorrect. I would probably hyphenate all three words, like "two-room-wide", since they all form the adjective, but others might disagree. I would welcome opinions about that.
• McElmo: This seems to be intentional, but why is "Black-on-white" capitalized as such? Is that a proper name of some type?

"Black-on-white" is capitalized in almost every, if not every, source I consulted. I agree that it looks a little odd, but I think this is the accepted form as a proper name of this specific type. RO^(talk) 15:49, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• Excavation: "In 1937, W.W. Postlewaite..." I believe it is preferable to include a space after each period in the initials of someone's name.

That's all I've got! It looks quite good overall, so even considering the minor quibbles above, I think this is perfectly suitable to be a featured article.-RHM22 (talk) 03:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your review and support, RHM22. I agree with your edits, and I've made the suggested changes ([11]). RO^(talk) 15:49, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Spotchecks by Nikkimaria

• Some of the pagination from the NPS survey appears to be incorrect. For example, FN188 is to page 7, but the "pace of dissolution" quote appears on page 6

You're right. Thanks for correcting me. That's on page 6, not 7. RO^(talk) 23:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Still seeing errors with regards to pagination — for example, the "decimated ponderosa pine stands" quote is actually on p. 207, not 205. Can you do a bit more checking in this regard? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

• "In 1982 Robert Powers theorized that the road network "suggests an intercommunity organization and settlement system of regional extent".[173]" - can't find this in cited source

I had that sourced to Powers 1984, but it's in Powers et al. 1983. RO^(talk) 00:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

• "Because "Chaco Canyon is the convergence point of all presently documented extra-canyon roads", the area might represent a locus of regional control, or "the apex of the hierarchical system".[174]" - don't see this either. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

The PDF pages and the source material pages are different. In Powers, page 32 of the report is page 44 of the PDF. RO^(talk) 23:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I had that sourced to Powers 1984, but it's in Powers et al. 1983. Sorry about that. Thanks for taking a look. RO^(talk) 00:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

These are fixed now. RO^(talk) 00:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, I've gone through the entire article top to bottom and double checked each and every ref: ([12]). The pagination and links to sources are now all accurate and correct. RO^(talk) 21:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. One final thought: I think it might make more sense to leave the "resource depletion ... distance, and time" quote as it appears in the original - to me the omission of "with" doesn't improve the meaning. But as far as spotchecks go this is fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:46, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Fixed: ([13]. Thanks for the spot check, Nikkimaria! You've been a great resource during this FAC and before, and I want you to know how much I appreciate all your hard work around here. RO^(talk) 15:37, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Support from John

I am happy to support this; I changed some date formatting from slashes to dashes which I believe is preferred. I also changed formatting of black and white/black-and-white/black on white/Black on white. Hyphenated forms are adjectival and I believe capitalisation should be minimised and used only for proper nouns. --John (talk) 09:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, John! RO^(talk) 15:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

• Question: As The Ancestral Puebloans were an ancient Native American culture, why do we talk about "Americans" discovering the buildings? They were built by Americans. Could we say European Americans or white Americans? I realise this is a sensitive area, but I think it is an important one to get right. --John (talk) 23:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I have no issue with that in general, John, but the way I read the rediscovery section it's clear that Navajo people were first to rediscover Chetro Ketl, then the New Mexicans via Vizcarra, and then American soldiers looking for Navajo. "American exploration of the region" really means US exploration, so maybe that's the change that should be made. RO^(talk) 23:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

United States soldiers works for me. --John (talk) 00:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

But if we want to split hairs, the US soldiers looking for Navajo were led by Francisco Hosta, a Native American, and the Kern brothers were civilians. RO^(talk) 00:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I wouldn't want to overdo it. Does this work for you? -John (talk) 10:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Works for me. Thanks, John! RO^(talk) 16:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 07:33, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.