Wikipedia:Peer review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:Peer Review)
Jump to: navigation, search
"WP:Review" redirects here. It is not to be confused with WP:Reviewing.
Main Current Instructions Discussion Tools Archive
Shortcut:
This page is about editorial review of specific articles. For off-Wiki review of Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:External peer review. For pending changes, see Wikipedia:Reviewers.
"WP:PR" redirects here. For the Public Relations FAQ, see Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations. For information on Wikipedia press releases, see Wikipedia:Press releases. For patrolled revisions, see Wikipedia:Patrolled revisions.
PR icon.png

Wikipedia's peer review process is a way to receive ideas and feedback from other editors about articles. An article may be nominated by any user, and will appear on the list of all peer reviews. Other users can comment on the review. Peer review may be used for potential good article nominations, potential featured article candidates, or an article of any "grade". Peer review is a useful place to centralise a review from other editors about an article, and may be associated with a WikiProject; and may also be a good place for new Wikipedians to receive feedback on how an article is looking.

Peer reviews are open to any feedback, and users requesting feedback may also request more specific feedback. Unlike formal nominations, editors and nominators may both edit articles during the discussion.

To request a review, or nominate an article for a review see the instructions page. Users are limited to requesting one review at any one time, and are encouraged to help reduce the backlog by commenting on other articles. Any user may comment on a review, and there is no requirement that any comments may be acted on.

A list of all current peer reviews, with reviewer's comments included, can be found here. For easier navigation, a list of peer reviews, without the reviews themselves included, can be found here. A chronological peer reviews list can be found here.

Contents

Arts[edit]

Irataba[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.


I've listed this article for peer review because I want additional input regarding the prose quality before relisting at FAC.

Thanks, Rationalobserver (talk) 17:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley[edit]

There doesn't seem to me to be much wrong with this article, and – though I know next to nothing about the subject – it strikes me as comprehensive, and is clearly well researched from good sources and thoroughly cited. A few minor points on prose:

  • "Goose-grease" – why the inverted commas? (incidentally, and wholly irrelevantly, in Britain, well into the 20th century, children of working-class families would be rubbed with goose fat before donning their undershirts, to keep them warm in the winter. Clearly versatile stuff, goose grease, though I imagine school classrooms may have been something of an olfactory challenge. But I digress.)
  • "In the opinion of author Kenneth M. Stewart", and "According to author Arthur Woodward" – I don't know that the plain "author" here tells the reader anything useful. Something like "historian", "biographer" etc puts the writer into a meaningful context, as you have done with "According to cultural anthropologist…" nearby in the text.
  • "near the explorer's camp" – plural possessive – explorers' – needed.
  • "saved many sheep that had fallen into the river using rafts they had constructed in preparation for the crossing" – I got into a tangle with this. Grammatically it says that the sheep had constructed the rafts, but, ignoring that, I cannot work out who in fact did construct them. If, as I suppose, it was Whipple and his group, I suggest something on the broad lines of, "saved many sheep that had fallen into the river from rafts built for the crossing by Whipple's team."
  • "however, as their supplies dwindled" – I'd lose the "however". Very often, as here I think, "however" adds nothing to the meaning and weakens the prose.
  • "they increasingly anticipated" – not quite clear of the import of this. If you mean they grew increasingly anxious for the arrival of supplies it would be clearer to phrase it thus or thus-ish.
  • "before departing company" – "before parting company" would be the usual way of phrasing this, I think.
  • "which seemed to appease them, many of whom…" – reads rather oddly. Perhaps "which seemed to appease them; many of them" – (a repetition of "them" I admit, but clearer I think).
  • "The group settled-in" – not sure you want the hyphen
  • "Depravation" is a word hitherto unknown to me, and I see from the Oxford English Dictionary it means "The action or fact of making or becoming depraved, bad, or corrupt; deterioration, degeneration". I think you may mean "depredation", but on the whole I'd keep things simple and change "no further depravations would occur" to "there would be no more attacks"
  • Homoseh quahote – this seems to be a name rather than a descriptive term, and if so shouldn't be in italics, I imagine.
  • References: not sure why some have what appear to be verbatim quotes from the sources (e.g. 7, 8, 45, 49 etc) and the rest don't. Works and page numbers would be ample here, in my view, and the presence of the extra stuff in these few refs makes its absence from the other refs look like omissions.

That's all from me. This is an informative and enjoyable article. I hope you will get other visitors to this peer review, and I may do a little (wholly proper) canvassing to that end. Please ping me when you go to FAC. – Tim riley talk 14:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much for this review, Tim riley! I have adopted all of your wonderful suggestions except the one pertaining to notes imbedded in some refs. Per WP:CITEBUNDLE, when you bundle two cites into one you should indicate with some kind of note which ref verifies which point. That's why I only have them in refs that are two of more bundled cites. I hope it looks less odd with that clarified. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Dr. Blofeld[edit]

My initial concern beginning to read this is that in places it reads like a general article on the Mohave and their customs, rather than the biography of an Indian chief. For instance:

"Mohave caught fish in the Colorado River and hunted game, such as rabbits and beaver, using a bow and arrow or traps.[3] In the spring, when the Colorado River flooded the bottomlands, they cultivated corn, watermelons, beans, gourds, tobacco, and pumpkins.[4] The Mohave lived in groups of houses along the riverbank, but eschewed centralized villages. During the winter, they lived in half-buried dwellings built with cottonwood logs and arrowweed covered in earth. In the summer they lived in open-air flat-roofed houses known as ramadas, which provided sufficient shade.[5] Mohave who enjoyed higher status would cover their body in goose fat to help alleviate the summer heat.[6]"

"In the opinion of the anthropologist Kenneth M. Stewart, the Mohave were fierce warriors who were frequently the aggressor, and although they did not plunder their enemy's possessions, they took prisoners and scalps. Mohave war parties, which regularly battled against the Chemehuevi, Paiute, and Maricopa peoples, utilized bowmen tasked with inflicting damage on an approaching group and keeping them distracted in preparation for melee attacks by warriors brandishing war clubs capable of crushing their opponent's skulls."

"In October 1857, an expedition led by Edward Fitzgerald Beale was tasked with establishing a trade route along the 35th parallel from Fort Smith, Arkansas to Los Angeles, California.[15] From Fort Smith, his journey continued through Fort Defiance, Arizona before crossing the Colorado River near Needles, California.[14] This route became known as Beale's Wagon Road and the location where Beale crossed the river, Beale's Crossing.[16] Beale's journal and subsequent report to the United States Secretary of War did not mention any problems with the Mohave; however, an assistant named Humphrey Stacy recorded that the Mohave had prevented Beale from traveling downriver.[17]"

I'm looking to learn about his early life and am seeing next to nothing about him. It looks like there's very little known about him and you're trying to pad it out. Some background might be relevant, but I think you really need to keep in mind it's a biography on him and keep the padding to a minimum. It needs to be cut and reworded I think to make it still seem like his biography instead of a general article on the Mohave. If there's really very little known about him then I'm not sure it is really worth taking to FAC, but if you're certain it's as comprehensive as can be then it might be worth it, I'd have to look into it more. What I would do is not worry about length and really cut out anything which is not really vital to his actual biography. I want to learn primarily about him, so having to read big paragraphs like those and not getting anything on him it's not doing its job. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:00, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

If you like RO I'll work on a sandbox version of it stripping it down with more central focus and then you can see what you think?♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The way I see it is, we can make these statements about how he and the Mohave lived to fill in the story of his life, which is about him. I think this is a pretty standard approach for similar attempts. It's what Scrivner did with his work. But maybe it's too much ethnography. If you are willing to work on that sandbox draft I'd love to see what you have in mind! Rationalobserver (talk) 22:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I think some background is relevant. But in parts it is the way it is worded which detracts from Irataba being the centre of focus which I think we need to avoid. You can cover some of the ethnic background without citing scholars views on them generally, you'd expect that it an article on the Mohave but not his bio. I'll try to give it a go tomorrow anyway in User:Dr. Blofeld/Irataba.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • It's not clear to me what Irataba's role in the Rose-Baley Party ordeal was. In fact there's a whole section there documenting it without mentioning him at all!♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree that there is too much detail now. It's such a pivotal moment in his life; I guess I over did it, then realized that it's really a decent topic in its own right. Rationalobserver (talk) 00:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
OK I've done some trimming and merging, it makes more sense now what happened. I agree that it's largely appropriate to document as it would have been a huge event for the Mohave people, including Irataba, even though he wasn't an assailant. I will see if I can further add to the article but in my opinion it's looking good now.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "In the opinion of Fulsom Charles Scrivner, the author of Mohave People (1970), whereas Cairook helped lead the attack on the Rose-Baley Party, "it appears that Irataba stayed clear of the fracas", arguing "if Irataba had taken an active part he would have offered himself as prisoner", as did Cairook" -if that's the case then it's not worth covering in so much detail if he wasn't even involved in it. At best a small paragraph I think.
I agree. Rationalobserver (talk) 00:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Actually in reading and editing the Fort Mohave section I think it's mostly all relevant. It's the Rose Party section which needs work now to try to establish his role in it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Do we know what "Aha macave yaltanack or hochoch" means?
It means "the leader made, or elected, by the people". Is that unclear? Rationalobserver (talk) 00:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Actually I think the description should cover it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The bottom two or three sections are excellent I think, largely because there's more information specifically about him in that era :-) If we can try to sort out the Rose Baley and Fort sections with more focus we should be really on track with this overall.♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:04, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your edits and insight, Dr.B. You've been really helpful! Rationalobserver (talk) 00:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
You might find something more from here Can you find anything more on Irataba and the Piutes. I think it seems to be particularly notable, He appears to have protected some of the Europeans from the Piutes. This source says that Irataba once said "'Let the men follow me. I'll go meet them. Let the women stay and burn all the crops and granaries and then go down-river for help.'" "With arrows and a few old shotguns they met the Piutes and fought them from willow thicket to ... That's all that I can pick up in the UK. Are you in the US? Perhaps Rosiestep could find something on Irataba and the Piutes.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:26, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
This is mentioned in Disgrace and Death. It's the battle at Cottonwood Island. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Can you tidy Refs 1, 48, 52, 63. 79 and put the notes in the notes section above?
I think those imbedded notes are required by WP:CITEBUNDLE. They differentiate which cite verifies which point so as to aid in verifiability. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I see you mean now; they were overly descriptive and repetitive, so I've tidied them up so as to not look like imbedded endnotes. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • If you got sources from Newspapers.com perhaps like the Weekly Arizona Miner article I found there. they need to all be attributed as such.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
The Weekly Arizona Miner quote comes from Woodward. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
The article looks fantastic! You've made some wonderful improvements, and I cannot thank you enough! Rationalobserver (talk) 16:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, hopefully this article will be given a fair look by others in coming days. It's a really worthy subject and an enjoyable one once you get into it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments by RHM22[edit]

As you may remember, I commented at the FAC, and I'm glad to see this at PR now. It seems to have improved by leaps and bounds so far. I have a few suggestions which I think will help improve the article. Keep in mind that I'm focusing on minutia, because that's what people at FAC will be looking for.

Lede:

  • Be sure to correctly hyphenate terms. For example, "European American" should be hyphenated when used as an adjective.
I'm not sure that's correct. Euro-Americans is usually hyphenated, but I don't think European American, Native American, or African American are. How can we check this? Rationalobserver (talk)
Well, many style guides recommend hyphenating ethnic titles (African American, etc) when using them as an adjective. For example: "African-American music is performed by African Americans." However, that's not universal; some don't hyphenate it at all, and others hyphenate it all the time. I'm not sure whether or not the MOS prescribes on method over the other. If not, I suppose it's mostly up to you.-RHM22 (talk) 17:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • A comma is always needed after "Washington, D.C.," unless it ends the sentence. A comma is also needed after other place names in the article. (example: John lives in a Boise, Idaho, apartment.)
Done. Thanks for that catch! Rationalobserver (talk) 16:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
That one is fixed, but I see a few more as well. A comma is always needed after the states, too, because it's considered a parenthetical. (Example: "The O'Possum family moved from Ireland to Knoxville, Tennessee, last year.")-RHM22 (talk) 17:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • You should probably when the Irataba Society was established, both here and in the body of the article.
I'm not certain. A newspaper source said 13th annual powwow in 1985, but I can't see anything which explicitly says 1972. If anything though you'd have thought 1974 on the centenary of his death.♦ Dr. Blofeld
Some nonprofit websites suggest that it was founded in 1970, but I'm not sure those are reliable enough to use in the article.-RHM22 (talk) 17:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Early life and background:

  • "...Irataba grew to be very tall, particularly for the 19th century...": Perhaps this could be reworded as "...Irataba grew to be very tall, particularly by 19th century standards..." or something similar. Also, his height should be given in metric as well, ideally using {{convert|6|ft|4|in|cm}}.
Yes I was planning on coverting, done anyway and reworded.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "According to the anthropologist Lorraine M. Sherer...": The definite article is not needed here, as this article should use American English. It reads a bit awkward in American English, in my opinion. The same is also repeated throughout the article. If you want to leave it as-is, I wouldn't fret over it.
I'm British, and spend a lot of time around Tim riley ;-) Changed that one anyway.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Quite so. Scrupulous English writers avoid the false title in formal prose, but being credibly assured that it's acceptable in American usage, I attempt to use it along with American spellings when writing about American subjects such as Cole Porter or Jerome Kern. When in Rome, you know… – Tim riley talk 10:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I thought this was an element of formal writing in general, as I've seen this lately in US publications. Is it permissible to use them in an AmEng article, or should we lose them? Rationalobserver (talk) 16:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
As stated by Tim and the Doctor, it's mostly mandated in formal British English, but not so in American English. However, it's not necessarily forbidden. My personal preference is to avoid it because it sounds awkward to me as a native American (not Native American!) English speaker.-RHM22 (talk) 17:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
For the sake of AmEng I took them out, but I might have missed a couple. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Contact with European Americans:

  • "...and other Mohave people encountered a large group...": Maybe reword "Mohave people" to "Mohaves." That's just personal preference, so feel free to ignore.
I think both are OK for variation, to avoid repetition.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Mohave is also acceptable as a plural form, as in "several Mohave joined Irataba at the river". Rationalobserver (talk) 16:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
It's not a big deal to me, so reword or leave as-is at will.-RHM22 (talk) 17:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "...territory of the Paiute to the Old Spanish Trail that would take them to southern California.." should be "...territory of the Paiute to the Old Spanish Trail, which would take them to southern California..." as it's a non-restrictive clause.
Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "...believed to have been the Yavapai.": I would suggest this, because the current wording could suggest that all of the Yavapai were involved. Maybe something like "...believed to have been members of the Yavapai trible." or something along those lines.
Reworded as suggested but made it more precise.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Travels:

  • Why is "civilized" misspelled here? Was that intentional, as a way of mocking his apparently unrefined English (perhaps as a Mark Twain reference?), or was it an error made by Irataba himself? If the former, I'd probably remove and reword it. If the latter, I'd add a {{sic}} tag or just fix the misspelling and remove the quote marks.
The source says "sivilised" with an s, intentional I think to mock how uncivilised they were I guess. What would you prefer?♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
While Irataba could speak some English, I don't think he could read or write, so this misspelling is likely intentional as Dr.B said. Still, if we leave a misspelled word in quotes we need a sic template. My vote would be to correct the spelling and remove the quotes, but the other way might have more rhetorical impact, but I'm not sure that impact is an honest one, as Dr, B said, it was likely done for effect, not accuracy. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I think that would be preferable here. If it were a handwritten note or message by Irataba himself, then I would suggest using the {{sic}} template, but since this is an author who seems to be using it as a humorous intentional misspelling, I would just omit it and use "civilized" in its place. In fact, I'd say that 'sic' is not really appropriate there anyway, since it suggests (to me) an unintentional misspelling.-RHM22 (talk) 17:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I've taken your advice and corrected the spelling while dropping the quotes. Thanks! Rationalobserver (talk) 22:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Disgrace and death

  • "To avoid "a fire in the rear"...": This conjures some unpleasant imagery, but could you explain what it means in-text? I have never heard this term, and I can't really determine its precise meaning from context.
I've heard it used in things with camps like that, but I think it's best removed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
It means he meant to avoid what westerners might call a two-front war. I've added that, but feel free to remove if it's still awkward. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
It looks much better now, in my opinion.-RHM22 (talk) 17:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "He ordered to his people from the island where he was captured, "Let the women stay and burn all the crops and granaries and then go down-river for help"..." This reads a bit strangely. Maybe "From the island on which he was captured, Irataba ordered his people to..." or something like that.
Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Why is it relevant that the Irataba Society held their thirteenth annual powwow in 1985? That seems a bit trivial and haphazard to me.
Well, it was to give some sort of idea of their customs and background. Actually the reason was in answer to your point above, to try to give the reader an idea of when it started, without being able to confirm it was 1972. Perhaps it would be better to say "The society hosts it annually in general?♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:18, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Since it was held annually, do you think it would be appropriate to say that they held their first annual powwow in 1973? I understand that your reference is for the thirteenth, but it would probably seem arbitrary to most readers.-RHM22 (talk) 17:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

That's all I see for now. I'm especially glad that you were able to source an actual photograph, which is a most welcome addition.-RHM22 (talk) 05:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Much appreciated RHM22, cheers.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a million for the wonderful review, RHM22. And thanks to Dr. Blofeld for fielding so many of these comments. It looks like these are largely resolved, but if we missed anything crucial please let us know. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Everything looks good to me, except for the commas after some of the place names, as I've elaborated above. It's an extremely common mistake, and one that I made consistently until being alerted to it earlier this year.-RHM22 (talk) 17:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for joining in the peer review. I'll take a look through for missing commas after place names, but I'll probably miss a few! Rationalobserver (talk) 17:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Jaguar[edit]

I'm just going to pick out any prose/presentation issues I see here, although this article has drastically improved since its GAN: Jaguar 19:34, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

  • I don't know if this could just be me and my strange display resolution but the infobox itself is appearing a little disproportionately wide in comparison to the lead
That's a little too technical for me. I thought they are standardized to your preferences. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
I understand, don't worry about it! Jaguar 21:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "Irataba was a great orator and one of the earliest Mohave to speak English" - could it sound better as one of the first? (if it's plausable)
Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "and in 1859 Fort Mohave was erected near the site of the battle" - when it first opened in 1859 it was known as Camp Colorado
Good point. I'll find a good cite for it and make the change. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:19, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "The Irataba Society, a non-profit charity run by the Colorado River Indian Tribes, was established in his name in Parker, Arizona" - when was it established? I feel that his legacy could be expanded a little in the lead in order to summairse the article fully
I can't seem to find this information, but I'll keep looking. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "She states that Irataba was "probably the first Mojave to learn English" - Mohave?
Those two spelling variations are equally acceptable. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "Having recently returned from Washington" - Washington, D.C.? Unless this would actually cause any confusion with the Washington state
Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Can some of the legacy content from the Disgrace and death section be mentioned in the lead? Especially the part where a venue in Parker was named after him
I'll look in to it. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Also, "was established in his name in Parker, Arizona" - can Parker itself be linked?
Linked. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Maunus[edit]

This is a great article that makes good use of the few extant sources. I think the balance between background and biography is fine. At first reading I noted the quote from John Penn Current in Gazlay's Pacific Monthly. I don't think Curry was a journalist, rather he was a soldier veteran of the Indian wars and author of a military manual used by both sides in the Civil War[1][2]. I think the inclusion of his piece is warranted but, being a primary source which is to my knowledge not cited in other works about Irataba (maybe Woodbury?) I think it should be used with some caution. There is a long tradition of Europeans using native characters as proxy voices for their own critiques of Western society — drawing on the nole savage stereotype. I do detect some of that in Curry's summary and particularly in the quote. Clearly Curry's errand is to advance a critique of urban US society of his time, and we don't know the amount of literary license he may have taken in reporting Irataba's words. I think it might be a good idea to hedge the quote a little to account for this, for example by saying that Curry reported that he had said, instead of accepting it at face value as a dirct quote. The best would be to find a secondary source mentioning Curry's mention. It would also be interesting to read more about how Irataba was portrayed in the media during his visit. Perhaps it would make sense to move the quote about his appearance (also with some rather strong racist overtones) to the travels section where it could exemplify the way New Yorkers saw him as a visitor. I also would suggest cropping the portrait of Beale, to not have the included frame and caption of which ever work it originally appeared. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for joining in the review, Maunus! I've distanced the quote a bit from Curry, who is now described more accurately, per your comments. I'm not sure about moving that description of his size because for one, it fits in with that last paragraph of that section, and two there isn't anymore room in the travels for a quote box. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I swapped out the pic of Beale for one of Whipple ([3]). Rationalobserver (talk) 23:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Maunus, I can't locate the Curry quote in any reliable sources other than the original. I did find this, but as a fictionalized account we should avoid it. I think Dr. Blofeld and I have included everything readily available about media reaction to Irataba, as we've both scrubbed google books and newspapers.com. If you can dig anything else up that would be great, but that aside, how do you feel about the issues you raised above? Rationalobserver (talk) 16:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
I am quite happy with what you have done so far.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Brianboulton[edit]

Late into the field. I apologise if some of my points have been raised in earlier reviews and answered there.

General prose point
  • Rather too much use made of "notes that" or "noted that", when referring to sources.
I think this is fixed now. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:05, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Lead
  • I found the third paragraph a little disorganised. I understand that Irataba helped various expeditions to pass through his territory, but it's not clear why the Whipple and Sitgreaves expeditions alone are mentioned by name; what distinguished them from others? Lorenzo Sitgreaves is not even mentioned in the main text. I think the phrase "explorarory expedition" is clumsy and probably tautologous – weren't all expeditions at the time exploratory? It is surprising, also, to see an atrocity such as the massacre of a family described as "controversial". I would certainly recommend you look at ways of reorganising this paragraph, with some appropriate rephrasing.
  • "Cairook's death in captivity": I understand from the text that he was killed trying to escape from captivity, which is not quite the same thing.
Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • When was the Irabata Society established? This should at least be mentioned in the main text.
We are still looking for a RS that states this. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I am not convinced that the lead does its proper job of summarising the whole article, with due weight given to the most importsnt aspects of Irabata's life. Relatively minor factors such as the Whipple and Sitgreaves expeditions, and the slave girls episode, don't deserve this much prominence in the lead.
Brianboulton, is this better? Rationalobserver (talk) 21:33, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Early life and background
  • "According to Leanne Hinton, an expert in American Indian linguistics at Berkeley.." – last two words unnecessary detail
Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Why isn't Bret Harte linked, and should he be described as "of The Overland Monthly, rather than "writing in The Overland Monthly?
Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "Edward Carlson, a soldier based at Fort Mohave who knew him well in the 1860s..." To whom does "him" refer? The last person mentioned is Cairook.
Fixed. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I believe these points have all been addressed. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Contact with European Americans
  • "Although Olive was forced to be given a chin tattoo..." This is very convoluted wording. I suggest "was forcibly tattooed on the chin".
Thanks and done. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "...let it be said they never offered the least unchaste absure to me" – "absure"? Never heard of this word; is it a typo for something else?
I'll check, but good catch. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
That was a typo. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "camping for a night" → "camping for the night"
Done. Rationalobserver (talk)
  • "they grew increasingly anxious about the arrival of the pack train from Fort Yuma." You write as though readers should be familiar with this pack train, but this is the first mention of it, and indeed of Fort Yuma.
I agree, and I think this is much better now. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I believe these points have all been addressed. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "ambushed by Paiutes aligned with Mormons" – what? Did Mormons ambush exploration parties? Sounds somewhat improbable.
Actually, the Mormons in this period were purposefully using Indian groups to create the image of a threat that their militias could be used to defend against - so not that unlikely. Sometimes Mormons even posed as Indians and attacked trails. Does seem to require a bit more explanation though.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:32, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I thought this note took care the background. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:45, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Rose-Baley Party skirmish and aftermath
  • ..."who were documented to have cried war whoops as they sent arrows flying into the camp". Unnecessary circumlocution: "who uttered war cries as they sent arrows flying into the camp".
Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "When news of the massacre reached the west..." The term "massacre" normally refers to the one-sided infliction of death in large numbers. Here, the presumed perpetrators of the massacre had twice as amny killed as the emigrants, so I don't think the term "massacre" is the most appropriate. "Attack" would better fit the circumstances.
Done and clarified. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Apart from that, what is meant by "the west" here? And presumably the fort was established after, not "when" news of the attack was received?
I've clarified this now; nice catch! Rationalobserver (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Fort Yuma should be linked at first, not second mention
Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "...translating from English to Spanish to Yuman and Mohave and vice versa" puts my head in a spin. If Yuman and Mohave were two distinct languages it should read "and to Mohave". Was there really no more direct way of rendering English to Mohave?
I'm not sure about that in truth, but it is accurate to the source. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "agree to never again harm" → "agree never again to harm"
Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "he ordered that a fort be built at Beale's Crossing to enforce the decree." I thought a fort had already been built there. See previous paragraph
Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "Many soldiers remained to begin construction on Fort Colorado " – is this the same fort?
Yes. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I still find the history relating to this fort confusong. Paragraph 3 reads: "When news of the attack reached California, the US War Department decided to establish a military fort at Beale's Crossing". The next paragraph begins: "Hoffman ... ordered that a fort be built at Beale's Crossing" – so you have Hoffman ordering the building of a fort that the War Department had already ordered should be built. And then later on, "Many soldiers remained to begin construction on Fort Colorado, which was renamed Fort Mohave soon afterward" – without mentioning that this was the Beale's Crossing fort. I suggest you delete the words "and he ordered that a fort be built at Beale's Crossing to enforce the decree" from the beginning of the paragraph, and amend further down: "Many soldiers remained to begin construction on the Beale's Crossing fort, which was named Fort Mohave". There's no real point in bringing the temporary Fort Colorado name in to the narrative. Brianboulton (talk) 13:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
I've made these recommended changes. Thanks a million for all the great input! Rationalobserver (talk) 16:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "five to eight hundred" seems a rather wide range of estimate
Changed to "several hundred". Rationalobserver (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "With a large army of Mohave warriors in his command, he quickly earned a reputation for more than just leadership." Can you explain what this means? How did his reputation extend beyond leadership?
That was bad grammar and not what was intended. It's fixed now. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "however, as white emigration increased, gold seekers founded a town nearby named La Paz..." Wasn't the search for gold and the founding od the town the cause rather than the resultof the increase in white emigration?
I'm not sure I follow. The founding of La Paz was kind of a breaking point in positive relations because the settlements were getting closer and closer to the Mohave homeland. Not everyone went to California for gold, but yes, it was a primary motivator. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "...stirring tensions among the Mohave and building fear of an uprising against further encroachment on their land." This is muddled. You need to specify "fear among settlers of a uprising against further encroachment on Mohave land."
Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I believe these points have all been addressed. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Travels
  • "John Moss, an experienced prospector, suggested they bring Irataba to Washington..." Who do you mean by "they"?
Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "where they boarded a steamship named the Senator" → "where they boarded the steamship Senator..."
Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "In January 1864, they sailed for New York City, by way of the Isthmus of Panama, on the Orizaba" Before the canal was built, they cannot have reached New york on the Orizaba, so I would delete reference to the ship's name.
Great catch. Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "he encountered the slave girl Olive Oatman" – the "former" slave girl, I think. It seems unlikely that this was purely a chance meeting, so I'd probably change "encountered".
Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "Meeting Irataba with a natural hatred of Indians, she was immediately taken with him, despite their past history." Could be much shortened: "Despite her natural hatred of Indians, she was immediately taken with him".
Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "Oatman reportedly said" who reported that she said it? It's a long quotation to be only "reportedly" said.
Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "laps" → "lapse"
Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I believe these points have all been addressed. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Disgrace and death
  • "Having recently returned from Washington D.C" → "On his return from Washington D.C"
Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "So as to avoid fighting..." → "To avoid fighting..."
Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "the militant Mohave sub-chief, Homoseh quahote, also known as Seck-a-hoot" I recommend you only use one of these names, since you have introduced him earlier. e.g. "the militant Mohave sub-chief known as Seck-a-hoot"
Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Close repetition of "documented"
Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure, from what I read, that "disgrace" is the appropriate term in th section heading. He was humiliated, for sure, but that's not the same thing. And you say "As time went on the people softened in their disdain for Irataba", without previously indicating that his people disdained him, only that his influence waned.
I agree with you. Good call. Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I believe these points have all been addressed. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Old age at 60? I am practically a dead man.
I think the point is that for a Native American in 1874, 60 was pretty old. Even today, the average life expectancy at places like the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota is just 48 years. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Changed to "natural causes". Rationalobserver (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I hope these comments are helpful Brianboulton (talk) 20:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

They are extremely helpful! Thank you very much, Brianboulton. I'll work on these suggestions during the next couple of days. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:45, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Save for a few points here and there, I think all your concerns have been addressed. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:33, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Some great comments here Brian, very grateful, a lot on the content I added too haha! Thanks RO for quickly dealing with them.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

  • I'm generally happy with the responses, but see my added comment relating to the Beale's Crossing fort. I'll read through again, of course, when the article comes to FAC, and deal with any final quibbles there. Brianboulton (talk) 13:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

I seem to be on well-plowed ground here, but I have a few concerns about what is generally a very good article.

Lede
  • "European Americans". This may be interpreted as a synonym for the United States, which would be inaccurate. Did Irataba have contact with Buffalo Soldiers, for example? Although our article is substandard, the map seems to indicate they served in that area of Arizona Territory in the 1860s.
Good point. Buffalo Soldiers did serve at Fort Mohave, so Irataba most certainly interacted with them. I've made some edits to address this. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "he was involved with the purchase of Olive Oatman and her sister " this seems a kind way of putting it given the more explicit statements in the body.
Per Brianboulton I removed this from the lead. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • It should be made clearer whether Irataba was removed as Mojave chief or simply mocked.
I think it's clear now. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Travels
  • "In New York he encountered the slave girl Olive Oatman. Meeting Irataba with a natural hatred of Indians, " she was still a slave? Possibly insert "former". Wouldn't her hatred be more towards Irataba personally, if she knew he was complicit in her sale/purchase
Brian mentioned this earlier, good catch; it's now fixed. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
General comments
  • I"m not totally thrilled with the heavy repetition of "European Americans". That the United States owned by the Treaty of Guadeloupe Hidalgo, the area in question (except where it was part of the Gadsden Purchase), seems disregarded. POV concerns may be raised.
I agree; that's an astute observation. I think it's much better now in that regard. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I would reserve inline citation of the source ("According to x", for example) for accounts from the time, or for opinion. They are not needed for historical facts that are not contested.
I removed several, but would happily remove some more if needed. I'm just trying to be safe with attribution. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • There are several sources on JSTOR that mention Irataba at least in passing. Have these been reviewed for possible useful content? With JSTOR access more available than it used to be, I think it should be checked in all historical articles these days.
I'm pretty sure I've gleaned everything useful from JSTOR; I've checked at least three times. It looks like more than it is, but Woodward, Sherer, and Deveroux are on JSTRO. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Infobox
  • Was the area where he was born known as Arizona at the time?
I think it was Mexico in 1814. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Since Mexico didn't declare independence until 1822, and wasn't recognized by Spain until 1836, Irataba was born in Alta California, New Spain, I guess. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:33, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Would it be wise to add the country names for where he was born, and died, or is this a minefield?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't mind. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Wehwalt!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from John[edit]

Article looks a lot better since I last saw it. Here are my copyedits. Comments: I presume we are using lower case for ethnic labels like "native" and "white"; I don't think we should capitalise one and not the other. I don't think we need to state the full name of the Colorado River every time it is mentioned. The subject was unquestionably an American, so we could not state he "first met Americans" in such-and-such a year, as he and his own mother were Americans themselves. Finally, the grim ambiguity of In New York he met with the former slave girl Olive Oatman. Despite her natural hatred of Indians, she was immediately taken with him. was presumably unintentional? I replaced "taken with" by "impressed with" as the meaning is very close and it doesn't have such a double meaning in relation to a former slave. On first reading I thought that she was one of the perks. All in all this article is looking like FA-standard now. Well done, all. --John (talk) 22:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribs and comments, John! I appreciate that you found time to help. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Cheers John for the editing of it and comments!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:37, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage[edit]

Here by request. Will be a little bit until I can go through everything, but I wanted to know that I'm happy to take a look! Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 23:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Referencing[edit]

I've gone ahead and boxed up the long list of resolved stuff. Here's what I've got for outstanding issues:

  • That Stratton citation was harder to deal with than it should have been. Stratton had a lot of different variants of that book printed in 1857/8. The correct one to use here should be: {{cite book |last=Stratton |first=Royal B. |title=Captivity of the Oatman Girls: Being an Interesting Narrative of Life Among the Apache and Mohave Indians |edition=3rd |version=Fourteenth thousand |year=1858 |origyear=1857 |publisher=Carlton & Porter |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=myETAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA231#v=onepage&q&f=false |oclc=17368670 |ref=harv}}
  • The source currently cited as Report upon the Colorado River... was awkward. Here's my best take on it: {{cite book |last=Ives |first=Joseph C. |chapter=Part I: General Report |editor=United States Army Corps of Topographical Engineers |title=Report upon the Colorado River of the West : Explored in 1857 and 1858 by Joseph C. Ives |publisher=Government Printing Office |year=1861 |id=36th Congress, 1st Session Senate executive document, unnumbered |oclc=3095199 |url=https://archive.org/stream/reportuponcolor00bairgoog#page/n90/mode/2up |ref=harv}}
Fixed ([4]). The entries are alphabetized. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:53, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • For Devereux, I think all you need to do is remove the publisher (as you have done so for other journal sources), and you're good to go with it.
  • Audit the date formats in your bibliography. They are mostly MDY (October 22, 1865), but Kulp and "Parker Troth" have DMY (3 April 1974). Either way is fine. Personally, I prefer DMY, but some editors read the MOS as encouraging MDY use for articles about American subjects.
  • And one thing that I actually have made worse, not better. You need to decide how you want to display page ranges: 480–496 or 480–96, for example. You've got a mixed selection in both notes and references, which wasn't helped by my contributions. Sorry about that.

And then, unless I've overlooked something, I'm out of things in the reference section to pick on! As for your question in the collapsed section, yes; if you're citing a chapter/section/whatever with a different author than the parent work, best practices are to include that chapter's page range in its bibliography entry. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, well I think I've fixed everything now. Thanks again for being so helpful! I hate to press my luck, but do you plan to also take a look at the prose? Rationalobserver (talk) 20:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I always look at references first because even the most brilliant prose doesn't help if it's sourced to unreliable or unverifiable material. Also, I think I'm better at reference formatting pedantry than copyediting! But, yes, I should be able to give it a read-through in the next day or so. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Other Sources[edit]

You've done excellent work making this a comprehensive review of the literature. I was able to drag up a handful of scholarly publications that you don't cite. These may or may not be worth including (or even worth bothering tracking down).

This is mostly about unrelated topics, but p. 62 has some material of interest, including that Irataba was the subject of a portrait by Balduin Möllhausen. I know the article mentions the Harper's Ferry appearance, so there perhaps there's some value here?
Thanks for this! The image to which they are referring, File:Chief Irataba of the Mojave Nation, February 1864, artist's impression.jpg, is in the article, so this is valuable! Rationalobserver (talk) 17:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
The Elsasser source led to this awesome tidbit. Thanks! Rationalobserver (talk) 18:13, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Miller, David H. (1972). "The Ives Expedition Revisited: Overland into Grand Canyon". The Journal of Arizona History 13 (3): 177–196. 
I believe I have access to this one, if needed, although I don't have it on hand at the moment. No idea how valuable the content is, but it does appear to be a modern examination of events that you currently depend on contemporary sources to describe.
I can access this at JSTOR, but I don't see any particular need since I source everything in there directly to Ives. What do you think? Rationalobserver (talk) 20:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I think Ives is a 150 year old primary account, so if there's some modern analysis to be had, it might be worth looking at. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for this too! You were right; there was some really nice stuff in there that was well worth adding ([5]). Rationalobserver (talk) 22:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Hinton, Leanne (1979). "Irataba's Gift: A Closer Look at the ṣ> s> θ Soundshift in Mojave and Northern Pai". Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology, Papers in Linguistics 1: 3–37. 
I have no copy of this on hand, and can confirm that I do not have immediate access to this journal. I really don't know how metaphorical the title is. If it is literal, and Irataba himself is cited as influential in a phonemic shift in the Mojave language, that would be fantastic information. If it's metaphorical, well, then tracking this down is probably a waste of time. I would not count this against a check for comprehensiveness, but if someone happens to have easy access to it to check its contents, there's no reason not to at least take a look.
I've asked Maunus if they can find this, as I agree that if the title is accurate this might be a great addition. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
My normal "Hey, I need this super-weird journal article..." contact failed to come through on this one, but I agree that if it is what it sounds like, it's worth seeing. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Otherwise, I see no significant publications not already represented. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Prose[edit]
  • I'm not sure the way Irataba's Mohave name is given in the lead is MOS-compliant. I've never actually done articles where this applied, but I'm used to seeing a parenthetical note, with the language linked, then the original format, and ideally an IPA pronunciation. If it turns otu that's not as standard as I thought, ignore me. I don't do much work with non-English stuff, nor biographies.
We discussed this at Talk:Irataba#Pronunciation, and it appears that this is the best we can do without a definitive source for an IPA. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "Renowned for his physical size and strength and gentle demeanor, Irataba was a great orator" : The second part doesn't follow from the first, so perhaps an "also" or something in there?
Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "when he and the Mohave head chief, Cairook" : You've introduced Irataba as head chief in the first paragraph, but here, Cairook is. Obviously, that's because Irataba is well-known for that role, but his relevant history started before holding it. Perhaps "...when he and Cairook, then Mohave head chief, met..." Not sure I like that any better, really.
Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "They also imprisoned several Mohave leaders" : The problem here is that the antecedent, "US War Department" is a collective noun, and in American English collective nouns take singular verb and pronoun forms. But just replacing "they" with "it" here reads strangly, so you may need to reword things to avoid the metonymy.
As a group of people, I think it's okay to refer to the Department as they, as you might do for journalists and such; e.g.; "The New York Time gave Irataba their stamp of approval". Rationalobserver (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • You give the year of Fort Mohave in the lead, but not the month. This is a problem because Cairook's failed escape is introduced "in June"; there's no way to determine the time elapsed. Consider giving the month to start, or chaning the escape introduction to a difference "[foo] months later" or just "later that year" if there's no way to make the statement off reliable sources.
Good point. Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "a US president." : I would prefer "an American president", but others may weigh in here.
I agree, and I've changed it. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "He received considerable attention during his tours of the US capital, New York City, and Philadelphia" : There's no immediate way to know that this is a list rather than an appositive phrase. It's mostly a problem since, historically, both NYC and Philadelpha have been the US capital. Various solutions are possible, including "and of" or more vigorous rewording.
Nice catch. Thanks! Rationalobserver (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "when he was given" : I might introduce with where instead of when since you're discussing these in the context of their locations, rather than their times.
Done, but I hope that doesn't imply he was given all these things in Philadelphia. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "Mohave did not believe him, and they accused him of lying" : Redundant; I'd cut the last clause entirely.
I kept the last clause, as it gets right to the point, but cut the first one. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "The Mohave never replaced Irataba as head chief; he was their last, and was mourned for a prolonged period after his death in 1874." : Order of clauses makes it sound like he lost the position (his influence was eroded in the previous sentence), until you get further in the sentence and learn he died. Consider something like: "He died in 1874 and was mourned by the Mohave for a prolonged period; he was never replaced as head chief."
This one I disagree on, because it's odd to me to say they never replaced him after stating that he died, and it might also be misleading, because new chiefs were elected after he died, but since the Mohave were then on the reservation these chiefs are not considered "independent", as Irataba was, because they relied on the US Government for rations. Of course, I'm open to further discussion on this point. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Something something about the way non-English names are presented, again, that I'm not qualified to discuss with certainty...
If we knew more about the Mohave language we could improve this. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Do we really have nowhere to link for Mohave Canyon? Yikes.
That surprised me too! Rationalobserver (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • " In the opinion of anthropologist Kenneth M. Stewart, the Mohave were fierce warriors who were frequently the aggressors, particularly against the Chemehuevi, Paiute, and Maricopa peoples. Although they did not plunder their enemy's possessions, they took prisoners and scalps." : I think this sentence needs to go in the previous paragraph, which is about the tribe, rather than where it is, which is about Irataba specifically. I'd also reword the introduction as something like "Anthropologist Kenneth M. Stewart describes the Mohave as fierce warriors..."; opinion has a different connotation that what I think this warrants. (Needless to say, I'm not at all concerned about the use of false titles.)
Good call. Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "He documents that Irataba and Cairook" : Unclear antecedent at this point. Go ahead and replace "He" with "Woodward".
Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "several Mohave including Irataba" : comma needed after Mohave here.
I thought so, but for some reason I omitted that one (pesky commas!). Rationalobserver (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not 100% sold that the paragraph about Beale's journey is relevant. I didn't go look up the source; did Stacy actually mention Irataba? If not, I'm not sure this belongs in an article about Irataba, although it certainly might in one about the history of the Mohave Nation. If it does, ignore this...
The background of Beale's expedition is central to the story, as this is the beginning of the end for the independent Mohave, and Beale's road and crossing brought the Rose-Baley Party to Mohave country, whereas without Beale they wouldn't have gone that way. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for these excellent suggestions! I think I've adopted all of them except the last one. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Boson[edit]

Here by request. Just a few comments/questions:

  • "Visit with" sounds odd to British ears. In the interests of commonality, would it be possible to replace it with "meeting(s) with"?
  • Not knowing exactly what bottomlands are, I would appreciate a link. This may be a word that Americans are more familiar with.
  • Since it is followed by "an unusually eloquent and persuasive speaker", does "a great orator who was" add anything? Removing it would make the prose "tighter".
  • "This route became known as Beale's Wagon Road and the location where Beale crossed the river, Beale's Crossing." I would use "as" before "Beale's Crossing" instead of a comma (to stop the reader temporarily misreading it as apposition).
  • "Eight members of the party were killed, including five children, and thirteen were wounded". I think I would write that as "Eight members of the party – including five children – were killed, and thirteen were wounded", to make it more immediately obvious that "thirteen" refers to members of the party, not children.
  • "translating from English to Spanish to Yuman and to Mohave and vice versa" I believe you said that this is true to the source, but I think it needs changing; otherwise it is unclear what it is supposed to mean. If it means that he translated separately from English into three different languages, the punctuation and wording should be corrected to "translating from English into Spanish, Yuman, and Mohave – and vice versa". As it is punctuated, it appears to mean that he translated from English to Mohave via Spanish and Yuman, but since only one person is involved, his thought processes cannot be known.
  • 'In the opinion of Fulsom Charles Scrivner, author of Mohave People (1970), whereas Cairook helped lead the attack on the Rose-Baley Party, "it appears that Irataba stayed clear of the fracas", arguing that "if Irataba had taken an active part he would have offered himself as prisoner", as did Cairook.' Presumably because of previous editing, "arguing . . . " does not appear to have a valid implied subject. I presume it is meant to refer to Scrivner, but that would require something like "Scrivener stated ..." I think it would be better to express it differently..
  • It is not clear to me why "quahote" is not capitalized. If it is part of a proper name shouldn't it be capitalized (or perhaps preceded by a hyphen)?
  • Changing the order of "relations between the Mohave and American settlers" to "relations between American settlers and the Mohave" would prevent a temporary misreading (with both proper names modifying "settlers"). Since the Mohave are also American, would "European American settlers" be better? Or should the adjective be removed completely ("relations between settlers and the Mohave"? I'm not sure about American sensibilities here.
  • "Upon arriving in New York, Harper's Weekly described Irataba as ..." reads at first as if the magazine arrived in New York.
  • "Irataba ordered to his people" sounds incorrect to me (possibly American English?).

--Boson (talk) 00:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for these comments, Boson. I'll do my best to resolve them starting first thing tomorrow. Rationalobserver (talk) 00:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for these, Boson! I've fixed all your above concerns except one: the reason why I didn't capitalize "quahote" or "tav" is because Sherer doesn't. Presumably, the second word is not really a proper name like it would be in the west; e.g., "tav" means good or beautiful, so it's more of an adjective than a proper name; I assume similar reasons for not capitalizing "quahote", but I do not have a translation of that name to hand. Rationalobserver (talk) 15:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Simon Burchell[edit]

This is a very nice looking article, I'm just reading through now, but it looks in fine shape. Apologies if any comments are already covered above. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

  • The article makes reference to a drawing of Irataba by Balduin Möllhausen. Is this available anywhere? I had a quick look on archive.org but couldn't find it. Since it would be out of copyright, it would be interesting to see it in the article.
I believe it's this image: File:Chief Irataba of the Mojave Nation, February 1864, artist's impression.jpg, which is in the article, but I'm unable to confirm that at this time. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
I did wonder - and it seemed likely. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Nope, it is this one[6], with Kairook - Möllhausen spelled the bname Ireteba, that is why it doesnt come up on searches for Irataba. It would be good to have a depiction of him before he took up the habit of using European clothes. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Well found! Simon Burchell (talk) 20:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Nice work, Maunus! Is that PD? Rationalobserver (talk) 21:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
I dont know how the NY publiclibrary licenses their collections, but it should be eligible for fair use if it is not PD which it probably is. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
I think this was first published in Ives's 1861 report, which would make it PD. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
this page says it was published in 1857, at any rate, it is definitely PD. Simon Burchell (talk) 21:48, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanls, Maunus and Simon! Wow's this look? Rationalobserver (talk) 21:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
I would right align it, remove the one with the two men by the river or move it to another section and then make it a bit bigger.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Since the image is PD, I think we can use a cropped version - I'll upload one tomorrow. Simon Burchell (talk) 00:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
I've switched it for a cropped version. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
But Irataba is looking right, and Whipple is looking left, and the images should stagger. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
I've also been going back and forth with different people about image sizes and mark-up, and I admit that I have no clue what's actually right – or FAC compliant. So all I'm confident to do is put it in thumb, but I think making it bigger will invite complaints. You can see it full-sized if you click on it. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
I think the image of Cairook should be included as well. He was an important figure in Irataba's life, more so than some of the other Anglo-Americans whose portraits are in the article. And it is really remarkable that a drawing of him exists. So maybe consider if you could crop it to include both, or include the full drawing.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
I've started Cairook, where I've included his image, but I suppose I could swap out File:Mohave Indians.jpg for File:Cairook.jpg, but it's nice to have an actual picture of Mohave near the river. I also wonder if it's better to have Irataba and Cairook together than two separate, but I suppose the topic is Irataba, not Cairook, so we probably don't need it here. I'm not sure what to do, but I was hoping to close this PR this week and re-nom at FAC. What do you think, Simon? Rationalobserver (talk) 16:47, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
I would say, since it is an individual biography, use the picture of the subject alone, unless the subject is shaking hands with someone important to the article, or in a tight group. Also, if you are planning on taking this to FAC, you had best find a way to lay out the images so that no text is squeezed between two images (as has happened with my addition of the cropped picture) - there are ways around this, such as using the multiple image template. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Simon. I've moved a few images around, so I don't think any text is currently being squeezed by images, but if I'm wrong please let me know which ones are causing an issue. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
It is PD-Old, published in the US before 1923. Simon Burchell (talk) 21:45, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "Contact with Americans" section header. What? This section header surely needs to be renamed. As far as I can see, both sides could be counted as "Americans". Looking at the article history, this looks like it has already been renamed from "Contact with European Americans", the change is not an improvement, in my opinion. Perhaps "Contact with settlers", or something? Simon Burchell (talk) 09:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
How about "Contact with explorers and settlers"? Rationalobserver (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Much better. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • In the same section, the Sitgreaves Expedition is linked, is Whipple's expedition also worthy of an article? If it is, then redlink it. maybe someone will come along and write it... Simon Burchell (talk) 10:03, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • It looks like "Tolkepaya tribe" should also be redlinked/linked somehow. I realise it redirects at the moment, is there any likelihood they would ever get their own article? Simon Burchell (talk) 10:08, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Redlinked "Tolkepaya band", as the tribe is Yavapai. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! Rationalobserver (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Not sure about this one. There is a spin-off article (Rose-Baley Party), but the details are summarized pretty tightly, and the episode is one of the most important of Irataba's life. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
It seems to me that the whole first two paragraphs gives way too much detail for an article about Irataba, considering that he didn't take part, and could be concisely summarised along the following lines:
In 1858, the first emigrant train to venture onto Beale's Wagon Road was harassed by Mohave warriors, who drove away and slaughtered many of the party's cattle. On August 30, three hundred Mohave warriors attacked the emigrants and eight members of the party – including five children – were killed, and thirteen were wounded. The emigrants killed seventeen Mohave warriors.[41] With the wounded in one wagon, the children in another, and the healthy adults on foot, the party began the journey back to Albuquerque, 500 miles (800 km) away. According to Kroeber, "the event sealed the fate of the Mohave as an independent people.
I think you're right. How about this ([7])? Rationalobserver (talk) 21:45, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for that - I know how painful it is to cut interesting information... Hopefully the whole lot is in the Rose-Baley article, if not, you should put it in. Simon Burchell (talk) 00:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Anecdotes on Iritaba's bearing and character are sprinkled throughout the article — it would be nice to have a short section near the beginning to summarise his appearance/personality. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
I think the last paragraph in "Early life and background" does this pretty well. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, although it appears a little buried there - how about a subheading for that para? If I were coming to the article to learn something about his physical characteristics/character, it wouldn't leap out at me. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:36, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Is this better ([8])? Rationalobserver (talk) 21:45, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
That should do it, thanks. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Overall a very interesting, weel-written article. Simon Burchell (talk) 11:08, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look, Simon Burchell! I appreciate your comments and suggestions. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for responding promptly to my comments, I believe I am done here. Well done on producing such a fine article. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 09:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Simon! I appreciate your taking the time to make these extremely helpful comments. Thanks also for cropping the Möllhausen rendering. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Csisc[edit]

Thank you for your work about Irataba... In fact, the most important general thoughts about American Indians are minorizing... They describe them as a wild, primitive, illiterate and even aggressive society. It was a good thing to valorize that the Indians were active and engaged. However, you did not include this in your work... It is more useful to talk about the circumstances of the birth of Irataba in the first part in the work... It is very useful to say whether Indians were misconsidered or not and how the situation of Indians had deeply influencing him. Furthermore, you did not talk about the debates that were supported by Irataba and about his convictions and beliefs. In fact, you just mentioned that he was a person that helped Explorers to discover America until the important Mohave War. You had better to consider this and give more interests to the Social and Cultural Part of the personality of Irataba. Moreover, you did not mention whether he had some influencing familial relationships... You did not mention his parents and you never said whether he was married once or not... You should mention whether he was passioned by someone or something. In another side, you did not mention some quotes or manners of Irataba. So, try to work on this in order to better efficiently the work. You probably think that these details are not very important. However, in order to get the FA Status, you should include all important information about Irataba and particularly social ones. Yours Sincerely,

--Csisc (talk) 11:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. While I agree that it would be good to include these types of things, none of the specific "deficiencies" you mentioned above are verifiable. At least not as far as my research revealed. We looked at every available source, and these are the things that we cannot write about because we cannot source any of it to reliable sources. This article is about as comprehensive as it can be given the relative lack of details regarding these points. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Victoriaearle[edit]

I've been watching here, on and off, and think the page needs a little more balance. I spent a lot of time thinking about whether to comment, but in light of the above, have decided to add a few comments below (in no particular order and not comprehensive).

  • "Irataba was the hereditary chief of the Huttoh Pah group of Mohave, who lived near the east bank of the Colorado River.[3]" >> This needs a bit of clarification in terms of the system of tribal government and chieftainships. Sherer explains that Sickahoot abdicated as head chief in 1861 and says, (page 5), "Yara tav's election to the head chieftainship as hochoch interrupted but did not change the line of succession away from the hereditary line of great chieftains". My sense is that it's slightly complicated and so needs some more explanation and would be better set in context.
If you've read the source then you realize that it is complicated, but to explain it here would be to go way off topic. I.e., this article is about Irataba, not Mohave government, which is too complicated to get into in great detail here. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:15, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "they also caught fish; hunted game such as rabbits and beaver with bows and arrows, traps…" >> this source has very good background about the tribe, how they lived and specifically about the warrior society (kwanamis). If Irataba was kwanami then should be developed and context added. "According to anthropologist Lorraine M. Sherer, Irataba was what the Mohave called, kwanami, which means brave or fearless.[14]" >> this also needs context and explanation about what kwanami means. Here on page 30 in her long note Sherer says brave, but kwanamis were also warrior caste, etc. which needs explanation and development.
I've added some clarification to this point ([9]). Rationalobserver (talk) 20:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "In the opinion of anthropologist Kenneth M. Stewart, the Mohave were fierce warriors in general who were frequently the aggressor, particularly against the Chemehuevi, Paiute, and Maricopa peoples. Although they did not plunder their enemy's possessions, they took prisoners and scalps.[15]" >> again, to the concept of a warrior caste or society, the kwanami, there's quite a lot more in this source. It also explains the significance of dreaming (Irataba had dreams) and its relationship to being kwanami, the importance and function of kwanimis (warriors), their clothing and weapons, some of which should be added.
I've restored this bit about dreaming and will add a little more. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I've added some stuff that I think resolves this particular concern ([10]). Rationalobserver (talk) 19:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "Higher status Mohave would cover their body in goose fat to help alleviate the summer heat.[7]" > > this NYT piece is from a gossip column and isn't a great source insofar as factual information. Do we know whether geese thrive in the Mohave desert?
The Colorado River brings in all kinds of birds to the region, but per your concern with the source I've removed it. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "They were captured and enslaved and sold to Irataba and the Mohave in return for two horses and three blankets. Although Olive was forcibly tattooed on the chin during her time with the tribe, the Mohave treated Oatman and her sister well, and she remarked of the experience, "To the honor of those savages, let it be said they never offered the least unchaste abuse to me."[21]" >> this source on Jstor has some good information and explains that Sharer's account was written as a sensationalist piece. Probably better to use the more recent scholarly account which suggests that she might not have been enslaved.
To be honest, I didn't add anything about Oatman because of concerns that the original story was not reliable. All the Oatman material was added by Dr. Blofeld. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes I added all of that. If another source can't be found then it can always be removed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I've removed the Stratton source for Putzi ([11]). Thanks for providing that source. Rationalobserver (talk)
  • "up the Colorado River" >> needs clarification regarding east/west direction. This source on Jstor is a good summary of the Whipple expedition. Note the date - Whipple expedition was in 1853-1854
Good catch. Fixed. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "Played a game" >> why no mention of trading for food? There was quite a lot of trading involved, the expedition was low on supplies - this can be spun out more given better context. Very nice image here of the Whipple party trading with the Mohave tribe.
I had some detail about that in the article that someone eels removed for brevity. I'll re-add it. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I added that picture pre your awesome suggestion ([12]). Thanks! Rationalobserver (talk) 22:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Restored ([13]). Rationalobserver (talk) 18:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • This source has information about Irataba with Moss and Irataba's later years.
I don't see anything here that's not already included. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Also doesnt look like a reliable source to me.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:06, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Images are available at the Huntington Library: [14]

Victoria (tk) 17:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Which specific images do you suggest we include, because we are currently brimming with them? Rationalobserver (talk) 23:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Victoriaearle, I believe I've addressed all of these above concerns with this series of edits: ([15]). Would you mind stopping back in to take another look? Rationalobserver (talk) 20:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to try to approach this in broad brush strokes and then let you take it from there. Also, I'm pinging Maunus because, although familiar with the geographical area and the subject, I'm not an anthropologist and he might have an easier time parsing what I'm trying to articulate. On a most basic level I think this is a very good article about a Native American chief and as an FA would set a standard. In that sense it's quite important. Equally it's probably the best biography of Irataba on the web and so I think it has to be written with some care.

  • Re - leadership, chiefs. What you've added is good, but we lead off with "Irataba was the hereditary chief of the Huttoh Pah group of Mohave." My suggestion is to use the information from Sherer, p. 2, [16], to explain the two types of chief and then elsewhere in the article explain that Irataba was head chief only from 1861 to 1866, (Sherer 10-11 [17]) and explain how Irataba was chosen because Homoseh Quahote (we might need a decent English translation of his name), basically abdicated (Sherer p. 5 [18]).
I couldn't find any translations of Homoseh Quahote, but then we also don't have a translation for Cairook either. I disagree about explaining the different kinds of chiefs here, as it would be off-topic, but since you seem to know what you want added I encourage you to go ahead and add some more. Rationalobserver (talk) 15:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
RE: chiefs and chieftains, the article currently states: "According to ethnographer George Devereux, white officials 'tended to act on the assumption that Indian chiefs exercised absolute authority'; he describes Mohave government as 'one of the least understood segments of Mohave culture',". So, I am more than reluctant to attempt an explanation that has largely eluded anthropologists, because 1) we will almost certainly get it wrong if we do, and 2) even if we get it right, it's off-topic for an article about Irataba. Does our article on Abraham Lincoln explain the process of becoming a US president, or does it summarize that he was elected and leave the detail at that level? I think the easiest way forward here is for you to add the material you think is needed, versus you and I going back and forth over this point, because I don't really agree with you, but might change my mind once you add some material. If you look at the early stages of this PR, you'll see that there was some concern about focus. Now the article is focused, but I fear that too much backgrounb details about Mohave leadership will once again distract from the focus. Rationalobserver (talk) 15:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Re - kwanami - it seems important from the point of view of how one becomes chief that a certain path is followed, in this case becoming kwanami. As an unfamiliar cultural concept, and because almost certainly defines the man, imo it needs better explanation. Much is available on pages 234 onward about kwanami in this piece Kenneth Stewart wrote, [19].
  • Re - dreaming. Again, this is a cultural difference that needs to some explaining. I think Kroeber does it best in this piece on page 280, [20], where he writes "it is dreams that are the cause of everything that happens." Once one understands that, then one understands why the repeated encounters with whites (and I think we should use the term "white"), and eventually the reason for the trip to the east.
I've added the above quote from Kroeber ([21]). Rationalobserver (talk) 16:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Re - Olive Oatman. It should stay in but it not be presented in such a way that she was a "captive" for five years. Personally I'd keep the mention of the tattoo because it's an indication that she acculturated, mentioned in Putzi. Whipple mentions that only married women were tattooed, fwiw.
I think that to assert that Oatman wasn't actually a captive is WP:OR, or it's unverifiable. By all reliable accounts, she was a captive who was essentially "owned". I'm not supportive of re-casting this until I see a reliable source that suggests her stay with the Natives was voluntary. Rationalobserver (talk) 15:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
The tattoo is strictly about Olive Oatman, so it has nothing to do with Irataba, unless she was married to him, which she wasn't. But if I was going to give the meaning of it I would find a better expert than Whipple, who was a soldier, not an anthropologist. As I said below, the meaning of the tattoo is disputed anyway, so not only is it off-topic it's a rabbit hole to boot! Rationalobserver (talk) 19:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Re - tribal rift. I think that needs more explanation. It's important to explain that the US gov't wanted to move the Mohave away from the valley where it was easier to grow crops to the desert, that as a result the tribe split, half following Irataba, the other half following Homoseh Quahote (the chief who abdicated? but then didn't?).
the US gov't wanted to move the Mohave away from the valley where it was easier to grow crops to the desert Is this in Sherer, because I don't remember her ascribing this motivation to the US Government? Rationalobserver (talk) 16:28, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
This really seems like too much detail about something that is little understood. Plus, it's really a topic for Mohave people. Rationalobserver (talk) 15:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree with RO, in fact one of the biggest problems I had when I started on this was the unfocused bloat about the general tribe. This is a biography.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Re images - i just thought it interesting that the Huntington has images of the fort, steamboats, a Mohave chief in warpaint, etc.
We are pretty stuffed with images as is, so if you think one should be included, please be more specific. Rationalobserver (talk) 15:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Anyway, I'll stop here, but the point I'm trying to make is that we should approach this from the point of view of Irataba in Mohave society at a time when whites were encroaching in the area, with emphasis on Mohave culture which made him the man he was, whilst simultaneously avoiding describing him a a noble savage. This may not make sense and if not, that's fine. But it's how I'd approach the article, fwiw. Victoria (tk) 00:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks so much for these wonderful suggestions, Victoria. I won't be able to start working on these until tomorrow, but I'm very excited by the coming improvements. Rationalobserver (talk) 00:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Victoriaearle, after re-reading your recent batch of comments, I really think that the best way forward here is for you to add what you think is needed, and let subsequent discussion and editing determine an appropriate level of detail. I strongly disagree with trying to explain the difference between hereditary chiefs, elected chiefs, chieftains and great chieftains, in an article about one particular chief, but maybe this wouldn't be as difficult as I think. Anyway, I don't think it's a good idea to push for me to add this stuff, because I don't share your concerns or vision enough to agree with you. Having said that, I wouldn't be too surprised if after you add some stuff I see what you were saying and change very little of what you add. Does this sound acceptable? Rationalobserver (talk) 15:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I think I do understand most of what Victoria means, and like her I do think that it is good to provide background about the people, their cultural and social organization, and the political situation in which the encounters between Mohave and Whites took place. However, from the comments above some other editors clearly disagree that this kind of social context belongs in a biography in a major way. I think the dreaming part is important because it provides some clear context for understanding his actions. Also some detail about what the titles and leadership positions in Mohave society actually meant also would make sense, because otherwise we dont know what this particular chiefs title actually means. With Olive the I am not sure we can depict her as anything other than a captive, because that seems to be what the sources do, following her own (probably distorted testimony). The tattoo needs to be mentioned, since it is rather important in the coverage of her life and salient in the picture of her. But we might remove the word "forcible" unless there is a very good reason to keep it? Also mentioning that it was something reserved for married women might provide an interesting perspective. The trick with this kind of article is that the sources are always inflected through Anglo minds - the indigenous perspective is rarely found in them and consequently we cant do it justice. I am not entirely sure on how to be more clear about the political situation of encroaching whites, maybe Victoria has some concrete ideas here. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:06, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm open to people adding what they think is needed, but the distinctions regarding hereditary chiefs, elected chiefs, chieftains and great chieftains is far too nuanced to do it here, assuming we could explain it accurately. Maunus, I don't see the word "forcible" currently in the article, can you point it out? Rationalobserver (talk) 16:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, the exact meaning of Olive's tattoo is disputed; she claimed it marked her as a slave, but others say it was a sign of marriage, or a symbol of her belonging to the Mohave. As I said, if others want to add more detail in this regard, I think they should do so, but it would be much easier to look at specific additions and go from there, because At this point I don't see the benefit to adding more detail that does not specifically pertain to Irataba. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I think we alreayd have more than enough background filling on this. If we start going into a detail of detail on distinctions it's going to affect the general readability and concision of people looking for info about Irataba. It's already padded enough as it is.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I think the thing to do when we know there are conflicting views on a detail like this is to decide if it is important, in which case we include it or if it isnt in which case we simply omit mention of it. So, we probably should simply mention that she was tattooed without discussing why that was.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Btw. I think the way you integrated the dream part was really good.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:42, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I'll repeat this here: According to ethnographer George Devereux, Mohave government is "one of the least understood segments of Mohave culture", which I take as a good sign that we shouldn't try to crack the enigma in this article, which is not about Mohave government; it's about one chief. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:37, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I think that is wrong, it is about a person who is called a chief in English, but whose actual title was something else which does not mean the same as chief. Then in order for the reader to know what Irataba was, we need them to know what the role of a person with his title was in Mohave society as well as possible., I.e. this is crucial for the reader to actually understand the subject of the biography.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I just noticed the ping and am about to go offline so haven't read through the comments. If I can, will revisit later today or tonight. Victoria (tk) 16:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Since who've mentioned the Huntington Library a couple of times, I want to make sure that images there can be freely uploaded to Wikicommons. Per their website, "The nature of certain collections often makes it difficult to determine the copyright status of an item" and "The responsibility for determining whether any such intangible rights exist, for obtaining all necessary permissions, and for guarding against the infringement of those rights that may be held elsewhere, remains with the requester."([22] and [23]) We hope, can you clarify this point? Are the images at the Huntington Digital Library suitable for uploading to Wikicommons, because I'm confident that all the pictures currently used are PD, and I'd like to keep it that way. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Maunus makes a good point in that the sources are inflected through Anglo minds, and we have to keep in mind that here too, on WP, to some extent the writing and reviewing is as well. No offense to anyone, but it's best to try to avoid a European white male point of view. The article would benefit greatly from a "Historiography" section. Furthermore, FA criteria, re context, literature survey, etc, need to be kept in mind. Insofar as specifics, if we mention he's kwanami then the context in this source seems important; if we mention hereditary chief, then the context in Sherer's "Great Chieftains of the Mohave Indians" is important. If we mention a rift developed between Homoseh quahote (Seck-a-hoot), we should explain why. If we know a person has a chin tattoo but the sources don't agree on its significance then we should explain why, and so on. Anyway, those are my concerns and thanks for responding. I'll unwatch now. Victoria (tk) 19:29, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks for your comments. FTR, the Huntington Library is not a suitable source for images for Wikipedia articles ([24]). Rationalobserver (talk) 19:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
My point was that untill some non-white women write something about Irataba we are stuck with the white male perspective. There is nothing we can do about that under current policy. I also dont think we can do a historiography section without engaging in OR. Someone certainly should write an essay or research article critically examining how Irataba has been represented by historians, but it seems no one has. I do agree with the need to explain as well as possible the mohave concepts expressed by the tattoo, the names, titles etc. But again we are limited by the sources.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:34, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
We could probably explain that little is known about him until contact with whites and he shows up in the Ives expedition report (which only mentions him by name once), and that aside from Kroeber and apparently Sherer's work in terms of Mohave culture, we don't know a lot more. That's what I meant by a histiography section. Nonetheless, there's plenty in sources for context. For example, there's quite a lot in terms of how the location for the reservation was chosen, Irataba's involvement with that decision, and why that decision caused a rift. Victoria (tk) 19:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Ok, that does make sense though again I am a little unclear on how we could provide analytical metacommentary on the sources without doing OR? We could state that there are few sources about Mohave culture and that what we know comes from anthropologists working in the 20th century. Probably not enough for a section, but perhaps a paragraph would do? The question of the reservation does seem important, also in terms of its significance for later Mohave people.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Victoria, since neither Maunus or I think we could write a histiography without engaging in OR, are you willing to write one? Why is this not enough about the split? "After its completion, Irataba and several hundred of his most ardent supporters moved to the Colorado River Valley, where in 1865 the Colorado River Indian Reservation was established.[48] This marked the beginning of a rift between two rival factions of Mohave, the other led by an influential sub-chief named Homoseh quahote, known by the whites as Seck-a-hoot.[49]" Rationalobserver (talk) 19:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Maunus, what do you think of this addition: ([25]). Do you think the leadership system is now adequately explained, or do we need more detail? Rationalobserver (talk) 19:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, sounds like a clan system. She doesnt use the word clan? I think the interesting part is if we know anything about the kind of authority and responsibility the chief and subchief positions implied. Does Shere give the Mohave terms for "chief" and "subchief" btw?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
The article is on JSTOR, why don't you read it, because I can't do all this myself, and this pile of options that only I am acting on is getting old. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I have other stuff I am working on Rationalobserver. You are the one who asked for comments, you are not required to act on them. No need to stress out. There is no deadline.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I see that Sherer does use the word clan in her 1965 book, and probably there is some useful info in the "Bitterness Road" book as well. Both of those are at my university library, so I will take a look at them next week one day when I have time.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
It's definitely a clan system. You should take a look at The Clan System of the Fort Mojave Indians: A Contemporary Survey. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, I'm closing this peer review now, I think we've had more than enough input here. Thankyou everybody, most helpful. I invite anybody who still has concerns to assist with editing the article before this heads to FAC, Rational has already put extraordinary effort into this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 28 March 2015, 20:27 UTC)----


James Nelson Barker[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I feel I have added a lot of information to it, but there are still some areas that feel unfinished. I would also like to know if it reads well, or if the wording is choppy.

Thanks, Deliirving (talk) 21:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 27 March 2015, 21:20 UTC)----


Master of Puppets[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it failed the FA nomination and I want to improve it in order to fulfill the criteria. Please list everything you think that prevents the article from becoming featured. Thanks in advance.--Retrohead (talk) 17:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 27 March 2015, 17:33 UTC)----


Manor House, Sleaford[edit]

Hopefully, this is the right topic area to list this in. It is a grade II* listed building in an English market town with some interesting owners (including an aunt of Cecil Rhodes, who spent his summers at the house as a boy) and a classic tale of Victorian disinheritance. I've done as much as I can in the way of finding source material (short of sifting through Lincolnshire Archives) and so I am hoping to take it to GA. Any comments would therefore be greatly appreciated, many thanks, — Noswall59 (talk) 10:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Rodw I don't have much time tonight, but a couple of immediate thoughts:

  • You say "English Heritage declared the group a Grade II* listed building," - it has been pointed out to me in the past that technically the secretary of state makes the decision (even though EH does the assessment, recommendation & recording of the decision). User:Peter I. Vardy has developed a form of words which seem to achieve the same sort of thing without the (minor) technical inaccuracy ie "It is recorded in the National Heritage List for England as a designated Grade II* listed building".
    • Okay, thanks, I will bear that in mind for the future. I think I have corrected it now.
  • Because of the split of English Heritage into 2 different bodies some of the links to their sites are breaking (eg Ref 2). Ref 4 (and similar) redirect to Historic England (with the same UID) but a different publisher (I don't see this is an immediate or major issue).
    • I saw something about this a few days ago. Urgh, it is a pain. I have now repaired ref 2 and updated the publisher information.
  • There is a redlink for a category "Grade II* listed buildings in North Kesteven" - this either needs creating or using a parent cat.
    • I've used the parent category.
  • isbn numbers could be updated to the 13 digit format
    • Done.

I will try to take a better look tomorrow (or by the end of the week).— Rod talk 21:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

    • As a result of the English Heritage change suggest using {{NHLE}} for the references to pick up the new web site and name as this future proofs against any further changes as it keeps all instances of web site in one place. Keith D (talk) 22:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Thanks, Keith. I've only recently learnt of the template and I'd started using it another article. I've now used it in this one too.
Comment by Keith D
  • The use of short referencing without a linkage to the full reference is not really helpful. Would be good if linkage could be provided. Keith D (talk) 22:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Okay, I think I've done what you're suggesting, but let me know if I've misunderstood.
      • Looks OK. Thanks for change. Keith D (talk) 17:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
        • Thank you for your comments, Keith. —Noswall59 (talk) 20:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC).

@Keith D:, @Rodw:. Thanks, Keith and Rod, for your comments. I have replied above and (hopefully) corrected each of the issues raised. Kind regards, —Noswall59 (talk) 10:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC).

A few more from Rodw

  • I have expanded some of the references to newspaper stories to include URLs for archive versions (if don't have access you can request a free subscription - start at WP:BNA
  • Thank you, I have repeated this with as many of the sources as possible.
  • I assume from ref 7 that the "Cragg Map" is a map drawn by someone called Cragg rather than being a map of rocky outcrops, but maybe another form of words would clarify
  • Yes, It think Cragg was a person, but I cannot find any more information about him. I have reworded in the article to remove his name and added the original document's catalogue name to the reference.
  • Is all the stuff about Moore & Forbes solicitors relevant to the house?
  • Removed.
  • Any details of the old buildings use for stone by Elizabeth Cross?
  • Unfortunately not, this is based on a newspaper article discussing the house when it came onto the market after her death and it goes into less detail than I would have liked. I have added quotation marks around "ancient buildings" as well, because I guess that's a subjective term.
  • Done.
  • It would be beyond my skills but a plan of the layout of the different parts of the building might be useful to help the reader understand how all the bits fit together. There are also a few more suitably licenced photos here which might help to illustrate it.— Rod talk 18:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • @Rodw: That would probably be beyond my skillset too... is there somewhere I can request this sort of thing? As for the photos, I will take a look - Geograph is very useful for these sorts of articles, though it's a shame that people seem to be averse to taking photographs of Sleaford when it's sunny... Once again, many thanks for your comments, —Noswall59 (talk) 20:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC).
  • If there is nothing suitable currently available you could visit Wikipedia:Graphics Lab where one of the volunteers may be able to help.— Rod talk 20:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 25 March 2015, 10:33 UTC)----


One for the Road (Cheers)[edit]

Previous peer review

I want to make this article a Good Article (or near-Featured Article) before nominating it as GA. I welcome any suggestions.

Thanks, George Ho (talk) 06:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 25 March 2015, 06:56 UTC)----


Ferris Bueller's Day Off[edit]

Previous peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because I've worked hard at getting the article to Good Article status, and it definitely appears to be very nearly close to FA status (comprehensive, widely sourced) What else needs to be done?

Thanks, The lorax (talk) 19:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 19 March 2015, 19:29 UTC)----


Bonnie Tyler[edit]

Previous peer review

I would like to request a peer review on this article. It has failed for GA status twice. The second GA fail review gave a helpful list of improvements. Having acted on some of them, I would like a fellow editor to read over some of the sections under "Career";

  • 1976–78: The World Starts Tonight and Natural Force
  • 1979–81: Diamond Cut and Goodbye to the Island
  • 1991–94: Success in Europe
  • 1995–99: Free Spirit, All in One Voice and decline.

I am attempting to apply a more narrative and fluid approach to writing the article, which used to read very disjointedly.

I would be so grateful if someone could help out.

Thanks, Bonnietylersave (talk) 12:29, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 18 March 2015, 12:31 UTC)----


Enthiran[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review as it failed its first FAC because of MoS issues cited by some of the reviewers. I want the article to become as good as possible. Thanks, — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 13:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from SNUGGUMS[edit]

Since prose seems to have been the main concern during first FAC, I'll focus on that:

Infobox
  • Needs budget and box office numbers
This was intentionally left blank because there is no definitive information on the final earnings. All the info given in this article is based on estimates/claims. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
@SNUGGUMS: Didn't want to include budget and box office numbers so as to prevent edit wars and IP editors making changes to it. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 05:05, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Interesting, though leaving a hidden note would help either way. I'm sure this detail will be brought up by FAC reviewers. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:10, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Lead
  • Opening sentence is somewhat long, recommend putting main stars into separate sentence
Done
  • "film's story" → "film"
Done
  • "becoming a homicidal maniac" → "becoming homicidal"
Done
  • Box office needs to be included somewhere in lead
@SNUGGUMS: Didn't want to include budget and box office numbers so as to prevent edit wars and IP editors making changes to it. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 05:05, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Plot
  • "help Latha, Sana's sister" → "help Sana's sister Latha"
  • "Sana congratulates Chitti by kissing it; Chitti then develops romantic feelings for her" → "Chitti develops romantic feelings for Sana after she congratulates Chitti by kissing it"
  • The reference at the end isn't needed per WP:FILMPLOT
I agree, but the source has a plot detail. That's why I added it. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Still unneeded, though, and it doesn't feel right to have only source one paragraph from an entire section Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Since the last paragraph is only two sentences long, I'd merge it with the previous one per MOS:PARAGRAPHS, which discourages really short paragraphs
Done. All the comments for this section have been resolved. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 05:08, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Production
Origin
  • "Sujatha Rangarajan was originally announced as the film's dialogue writer, but his death in February 2008 during the film's pre-production led to Madhan Karky being named his successor" → "While Sujatha Rangarajan was originally announced as the film's dialogue writer, Madhan Karky took over after Rangarajan's death in February 2008"
Done
Principal photography
  • "Filming was wrapped up on 8 July 2010"..... concluded or finished would be better
I too would prefer that, but the article is wrap (filmmaking), which we wanted to follow. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Reception
Box office
  • "Enthiran emerged as"..... became
Done
Critical reception
India
  • Again, MOS:PARAGRAPHS with first sentence
Done. Merged small paragraph
  • "stars" is missing after "Nikhat Kazmi of The Times of India rated it four out of five"
Done. Added.
  • Try mentioning critics with same ratings within same sentence (i.e. "Nikhat Kazmi of The Times of India and Kaveree Bamzai of India Today gave the film four out of five stars" followed by sentences containing Kazmi's opinion and Bamzai's opinion)
Done. Mentioned.
Overseas
Done. Added.

I'll leave reference concerns to other users, though hope this helps. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:42, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from SandyGeorgia[edit]

Just noting that it is incorrect to state that the FAC was closed because of "MOS issues"; the prose was a greater problem in the article that appeared at FAC. Because Eric Corbett, Dr Blofeld and RHM22 have been through the article now, I will leave prose issues to them.

There are still MOS issues; please see my sample edits. A review for WP:NBSP, WP:PUNC, and MOS:CURRENCY issues throughout is needed. On currency, the symbol should be defined on first occurrence, and conversion needs to be dealt with. If the exchange rates are all handled by the two notes covering conversion, then the additional problem (throughout the article) is the lack of "as of" dates (this applies to money and other numbers and statements -- see my sample edits). The citations use WP:ENDASHes on titles, while the article body uses WP:EMDASHes. My edits were samples only. Generally, if these few minor items can be cleaned up, and if the prose editors agree that the article's text is in better shape now, I would not see a problem with the article returning to FAC soon. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

And thanks for the thanks, but 13 watchlist notifications is a bit much :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
@SandyGeorgia: As for the exchange rates, the values listed in the source are like archives. They apply to that year only. Its not like BO gross figures (which I think I have resolved.) which can be stated "as of March 2015". Face-smile.svgSsven2 Speak 2 me 06:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Looking better, but WP:PUNC is still off throughout. I'm curious about this statement:
  • Enthiran was the only Tamil film featured on the Internet Movie Database (IMDb) list of the 205 best films of 2010 ...
205 seems an odd number ... is that correct, or is it perchance a typo for 250? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:48, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
@SandyGeorgia: Tweaked the sentence. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 13:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Ha, I was thinking the very same thing! 201 wouldn't be so odd, rather like 1001, but 205 I thought strange.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:26, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
@SandyGeorgia: I think I've addressed the quotation issue consistently now, if I've done it wrong let me know! This isn't written in American English of course. Can you give an example of the NBSP issues you can see?♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
@SandyGeorgia: Also do list a few PUNC issues here in the PR, please. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 13:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Even with the samples given (below) by Nikkimaria, the issue has still not been corrected. The shortcut has changed since my days as FAC delegate, and Nikkimaria more correctly points to MOS:LQ for logical quotation, so I apologize for the confusion that resulted from pointing at the wrong shortcut. Yet, with Nikki's samples, as in this correction I just made, the full sentence from this source:
  • "Never before, except in the movie Bicentennial Man, has a robot been referred to as human".
had the punctuation outside the quote. The way to address this is to a) read and understand MOS:LQ (because any FAC participant has to know this), and then, b) search the article for every instance of
  • ".
  • ."
  • ",
  • ,"
to find the places that are wrong. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
@SandyGeorgia: Corrected the places that are wrong. Please do let me know if there are any more punctuation issues left. Thank you so much for improving the article. It's looking a whole lot better now. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 05:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
I am going to be traveling, so can't check further, but unless the prose reviewers (Eric Corbett, RHM22 and Dr Blofeld) disagree, I would recommend to @WP:FAC coordinators: that the article is now in good enough shape for an earlier-than-two-weeks return to FAC. Good luck (unwatching now)! (But in the future, pls ask those folks who gave premature or implied support to take greater care to learn the standards at FAC, so nominators, reviewers and coordinators don't have to do extra work to cover their oversight :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:23, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
@Ian Rose, Laser brain: Yay, thanks again. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 14:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm going to take a look over the article later today, and I'll weigh in then.-RHM22 (talk) 14:47, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Nikkimaria[edit]

Mostly focusing on MOS and related issues rather than coverage

  • The Rajinikanth boxed quote appears to be missing a word - please check with source
@Nikkimaria: Checked with the source here. No words missing. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 06:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, there are: "Shankar would point out" vs "Shankar would point it out", "four to five days shooting" vs "four to five days of shooting"
  • Quotes in boxes or blockquotes don't also need quotation marks
Done. Removed quotation marks.
  • Per WP:LQ, when a quote is not a full sentence the end punctuation should be outside the quotation marks - not "exasperates you when you listen for the first time." or "Indian cinema's pinnacle of evolution." or "the perfect getaway film.", etc
Done. As asked.
  • "It eventually finds Vaseegaran, who entered AIRD to stop him" - him being the robot? If so, should use "it" consistently
Done. As asked.
  • "to which Chitti explains" -> "but Chitti explains"
Done. As asked.
  • "the now-defunct company, Media Dreams" - don't need that comma
Done. As asked.
  • "box office failures" -> "box-office failures", check for other instances of missing hyphens
Done. Resolved comment. Will look for additional instances.
  • Major geographic features like India, Malaysia and the US shouldn't be linked
@Nikkimaria: What about Kerala, Karnataka and other Indian states? — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 15:50, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Those can be linked but should not be linked multiple times nor chain-linked. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Done. Linked the states once. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 06:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: Where do you notice inconsistency in using it? — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 06:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Usually it is not used, but then it appears in Note 8. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:19, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: Done. Got it. Thanks. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 14:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Aluminium composite panels need not be capitalized; nor should 3D Storyboards, check for others
Done. Resolved comment. Will look for additional instances.
  • "all possible angles from where" - should be "from which"
Done. As asked.
  • "vocoder – laden" -> "vocoder-laden"
Done. As asked.
  • "the music of Robot does not appeal" - should italicize Robot
Done. As asked.
  • You can use either spaced endashes ( &ndash ) or unspaced emdashes (—) to break up sentences, but you should stick with the same one throughout
  • "Enthiran was released on 1 October 2010 in 3,000 theatres" - since the following numbers do not add up to 3000, where are the other theatres?
Done. Removed 3000.
  • "it won a special award under the section, Winds of Asia-Middle East" - no comma, should use endash not hyphen, should have quotation marks around section
Done. As asked.
  • "on the review aggregator website, Rotten Tomatoes" - don't need comma there, check for other extra commas. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Done. Resolved comment. Will look for additional instances.

Thank you Nikkimaria, great help. Perhaps Sandy can take another look once Nikki has fully gone through it and they've all been addressed. Before it's nominated again we really need to make sure the MoS issues have all been dealt with as much as possible. Nikki can you spot any further NBSP and PUNCT issues?♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:28, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Some of the above are PUNCT issues; NBSP issues I don't see, but that's also not a guideline I know as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from RHM22[edit]

I'll take another look at the article before you renominate at FAC. I've begun my final read-through, but I won't be able to finish it right now. I'll continue a bit later this evening, leaving some comments here as I go along.

  • Why is Bachchan's maiden name used throughout the article? Since she was married at the time of filming and release (according to her article), why not just use her married name? It may be a bit confusing to readers, since her full (married) name is used sometimes, and just her surname (maiden) is used other times. I would standardise it one way or the other.-RHM22 (talk) 19:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
@RHM22: Besides the infobox, lead and cast sections (and also the "Cast and crew" section where I introduce her by her full name in the article's body), there is a quote in the "Critical reception" section mentioning her full name. I left that as it is in the quote. I used Rai everywherer instead of Bachchan to avoid confusion with Amitabh Bachchan, whom I mentioned in the article as being a candidate for the character, Bohra, before Denzongpa took over. In which places do you suggest I standardise her name? — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 05:33, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
That's a tough one for me, because I'm not overly familiar with the subject matter. I would suggest either changing every use of her full name (besides the quote) to "Aishwarya Rai" or changing the uses of her last name to "Bachchan". Since the other Bachchan is only mentioned very briefly, I don't think it will cause much confusion, since readers can infer from context. You can try to leave it as-is, but someone at FAC might question it.-RHM22 (talk) 15:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
@RHM22: Done. Changed to "Aishwarya Rai" as per your suggestion. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 03:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "It was the first Indian film for Legacy Effects studio..." "For" doesn't seem correct here.-RHM22 (talk) 00:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Done. Changed it to "Enthiran marked the debut of Legacy Effects studio, who were responsible for the film's prosthetic make-up and animatronics, in Indian cinema." — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 04:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
That looks better to me. I'll continue my review of the article now. Sorry about the delay; I was pretty busy yesterday.-RHM22 (talk) 15:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "For Rajinikanth, the make-up artist Banu told The Times of India that prosthetic make-up was not used, as the make-up artists did not want him to concentrate on the make-up for too long." This sentence should be reworded, because it uses "make-up" four times in quick succession. My suggestion: "The make-up artist Banu told The Times of India that prosthetics were not used for Rajinikanth, as they did not want him to concentrate on the make-up for too long." or something similar.-RHM22 (talk) 19:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Done. As asked.
  • "Chopra said, "Robot rides on Rajinikanth’s shoulders and he never stoops under the burden. Aided by snazzy clothes, make-up and special effects, he makes Chitti endearing."" This needs a direct citation immediately after the quote. All quotations need an immediate direct citation after the quoted portion, no matter what.-RHM22 (talk) 21:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Done. As asked.
  • "Srinivasan, however, said that Shankar "strikes the balance between science fiction and masala quotient."" This also needs a direct citation.-RHM22 (talk) 21:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Done. As asked.

After the above are fixed, I will support returning this article to FAC prior to the two-week minimum, as long as the delegates agree to do so.-RHM22 (talk) 21:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 17 March 2015, 13:49 UTC)----


Don't Stop the Music (Rihanna song)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… I plan to take it to a featured article candidate process, however, before that, I would like to assure that the prose is polished and satisfies the high standard the encyclopedia uses for it.

Thanks, — Tomíca(T2ME) 21:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from WikiRedactor[edit]

  • I removed all the dead links, however, the tool must be broken as it shows the 7 digital references as dead, however, the function perfectly!
  • Done
  • My understanding is that the United States should be abbreviated "U.S." instead of "US".
  • It's a preference. I prefer to use US, instead of U.S., nothing wrong with that.
  • When you mention the Billboard component charts (ie. Hot Dance Club Songs in the introduction), I think it would be helpful to specifically identify them as Billboard component charts for the unfamiliar reader.
    • No, you would just say "on the U.S. Hot Dance Club Songs chart", you wouldn't say the word "component".  — ₳aron 23:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I added Billboard in front of Dance Club Songs.
  • "Reception and accolades" can be renamed "Critical reception" to follow suit with similar articles.
  • Done
  • I personally prefer the title "Commercial performance" over "Chart performance"
  • Done
  • "Other versions and covers" can be more concisely titled "Cover versions".
  • Done
  • "Radio and release history" is redundant, "Release history" alone will suffice.
  • Done
  • For consistency, I would like to see the references in "Radio and release history" placed in a separate column like they are for the Jamie Callum version.
  • I'd like to see consistency in the way iTunes Store and Apple are treated in the references, different sections of the article use different varieties.
  • On that same token, the MTV websites should be listing Viacom as its publisher.
    • @WikiRedactor: I did a separate column and removed all the publishers. Lately, they are considered very unneeded. — Tomíca(T2ME) 22:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
      • While consistent use (or lack thereof) is not a GA requirement, FA's do need "consistently formatted inline citations". I've seen lots of removals lately throughout articles, often performed by script. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

WikiRedactor (talk) 21:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the comments. — Tomíca(T2ME) 00:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from SNUGGUMS[edit]

Lead
  • "features a wide variety of rhythmic devices"..... various rhythmic devices
  • Grammy nomination is worth mentioning
  • Given its success in the UK, I'd probably add its gold certification and sales (looking at the certifications list, it's the highest sales figure given aside from US)
  • "Rihanna performed 'Don't Stop the Music' at the 50th Annual Grammy Awards and the NRJ Music Awards in 2008 and included it on the Good Girl Gone Bad, Last Girl on Earth, Loud and the Diamonds World Tour set lists" is a bit lengthy. Probably best to split awards and tours into different sentences.
  • Done all
Development and release
  • "approved the demand without prior contacting Dibango" should be either "previously contacting Dibango" or "contacting Dibango beforehand".
  • "released to digital outlets in some territories on May 14"..... give some specific names
  • Done
Composition
  • "Throughout, it features a wide variety of rhythmic devices used mainly in hip hop music" → "Various rhythmic used mainly in hip hop music are featured throughout the song".
  • Remove the comma after "Slant Magazine"
Done
Critical reception
  • Six reviews doesn't seem like very much for such a well-known Rihanna song
  • That's all I could find, there is no much mention of the song (Sadly) or other reviews of the album are dead links now
  • Is "Hot Press" a reliable source?
  • Yes it is. It's used in other FA's too.
  • Per MOS:QUOTEMARKS, ′ should be ', and ″ should be "
  • I am not sure whether I could understand you here?
  • "noted" from "He noted that 'Don't Stop the Music' is the best single" should be "felt" or "wrote" per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV
  • Beyoncé Knowles → Beyoncé
  • Done last two
Commercial performance
  • "Only" from "It became only Rihanna's second song" isn't really needed
  • Include dates for the song's sales/certifications from the UK, Australia, and New Zealand.
  • Done
Music video
  • It would be better to have a video screenshot than a photo of Prague
  • Do you have an idea what part of the video is worth of ascreenshot ?
  • Probably her dancing in the club, as it best shows her as a "queen of the clubs" that VH1 mentions Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • When was the video shot?
  • No info
  • I don't think "NYU Local" is considered FA-worthy, seeing to it that this is a news blog run by college students
  • Replaced it
  • No commentary from Anthony Mandler or Rihanna herself?
  • Not that I could fine :/
  • Aside from VH1's "Sexiest Videos" ranking, there are no reviews of the video..... major problem
  • Unfortunately, I could only find that, if you have time can you please look on the Net?
Live performances
  • "major" from "her first major world tour" isn't needed
  • Removed
  • "held in Rockfeller Center, New York City" → "held at the Rockefeller Center in New York City"
  • Done
  • No commentary for any of the performances? It's not a requirement to have this for all of them, but at least things like her tours should include it.
  • Searched, no success
  • I'm not convinced "Toronto Sun" is reliable
  • Removed/Replaced it
Cover versions
  • "to which Rihanna positively reacted"..... awkward phrasing, and it would help to include a quote and/or commentary
  • That was not even in the source, I removed it
Jamie Cullum version
  • If possible, try to use something other than a YouTube link for Cullum's video release
  • I searched, no results sadly
References
  • As FA criterion 2c requires "consistently formatted inline citations", I'd remove publishers because most references in this instance don't include them
  • Only the first reference to a work should have its name linked in refs (i.e. Digital Spy should only be linked in FN18, The New York Times should only be linked in FN21)
  • Removed all the publishers
  • Done except for the chart references which are generate the references themselves.

Not a bad article overall, but needs brushing up before going for FA. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the comments @SNUGGUMS:! Please check my responses. — Tomíca(T2ME) 22:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • You're welcome, looking better now :). At the moment, my main concern is comprehensiveness. Let's see what turns up. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • @SNUGGUMS: I added a screenshot. It would be nice to have more information about the video, however, it can still be a FA. Having the fact I helped "Rehab" being promoted (which is smaller), I don't see a problem here either :). — Tomíca(T2ME) 23:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Screenshot looks very nice :D. Something "Rehab" has that I would search for is (at least) commentary from those involved with the video. In the "Rehab" article, there's a quote from co-star Justin Timberlake. It might take some extra research, but aim for things like that. Maybe I'll end up finding something on my own, though this is headed in the right direction either way. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:11, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Hey Snugi. This and this could be useful, if the sources were reliable :/. Any chances you found something? @SNUGGUMS:Tomíca(T2ME) 11:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
No, not yet :/ Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm really skeptical about sources existing :/. Except from unreliable sites like those I pointed above. — Tomíca(T2ME) 13:32, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Quite a shame Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from HĐ[edit]

  • You should avoid apostrophe after quotation marks (i.e. "Wanna Be Startin' Somethin'"'s sample)
  • I am skeptical about the importance of the music video's screenshot. Either way, the file needs a more appropriate non-free rationale.

(talk) 13:35, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Aaron[edit]

  • There is something wrong with the web checker. Those links work perfectly fine. — Tomíca(T2ME) 11:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Nope, says page not found.  — ₳aron 12:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  •  :O How's possible? It shows this for me. Can you try and go manually see if it will be found on the Swedish 7 digital? — Tomíca(T2ME) 12:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • It's now available in the UK store, try the Swedish or other one. — Tomíca(T2ME) 12:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • It was written by Tawanna Dabney and Michael Jackson together with its producers StarGate. → I think it's a bit misleading to imply Jackson wrote it when he is only credited because of the sample. He didn't actually write "Don't Stop the Music" during the recording process, and as such had nothing to do with it apart from giving permission.
  • Are you sure StarGate is meant to have a capital G? It's not stylized as such on Stargate (production team).
  • received critical acclaim from music critics with many of them → Comma after critics
  • Link Interpolation (music) in the lead
  • Lead: First paragraph uses sample, second paragraph uses interpolation. They are two different things, so to use both is a bit confusing.
  • number four, number three, number one etc. need hyphenating throughout (number-one)
  • Try to avoid too much repetition, like in Commercial performance of "the song": The song stayed on the chart for overall period of 27 weeks. The song charted at number 12 on the 2008 year-end Australian Singles Chart and After seven weeks on the chart, the song the reached its peak of four.[43] In July 2013, the song was certified gold.
  • I don't think songwrintg and production need linking in Credits and personnel. Either to all of them or none of them.
  • won the accolade → accolade isn't appropriate in this sense. Award is better. You'd use accolade for "She has gained several accolades"

 — ₳aron 11:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 11 March 2015, 21:10 UTC)----


New World (Dave Kerzner album)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review in order to ensure that all of the content on the article is suitable for inclusion and that nothing needs to be reworked. I do not think there are any outstanding issues, but opinions from our Arts article reviewers (who likely see these kinds of articles on a regular basis and are experienced at gauging these types of articles) would be much appreciated just as a checkup.

Thanks, Vuzor (talk) 14:11, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 8 March 2015, 14:11 UTC)----


I Could Fall in Love[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because…I would like to bring this article to WP:FAC in the coming month.

Thanks, jona(talk) 01:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 4 March 2015, 01:14 UTC)----


Taj Mahal[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because its a GA now and I would let it go loose for FA. It had a PR ages ago (in 2006) and its a GA for about 6 years. Of course, there is no question about notability which have about 6-7K hits daily.

Thanks, Ṫ Ḧ the joy of the LORDmy strength 15:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Csisc[edit]

First, I thank you for the work you have done about Taj Mahal. However, in order to get FA Status, the work must be more efficient and precise.

  • Celebrations: The work does not include any use of the Taj Mahal in celebrations... The most important place in India may host some events.
  • Origin and Inspiration: This section is excellent... However, you may include the cause of the important circumstances of the death of Mumtaz Mahal
  • Place: you may also include how the place in which Taj Mahal had been built was before 1632.
  • History: you should include which mosque from Cairo influenced the work. You should also expand the part talking about the situation of Taj Mahal during the British Protectorate in India
  • Threats: Taj Mahal had been threatened several times before 1943. I think you should expand the History Part and include threats in it.
  • Rehabilitations: I think that you should include that there are some rehabilitations of Taj Mahal that were done in order to preserve it.
  • Adjustments: You should also include whether the work had been adjusted later.
  • Tourism: The ads about visiting Taj Mahal should be also included. I think that the national trials to advertise and support the visits to Taj Mahal should be included.
  • Films and TV: I think that Films and TV shows turned in Taj Mahal should be included. As a national place, I think that many scenes had been filmed in the Taj Mahal areas.
  • Influence: I think that a part about how Taj Mahal influenced the creation of some artistic works should be included

Yours Sincerely,

--Csisc (talk) 09:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 2 March 2015, 15:35 UTC)----


Avengers: Age of Ultron[edit]

This article falls within the scope of List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films, which is being nominated for a Good Topic. In order to proceed with this nomination, this article needs to be peer-reviewed. Thanks. --Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 00:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Darkwarriorblake
  • General
    • There are a few duplicate links, though it's hard to find them all since the script doesn't seem to detect text in the cast list. There is a dupe to Ulysses Klaw in the post-production section, and a few cast members in the same section as well like Mackie, Falcon, Skarsgard, Selvig
  • Hmm. Beyond linking in the lead and cast section, then next occurrence outside that, I'm not seeing duplicate links. I'm I missing something? - Favre1fan93 (talk)
    • Current page size is perfectly fine, well below any limits.
  • Infobox
    • The Starring infobox section is excessive and clearly all these people cannot be the stars, there is an option to simply list the star billing at the top of the poster when this situation arises and it might be beneficial to do this to be more general. Since the cast section seems to be reflecting this lengthy list, following the top block would also allow all those single sentence cast members to be moved down rather than awkwardly messing with the layout between the cast members with a great deal of prose dedicated to them, particularly between Maria Hill and Ultron.
  • I had a similar feeling on this. We have always used the billing block listings as the guide here, but I do agree that it is a bit excessive. I would not be opposed to reducing this to the top billing and just make note some how of the others. @TriiipleThreat, Richiekim, Adamstom.97: thoughts on doing this? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Its an ensemble film, which have large casts, so it is possible that they all are receiving starring credits. I see no reason to deviate from guidelines.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:10, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree with Triiiple - we don't know what role some of these characters will play in the film, and just because we haven't seen them in the trailers yet doesn't mean they don't have substantial co-starring roles in the film. I don't see any reason to break what has become a great consistency streak with these articles just because there are a few more starring cast members in this film compared to some of the others. And the top billing doesn't even include Taylor-Johnson and Olsen, who clearly are starring in the film as well, so I think we should keep it as is. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Eh, I think it's fair to say there is a main cast and then a supporting cast, and people considered to have starring roles, hence why there are those much more limited names at the top and visible. But whatever, it's not a huge deal. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Can Ben Davis be mentioned somewhere in the prose as part of the filming section so the Ref doesn't have to be in the infobox?
  • I can make a line a la "Ben Davis served as director of photography." - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Done - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
    • If Danny Elfman isn't the main source of music, does he need to be here?
  • We are not quite clear on the exact extent of his involvement, but would not mind if it was not in there until we had further confirmation. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • We do know that his involvement is to do with the main theme though, and it was significant enough to be listed in the billing block, so don't see why we can't just leave him there with the "additional" tag. If it turns out that he only contributed work for a single scene or even just the end credits, then perhaps we could rethink this then, but for now we should just stick with what we know from the billing block. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Cast
    • " where she's realizing — and it's kind of a continuation of Cap 2", maybe change Cap 2 to The Winter Soldier or Captain America: The Winter Soldier
    • Should Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch be described as "newly recruited Avenger"s if that's not how they're to be introduced in the film? It's kinda like introducing Alexander Pierce as "The secret head of HYDRA running shield who initially is a good guy".
  • I think it was just to make not that they are new members ie not returning from the first film. Maybe better wording can be used. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Marketing
    • Really wouldn't hurt to have an example image of marketing here given how big this section is.
  • Maybe not an image, but a sound clip of the Pinocchio music from the trailer? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I would support the inclusion of the Pinocchio music, if that was possible. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Lets wait and see. We might possibly obtain some more free images from D23 or the films premiere, in which case we move around images of the cast. We should refrain from adding any more NFC than necessary.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The section as a whole is large but the part specific talking about Pinocchio is small and wouldn't justify it's inclusion. And elaborating on it would only give it WP:UNDUE weight.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Is there opportunity for sub headers? There's a merchandising section, could the reception be a sub section or is there room to break off info about the trailers and posters for easier digestion under the markketing banner?
  • Possibly. Will look into this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Added some responses. Thanks!! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Stuff seems to have been addressed. Good work. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 1 March 2015, 00:22 UTC)----


The Tower House[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it is a very comprehensive account of a London house, which was built by William Burges, a master architect. The house was a real labour of love for Burges and some of the detail he put into it was a fine example of his prowess and talent, not only as an architect, but as a furniture maker and jewel craftsman. You can marvel at a room of the interior here. I'm convinced that this is comprehensive enough to make it worth promoting, so hope to see some pointers here before we take to FAC. …

Thanks, ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Tim[edit]

  • General
    • There are too many WP:OVERLINKs in the main text (and that's not counting the table near the end, where there are more): the V&A, Narcissus washstand and Charles Handley-Read are linked three times apiece, and there are duplicate links to Woodland House and Little Holland House. Richard Party-Popper-Puller is not linked at first mention in the main text, but gets a link rather late in the day in the final paragraph.
Done.
  • Lead
    • "Burges purchased" – definitely one of those tongue twisters like "eleven benevolent elephants". Perhaps "Burges bought"?
Done.
    • "by the likes of sculptor …" – three quibbles here: first the false title (first of several); secondly who are "the likes of" these people?; and thirdly aren't sculptors artists? Perhaps "interior decoration by the sculptor Thomas Nicholls and the painter Henry Stacy Marks, among others"?
Done.
    • [Merlin Minshall – Good Lord! I'd forgotten all about him. He used to bore us all to sleep on the train between London and Norwich in the 1970s.]
Noted.
  • Location
    • Second para, second sentence: there seem to be a main verb and predicate missing here: we have "X, whose house did this…" and then no payoff.
Done.
  • Construction and craftsmanship
    • "finding the plot on Melbury Road" – why the Americanism "on so-and-so street" rather than the English "in …..", as in the earlier part of the sentence?
Done.
    • "Sculptor Thomas Nicholls" – another tabloidese false title; and do we need "stone" twice in the sentence?
Done.
    • Regent Street – worth a blue link (asked the retired librarian of the Crown Estate)? And the Strand, Covent Garden, Long Acre and Southampton Row too. I don't press the point. I sometimes think we all link far too much. Anyhow, pray ponder.
Done. But need to properly do the Strand. Now Done.
    • "to undertake mural paintings" – is that the same as to paint murals?
Done.
    • Alphabet frieze – double quotes, not single, please. (Manual of Style diktat)
Done.
    • "Weeks painted legendary lovers in the drawing-room" – could we have this the other way round, as "in the drawing-room Weeks painted legendary lovers"? Perhaps it's just me, but the existing wording conjures up What the Butler Saw. I'm sorry, I'll be all right in a minute.
Done.
  • Burges and after
    • "completed some of his unfinished projects" – a bit ambiguous: better to say "Burges's" than "his" here, I think.
Done.
  • 1970s to present
    • I wonder about the validity of adding 2015 translations of 1970 property prices. The RPI or CPI (as used here, I see) bears little relation to the rip-roaring inflation of house prices over the same period. £1m would buy you a fairly modest flat in Holland Park in 2015, not a Grade I listed mini-mansion like this.
Not done. I don't like them either, nor do I think they are particularly accurate. Should I remove?
  • Interior
    • In-line attribution for the opening quote, please.
Done.
  • Ground floor
    • "each one relevant to their respective rooms" – you've changed from singular to plural within one phrase
Done.
  • Library
    • More single quotes where the MoS requires doubles. Same in next section.
Done.
  • Drawing room
    • "On wall" – missing an indefinite or definite article – not sure which.
Done.
    • I am confused by this section. If the room is "devoted to" Chaucer's House of Fame, how do Jack and the Beanstalk and Little Red Riding Hood fit in? It is true that my only reading of The House of Fame was so long ago that it was still on the Recent Fiction lists, but I don't recall either of them in there.
Done. Sort of.
  • First floor
    • Isn't the plural "fleurs-de-lis"?
Done.
  • Garden
    • mediaeval – instead of the "medieval" used everywhere else in the article.
Done.

That's all from me. There's a lot of quibbling, so let me add that this implacable loather of Victorian Gothic nonetheless enjoyed the article, and will be pleased to add a friendly voice at FAC if you ping me then. – Tim riley talk 21:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Cheers Tim! @KJP1:Dr. Blofeld 21:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Have addressed most of these, I hope. Two outstanding issues. I agree about the price conversions but not sure I should just remove them. Thoughts? Incidentally, in the current planning spat between Page and Robbie Williams (which merits a mention??), I've seen newspaper valuations of the Tower House of around £20 million. That strikes me as much more realistic than even £4.5M, bearing in mind that Robbie Williams paid £17.5M for Woodlands in 2013, although that is a much bigger house. As to the decorative theme of the Drawing Room, I shall go and consult the Charles Handley-Read Country Life article of about 1969 which I've recently purchased. Thanks and all the best. KJP1 (talk) 08:25, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
The 4.5m is the equiv value of 350,000 in 1973 values in 2015, showing the vast inflation in house prices over the same period. Perhaps a comparison with the average 1973 UK house price would be better. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 19:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
OK - think the Dining (not Drawing) Room theme issue is resolved. The theme appears to be more about Fame and famous stories (fairy tales). Not my interpretation but Crook's, so no personal research. But really, trying to work out what was going through Billy Burges's mind in some of his designs is almost impossible. What was the Elephant Inkstand all about? Have also tried to update the references by using the 2013 version of William Burges and the High Victorian Dream and re-naming The Strange Genius of William Burges as Crook 1981. Hope to heavens I've got them right, considering past controversies! Interesting sidelight on prices (see above). The 1981 version of High Victorian Dream cost £40 in that year - a sum my mother considered monstrous for a book. The 2013 version cost me £45, which is ridiculously cheap. The very reverse of house prices.

Re-reading the whole article, I think it needs a good scrub. It doesn't flow in places, I'm not sure the structure's quite right and there seems to be quite a lot of extraneous detail. I'll also let Gareth Kegg know we're working on it, as he added so much to my original stub and it's more "his" article than mine. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 11:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks KJP. Yes it might need a bit of tweaking.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

I also had concerns about text flow, but I see that's covered above, so I'll confine myself to glitches. Very few, especially in the architecture sections.

Lede
  • "for himself" suggest possibly "as a personal residence"
Done.
  • "and the last" and the " suggest minor tweaking to avoid the double "and"
Done.
  • " with Bath stone dressings and green slates from Cumberland, with" double with should be massaged.
Done.
  • "that Burges designed, have been dispersed" don't see any great need for the comma.
Done.
Location
  • Some uncited material.
NOT Done. To address later.
Construction
  • " Burges received no further major commissions" received or accepted?
The former, unfortunately. But having worked for Bute, the world's richest man, perhaps there was nowhere else to go.
  • "He agreed to purchase the land from the Earl of Ilchester, the owner of the Holland Estate, in December 1875. The ground rent was £100 per annum." An American reading this might assume that he purchased the freehold, which was obviously not the case. Can this be clarified?
Done.
  • "the capitals and corbels and the chimneypieces. " and ... and
Done.
70s
  • ""little bastards" inhabiting the Tower House, who then left Harris alone" I assume these were vandals or squatters?
Not Done. Actually, I think they are supposed to have been ghosts. I don't like this part, although it is sourced. In brief, Danny La Rue, who visited the house with Liberace, when the latter was intending to buy it, found the place unnerving. Later, La Rue spoke about his visit to the then owner, Richard Harris, who said that he had purchased toys for the "little bastards" (ghosts?) inhabiting the nurseries Burges had constructed in the garret and that they had then left Harris undisturbed. It's all very odd, not least why on earth Burges, a confirmed bachelor, thought he would need two nurseries in the house. I'm really not sure what to do about this. Nor do I own either Danny La Rue's or Richard Harris's autobiographies, so I can't really investigate it further.
It's clear from Harris that he believed that there were ghosts of children (!) inhabiting the nursery at the top of the house. When I wrote this, I was loved the sense of colour it gave the article, and the unusual triad that Liberace, La Rue and Harris made. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 19:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Gareth. It absolutely does give colour! Maybe it's just my old, grey Puritan streak and my not believing in ghosts. But that's POV, it's sourced and Harris, Liberace and Danny La Rue had all been inside the Tower House which is more than I'm ever likely to do. So it stays. KJP1 (talk) 19:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I think it's worth mentioning what band Mr. Page has been associated with.
Done.
Architecture.
  • "with a marble statue of a boy with" I've passed by one or two "with ... with" that I thought were justified, but I think this one should be tweaked.
Done.
References and so forth
  • There are a number of ref errors, affecting 4, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 34.
Not Done. Will address.
  • Ref 42 I suspect the page number is an error.
Not Done. Will address.
That's all I have. Look forward to reading it again when it's ready for FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Really appreciate your comments and your time. KJP1 (talk) 19:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Ditto. Thank you so much to everybody who has worked hard on this review. This article seems to brings me more pleasure than any other. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 19:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I think it's because you can sense that it was a real labour of love of Burges and sense the passion and brilliance which went into his pieces. I'd say that's what makes it seem so much of a pleasure to tap into and experience when you edit it and the furniture pieces!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:41, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Very brief comments

  • On my screen, the red dot pinpointing the location on the map disappears when the image is clicked on and no street names are given. The shape of the shaded part in the inset map is different from the main one. These things make the main map of minimal value.
  • The first image of the building is not very different from the one in Exterior and design.
Done - by exchanging it. Oh god, what would we give for some non-copyright interior photos.
  • Scholarship is more of a gloss on some of the sources used than anything informative about the house.
A fair point. I shall look at this when we review it. I've changed this to "Architectural coverage" and fleshed it out a, very, little. Done?
  • "between 1875–81". Between A and B, or rephrase.
Done.Dr. Blofeld 21:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll try to come back to it if I have time. EddieHugh (talk) 20:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Cheers Eddie.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Hchc2009[edit]

A worthy topic for an article! Thoughts follow...

  • I found the first paragraph of the location section a little confusing, and thought it could easily be simplified to something like "The Tower House is located at 29 (originally 9) Melbury Road in the Kensington district of London." The reader probably doesn't need exact directions in an encyclopaedia after all.

Perhaps it's a tad too detailed, but I'm been following a fairly detailed location in other house articles to avoid a very short section!♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not sure that it needs a section of its own, as the location isn't all that critical to the story of the house, and could easily just be part of the history; it's not just that it was detailed, though, but that personally for me it was also confusing - I had to try and visualise the tube station, the roads, the junctions etc., and I don't know Kensington that well! Hchc2009 (talk) 07:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Done? By removal of much of the detail. Hope every one is ok with this. It can, of course, be easily located by anyone wanted to visit through Google maps or some such.
  • Worth checking that the reader can tell who the quotes are from by the in-line wording; I can't tell who the "experience of twenty years...", "pledge to the spirit of gothic" etc. is supposed to be from for example.
Doing these as I go through. Now Done, I hope.
  • I don't believe that the Consumer Price Index figures include housing projects, and the Measuring Worth webpage that's cited in the article advises against using it for this purpose (the template used here notes that it is Original Research to use it in this way). You could use one of the project measures from the site instead.
Not done. Sorry, but I just don't know how to amend these. Help! Now Done, by removal.
  • " In a shop in Lincoln, Betjeman discovered the Narcissus washstand, made by Burges for his rooms in Buckingham Street and subsequently moved to the Tower House." I couldn't work out when this was supposed to have happened - before he moved there? Later?
Done, sort of. This is one area, amongst another, where the flow of the article needs revision, once we've got the content in. Have now moved to the furniture section as BB also pointed out the chronology wasn't right.
  • "The Zodiace settle", "Philosophy cabinet" etc. are mentioned once in the lead but never explained until they appear much later under Betjeman, when they're not really described either. Worth checking the consistency of how you refer to them.
Not quite sure what is meant here. I can certainly add a little on each of the major pieces, if that is what's required. Maybe it actually needs a broader section on the furniture, which was absolutely central to the overall design. Could that go before the table of contents?
  • Any chance of getting some dates into the history section headings? I suspect many readers won't know when Betjeman was alive etc. and you have to dig into the section to find out when he was using it.
Not done. Will work on this. Now Done, I hope.
  • Worth explaining who David Bowie is in-line, like Page et al?
Done. Not being a fan, is "pop star" appropriate?
  • " with floor depths being sufficient to support rooms four or five times their size. " - I wasn't sure what this meant.
Done. Take the point and I don't think the comment did more than repeat the effect of the R. Norman Shaw remark. Have removed, therefore.
  • "At the time of Burges's death, the letterbox, in the form of the messenger Mercury wearing a tunic powdered with letters, was near the front door." - I'm probably being simplistic, but aren't letterboxes normally near the front door of a British townhouse?
Done. A very fair point!
  • "Figures within the chimneypiece represent "parts of speech, noun, verb, preposition" etc." - the "etc." seemed odd here
Done.
  • If you need any help producing a ground plan of the house, just say. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Cheers Hc.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Averting my eyes from the bushfires raging elsewhere, can I thank you Hchc2009 for your very helpful comments, which I shall address shortly. Can I also immediately take you up on your offer to produce a ground plan. I think plans of the house would greatly enhance the article. Does the second external link give you sufficient to produce such plans? I can certainly look through my collection to see what else I've got, which I could then scan to Commons, if it doesn't. Thanks again. KJP1 (talk) 13:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I think I should be able to work off that data to produce an original work. Any preference for whether the rooms are labelled in words ("the xx room") or letters ("a", "b" etc.)? My usual preference is the latter as it makes the image more widely usable in other languages, but happy to be steered either way. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Excellent - many thanks indeed. Let's go for "a", "b" etc. and we can do a key to complement. KJP1 (talk) 16:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from BB[edit]

I see that you have had quite a few comments. Thus far I have only managed the first half of the article:

Lead
  • First line: I don't think the previous number is noteworthy enough for the first line of the lead, if at all. I see this information doesn't appear in the main text.
Done.
  • Third paragraph: I would begin the second sentence "Many items...", and I'd also revise the wording so that the word "including" didn't appear twice in the sentence.
Done.
Location
  • A reference is required for the information relating to Lord Leighton and his house.
Done.
Construction and craftsmanship
  • "A basic cost of £6,000 was agreed" – I'm not sure what "basic cost" means. Is it different from the total cost? If so, what didn't the basic cost cover?
Done.
  • Are "Simpson and Sons of the Strand" anything to do with Simpson's-in-the-Strand? I wouldn't have thought that the restaurant dealt in decorative tiles, but it's odd to find two businesses with the same name in the same street.
Not sure, but I will have a look. I think this [26] and this [27] indicate they are not linked and that the name and the proximity are coincidental.
  • Fine, but you should use the firm's correct name – WB Simpson and Sons Ltd – rather than "Simpson and Sons". Brianboulton (talk) 18:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Done.
  • "The firm was later employed by Richard Harris in his restoration of the Tower House". This is the first mention of Harris in the main text, and I suggest a link. But this information, which relates to the 1970s, is out of place here and should be inserted further down. (Later: I see that it is mentioned later, so it can be safely deleted here.
Done.
  • Well, you've done the deletion, but you still need to link Harris on his first apearance in the main text, later on. Brianboulton (talk) 18:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Done.
Burges and after
  • Slightly odd construction in this section, with Burges dead and buried in the first paragraph, but alive and kicking (literally, it seems) in the second. There may be a better way of presenting this material.
Not done. But there is a better way of presenting it - I need a longer section on Burges's time at the house, his dogs, interests etc. I can and will do this when revising the whole text.
  • In the last paragraph, "It was then purchased..." → "The house was then purchased...", otherwise "it" is undefined.
Done.
John Betjeman
  • Again there is chronological confusion here. You begin by recording that Betjeman acquired the remainder of the lease, together with some furniture, in 1962. You then tell the washstand story, which appears to follow naturally. But in fact, this happened nine years earlier, in 1953, on the occasion of Waugh's 50th birthday. It is also going too far to describe the washstand as the "centrepiece" of Waugh's Pinfold novel. It features in it, in that Waugh fictionalises his own misremembering of some of the piece's details, as part of the process of his hero's mental decline, but this is a single incident in the novel. You could more correctly say "who featured it in his 1957 novel..." I suggest a reworking of this paragraph. (The linked article on the washstand should also be amended).
Done. and Done.
  • You've deleted the washstand story altogether, which is a pity in a way. Although it's not central to the article, it added a little bit of interest. I can provide th refs you need, if you want to reinstate it. Otherwise, the Betjeman section is too short, really, to stand alone. If you're not going to use the washstand story I think you should absorb the Betjeman section into "Burges and after". I see you have transferred the washstand storyt o the Furniture section, which is wise. Without it, the Betjeman section is too short, really, to stand alone, and you should consider absorbing it into "Burges and after". Brianboulton (talk) 21:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Would quite like to keep it as a separate section and am adding, as is Dr. B, to address this. KJP1 (talk) 22:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
  • There are loose ends in this section. Betjeman was given the last 2 years of the lease, but I gather never lived in the house. So who owned it after 1964? Who applied for and got grants for the restoration? Who received the £70,000 that Richard Harris paid for it?
Done. I just don't know, and will need to investigate further. Was it, is it, still leasehold and the ultimate owner was and remains the Ilchester Estate? A little digging suggests that it is. The exceptionally wealthy Charlotte Townshend [28]is now the owner of the Ilchester Estate and certainly appears to own the freehold of Woodland House. I see no reason why her ancestors would have sold the freehold on the Tower House, which they certainly held in the 1960s. I shall see if I can find confirmation. A bit more digging. The Survey of London states that "Burges was granted a lease in February 1877 for ninety years from 1875 at an annual ground rent of £50 for the first two years and £100 thereafter." So that takes us from 1875 to 1965 Which just about fits, give or take a year, with Betjeman inheriting "the remaining 2 years of the lease" on Mrs. Graham's death in 1962. So, can we assume Betjeman gave up the lease in 1964/5 and the ownership then reverted to the freeholder, then the 8th Earl of Ilchester, Walter Angelo Fox-Strangeways (1887-1970) and that a further lease/or even the freehold, was then sold to Robert Harris by him, or by his son Maurice Fox-Strangways, 9th Earl of Ilchester, who inherited in 1970? Not sure how we confirm any of this? KJP1 (talk) 09:55, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
But does this [29] suggest that the freehold was sold?
I find that records of the grants made by the GLC are held at Kew. I have requested a copy of the relevant record which should be useful.
I should have checked Crook's notes more thoroughly. I'm hoping the detail is now sufficiently clear. Betjeman did not extend the lease, which reverted to the Ilchester Estate in 1964. In 1965/6, Lady Turnbull took a new lease. If it was 90 years, as Burges's had been from 1875-1965, then it will come up for renewal in 2055. I regret that I am unlikely to be around to bid, let alone in a position to fund it!
1970s to present
  • I don't know what's going on here: " La Rue later met Harris who told him that he had bought children's toys for the "little bastards" inhabiting the Tower House, who then left Harris alone." Can you enlighten?
This is a problematic section. In a nutshell, I think it is saying that "La Rue, when visiting with Liberace, thought the house haunted. In a subsequent conversation with Harris, the latter confirmed this but said he had placated the child ghosts inhabiting the nurseries, the "little bastards", by providing them with toys, after which they ceased to be a nuisance." I'm really not sure where to go with this.
In an attempt to resolve this, I have just purchased "From Drags to Riches - My Autobiography" by Mr La Rue. Once it arrives, I shall see if we can sort it out. The things I do for Burges!
  • I would delete the information "The house is not open to the public". We are not writing a tourist guide.
I appreciate the point about it not being a guidebook. But I wonder if the fact that the Tower House, alone of all of Burges's major works, cannot be viewed is notable. It's certainly very infuriating, although quite understandable.

Whether you want my musings on the Architecture sections I don't know, but I'll return to the review on Monday. Brianboulton (talk) 00:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Dear Mr Boulton, I would certainly be very grateful for your comments on the Architecture sections, as I am for your comments above. They are extremely helpful and will much improve the article. I shall incorporate them as soon as I can but that may not be today, unfortunately. Actually, I find I do have time. With thanks and best regards. KJP1 (talk) 07:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I have started on the Architecture sections and will report back shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 18:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks BB.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Architecture sections:

Exterior and design
  • "Luke Fildes would describe" → "Luke Fildes described"
Done.
  • "The house is not large, its floor-plan being little more than 50 feet (15 m) square". I take it that by this you mean 50 feet x 50 feet (2,500 square feet), and this needs to be clear. I'd suggest you refer to its floor space, rather then "floor-plan" which doen't convey much.
Done, I hope.
Interior
  • Bridget Cherry needs a brief introduction, on first mention. She is spelt "Bridgett" in the references, which I assume is a mistake.
  • Handley-Read also needs introducing on first mention. At present he is introduced further on, at his second mention.
Done and Done. Will amend the references.
Ground floor
  • I've removed the unsightly white space between the Ground floor and Library sections. It was unnecessary and distracting.
Thank you.
  • What is "Buckingham Street"?:
Done.
Library
  • You begin: "The library featured a sculptured mantlepiece" – why the past tense? Is the mantelpiece no longer there?
Done - it is still there.
Dining room
  • The Victorians had "a horror of food smells" – needs attribution to Handley-Read
Done.
First floor
  • A lot of image clutter around here. I would ditch the quote box
  • "On the first floor are two main bedrooms and an armoury". This is inconsistent with what it says in the Exterior and design section
Done.
  • "The frieze below the Mermaid fireplace has been described as "proto-art noveau" – by whom?
Done.
Done.
Garden
  • " planned according to those pleasances..." etc. Should be attributed.
to be Done. Now Done.
Furniture
  • "The Zodiac settle was acquired by the Higgins in 2011". Who, or what, is "the Higgins"?

Originally the Cecil Higgins At Gallery, in Bedford, named after the Victorian manufacturer in whose house the museum is located. Now called The Higgins. I hope it is clear in the text?

Architectural coverage
  • General academic usage requires "master's", not "masters"
Done.
Done.
  • I have again closed some white space, by a slight reformatting of the citation columns
Noted, many thanks.

Review complete. Brianboulton (talk) 23:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much indeed. The peer review has certainly improved the article. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 18:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Summary[edit]

Dr. B, good to see that you're back. A very productive peer review. For my own benefit, I'm just trying to summarise where we are:

  • Awaiting comments on the architectural sections from Brianboulton
  • Awaiting plans from Hchc2009
  • The price comparisons have been removed, with which I hope everyone is content.
  • Issues around Danny La Rue's comments on the house - I hope that his autobiography, which is on its way, will assist.
  • Is the map now ok or is EddieHugh's concern still valid? Not my area of expertise.
  • I will add some dates to the history sections to address Hchc2009's concerns.
  • Can we find anything more on the "ownership" from circa 1964 to circa 1970? I suspect that it was the Ilchester Estate throughout and I hope that the GLC grants records I have requested will confirm this.
  • References - Eric Corbett has done a superb job, after my ham-fisted attempts, and I think we are good on these.
  • Some more detail on the rooms themselves, which I shall pick up.
  • A full read through/polish to improve the prose/flow.

Now, have I missed anything? KJP1 (talk) 22:39, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

"Betjeman considered that the house would be too costly to run permanently, with potential liability for £10,000 of renovations upon the expiration of the lease.[18] As a result, the Tower House was unoccupied between 1962 and 1966, during which time it was vandalised. According to Betjeman and Candida Lycett Green, the agents intentionally refused to let it and allowed the house to decline as they wanted to demolish the building and redevelop the site.[20] With the aid of grants from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and Greater London Council, restoration of the house began in 1966.[6]" -there seems to be something missing here. Firstly it's not clear what happened between it being too costly and it being unoccupied, did he just leave, put it on the market or what? The source I added yesterday and a few others state that about the "bastard agents", which indicates a degree of resentment towards them from Betjeman. I think we need to find out a bit more on the background here. Also it's not clear then who asked for a grant and why there was a change in decision to demolish it and to restore it, and why the government did so.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Dr. B - as indicated, I have ordered a copy of the GLC grant records for the period which may shed some light on this....
Done. "I should have checked Crook's notes more thoroughly. I'm hoping the detail is now sufficiently clear. Betjeman did not extend the lease, which reverted to the Ilchester Estate in 1964. In 1965/6, Lady Turnbull took a new lease. If it was 90 years, as Burges's had been from 1875-1965, then it will come up for renewal in 2055. I regret that I am unlikely to be around to bid, let alone in a position to fund it!" - I think we're ok now.
  • "The windows of the stair turret approaching the first floor represent "the Storming of the Castle of Love"." -not clear here what the Storming of the Castle of Love actually is..
And I can deal with this.... Now Done.

I think we also need the floor plans from Hchc2009

On the case... Hchc2009 (talk) 17:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, will wait until that's settled before nomming anyway!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Ok Dr. With the plans, I think we are good to go. KJP1 (talk) 21:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
The plans are pretty much there now, just need to do the labelling. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
And finished. I've added it into the article at the bottom of the architecture section. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:58, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Hchc2009, they look great and really enhance the article. Dr. B, I think we're now good to go if you want to hit the button. KJP1 (talk) 17:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Give it a while longer, see if Schro and Cass have anything to say.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Cassianto[edit]

  • Why do we link London in the lede? I'm sure most people would know where London is.
Done - and good to see you back. KJP1 (talk) 14:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! CassiantoTalk 16:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Design, construction and craftsmanship 1875-8

  • Watch out for the incorrect hyphen which really should be a dash.
Done.
  • This is the first mention of Burges in the body so I think a full introduction is required.
Done.
  • Link to Bayswater?
Done. But need to go check it's right.
  • "Burges agreed to purchase the leasehold of the plot in Melbury Road from the Earl of Ilchester" -- I would say "agreed to" is redundent here and could be struck. Let's cut to the case and just say "purchased".
Done.
  • Why is "Alphabet" quoted?
Done. If italics are better?
No dont use italics. You could say Burges named it the "Alphabet room" or something like that. We will then see that the quotes are a result of Burges calling it that. CassiantoTalk 16:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Done. By removing Alphabet entirely.

Burges and after: 1878-1962

  • Watch out for the incorrect hyphen which really should be a dash.
Done.
  • He entertained his wide circle of friends; to dinner with the wine served from decanters..." Oddly placed semi-colon.
Done.
  • "The decoration of his bedroom hints at another of Burges's passions, a fondness for opium. Stylised poppies covered the panels of a cupboard set next to his bed." -- I would combine this last sentence with the next (short) para giving his death. Very much relevent to each other.
Done.
  • "Burges was buried at the cemetery at West Norwood" -- Awkward. How about just using the full link instead of piping it which causes an at/at repetition?
Done.
  • The last para of this section finishes without a citation.
To do.
Done.

Betjeman to Turnbull: 1962-70

  • Watch out for the incorrect hyphen which really should be a dash.
Done.
  • "In 1957, the Tower House..." -- American comma
Done.
  • I fixed some awkwardness.
Much appreciated.
  • "prey to vandalism"...fine, but it would equally suffer the effects of neglect too. Neglect would cover all I think.
Done. By adding neglect to vandalism. The vandalism was tragic, involving the unlawful removal of some significant items and I'd like to mention it specifically.
  • The last para of this section finishes without a citation.
To do.
Done. Although a slight concern. Callan, which I don't have, apparently states Harris bought it in 1970. Crook, which I do have, definitely states 1969. I've gone with the latter.

Harris and Page: 1970 to the present

  • ...to the present what? Not sure about this title.
Done. Any better?
  • "Meeting La Rue later, Harris told him that he had found the house haunted by the ghosts of children from an orphanage which previously stood on the site and had placated them by the purchase of toys." -- As mad as a barrel load of frogs these thespians!
Indeed!
Done. Much better and incorporated.

Exterior and design

  • "green slates from Cumberland - on the roof I presume?
Done.
  • "Stair" would be the singular form of stairs. Staircase would be better if that's what you mean?
Done.

Interior

  • All good.
I thank you.

Ground floor

  • "Burges's office in 15 Buckingham Street." --at 15 Buckingham Street?
Done.
  • "A flower marks the door to the garden, with the front door marked by a key." -- marks/marked
Done.

Library

  • " "most celebrated of all Burges's jokes" -- who said this?
Everybody! Sorry, it was C.H-R and is now Done.

Drawing room

  • "On the wall opposite to the library fireplace, an opening leads into the drawing room. Three stained glass windows are set in ornamented marble linings,[6] and opposite the windows, Burges placed the "Zodiac settle". -- On the wall opposite the library fireplace, is an opening which leads into the drawing room. Inside, there are three stained glass windows which are set in ornamented marble linings. Opposite the windows, is a "Zodiac settle" which Burges placed there during his residency"?
Done. With a bit more tweaking. Hopefully ok.

Dining room

  • "cutlery and plate" -- plates?
No, I think plate, in the sense of metal wares.

First floor

Excellent, thanks.

Garden

  • The garden at the back of the Tower House featured raised flowerbeds which the cultural historian, Caroline Dakers, describes as being "planned according to those pleasances depicted in medieval romances; beds of scarlet tulips, bordered with stone fencing" -- Is the garden still like this?
Just don't know. One of the many sorrows of not being able to see the Tower House.
Looking on GoogleEarth, while one can clearly see the house with its conical tower, the garden is so shaded and filled with trees that one couldn't see a statue of a boy were he to be holding an ostrich. KJP1 (talk) 16:54, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Last bit to do more soonest. CassiantoTalk 15:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

  • I'm happy with the responses given. Ending complete, final read through done and I have no further comments. A fine example of the kind of articles we should expect to see on WP. CassiantoTalk 16:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
CassiantoTalk - Really appreciate your input and good to be working with you again. KJP1 (talk) 16:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, some excellent points and edits, cheers Cass!.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from SchroCat[edit]

A little late to the party, which means it's slim picking for me, but the following thoughts occurred to me…

A tad tardy, but very welcome! Under pressure from me, the Dr.'s pressed the FAC button but I shall address your very helpful comments now. KJP1 (talk) 22:10, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

1878 to 1962

  • "immortalized in paintings": you eschew the Oxfordian ~ize elsewhere in favour of ~ise
Done.
  • "He was 53 years old." A little short: perhaps run on from the previous sentient with a semi colon?
Done.

1962 to 1969

  • "£4000 from the Historic Buildings Council and £3,000 from": one with a comma, one without?
Done.

1969 onwards

  • "neighboring": a jarring Americanism!
Done. Hopefully "adjacent" is less jarring.
Oops, that was my fault! CassiantoTalk 00:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Interior

Done.
  • "fantasy (Burges) created": Are you adding Burges here? If so, square brackets are more appropriate
Done.

Excellent work; please drop me a note when you get to FAC. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 21:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks indeed. As ever, really appreciate the time and input. Should be at FAC now. KJP1 (talk) 22:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 28 February 2015, 19:04 UTC)----


Ant-Man (film)[edit]

This article falls within the scope of List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films, which is being nominated for a Good Topic. In order to proceed with this nomination, this article needs to be peer-reviewed. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments by DarkWarriorBlake
  • General
    • Removed dupe links I could find
    • The commentary about the test footage could maybe do with a reception, I remember people were quite positive about it.
  • I'll try and find something and add it in. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Done. Couldn't find much, but it was enough just to show it was a positive reaction. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Infobox
    • Same as Ultron, try to move the Ref'd crew where possible to prose.
  • Will do something similar as I did on Ultron's. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Done. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Music
    • If there isn't that much to say about the Music, it might be worth merging it into the production section.
  • Just a general MCU format. For the GT, we are attempting for similarity as much as we can across the articles, per the WP:GT? recommendations, second bullet point. There may not be much now, but there will eventually be. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • As far as I'm aware, I don't believe so. I think just standard industry date shuffling. Not for say, a production set back (though it almost got to that because of Wright leaving.) - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Responses. Thanks so much for doing these Dark!! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 28 February 2015, 18:51 UTC)----


This peer review discussion has been closed.

I have found as many sources as I can to flesh this article out, but it still seems somewhat short to me. I'd appreciate some opinions as to what could be added, as well as any fixes to errors I may have made.

Thanks, BlookerG talk 21:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Tezero[edit]

My lack of sleep over the past couple days is hitting hard now, so I may be overlooking things or griping over concerns I otherwise wouldn't, but here's what I'm noticing (and it's not much - you could GAN this right now if you wanted):

  • "individually control B.U.D.'s hands and grab onto any part of the environment, which can be used to push and climb objects" - like what? How far can they be extended? (I'm instinctively thinking of the Cruise Bubble from SpongeBob SquarePants: Battle for Bikini Bottom - are the uses like that?)
  • "The game allows players to grow "Star Shoots" from the "Star Plant"" - you don't need to quote Star Plant more than once. I'm also a bit confused, though - is the Star Plant a giant thing that you use to reach different parts of the world, and thus are never too far from? Or is it portable in some way? Or can you go far away from it? Can you call the Plant over to you in order to use its platforms or something? It's clearly an integral game mechanic; I just don't have a feel for how exactly it works.
  • "as well as using procedural animation[13] and physics-based gameplay" - I could be understanding these terms wrong, but aside from text adventures and the like, what games don't use these?
  • Add the reviewers' personal names in Reception; referring to them only by their publications is discouraged.
  • Is there any goal? Is there a plot? Does the game end, and if so, when?

Tezero (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

First of all, thanks for the feedback. I appreciate it greatly. Regarding what you have pointed out:
  • B.U.D.'s arms aren't really comparable to the Cruise Bubble; they extend as far as their length, and are controlled individually with the left and right triggers for the left and right arms respectively. The left stick is used to direct the arms and general movement. I know, however, that it's frowned upon to bring up specific control references in video game articles, so I found difficulty in showing what I meant. Can there be an exception to this rule or is there another way I can word it? Yes check.svg Done
  • To my mind, the two barest essentials to any Wikipedia article are that it (1) be supported, or at least supportable, by reliable sources and (2) make sense. Cruft is also a concern, but if comprehensibility is at stake, go ahead and include it - besides, I think those guidelines are intended more for games with complex control schemes that the reader wouldn't really care about. (And when you think about it, mentioning that important actions are controlled by the triggers and joysticks isn't really any more specific than pointing the Wii Remote or prodding the DS' touchscreen.) Tezero (talk) 22:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The Star Plant is on a fixed path throughout the game, but the Star Shoots can be directed by the player. I have fixed the quotation marks in the Gameplay section. Yes check.svg Done
  • While many games use a physics system, a physics-based game uses the game's physics engine as a key gameplay mechanic, whereas a game such as Call of Duty only has a basic physics system that allows players to jump and move. As for procedural animation, Grow Home is one of the few games that have implemented it to such a large degree, which is why I have explicitly mentioned it.
  • I'll fix the reviewer names. Yes check.svg Done
  • The main objective of the game ends once the Star Plant grows to 2000 in-game metres and the player takes a star seed to M.O.M., but there is a goal after the main game is over to collect 8 star seeds. Upon completing that objective, the game is essentially finished, but the player is free to continue exploring the world and collect the power up crystals. You also unlock a ninja suit which allows the player to jump higher. The trouble is that I can't find any sources which support this information, so I have so far left it out. Yes check.svg Done BlookerG talk 12:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • We decided a few months ago at WT:VG that it's okay to cite quotes, or even the game itself, for whatever you need as long as it isn't controversial information that would necessitate third-party sources. It's pretty vital information, so I'd suggest doing something like that. Tezero (talk) 22:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • How would I cite a game? Is there a specific way to do it? BlookerG talk 23:34, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Something like this:
{{cite video game|title=Grow Home|developer=Ubisoft Reflections|publisher=Ubisoft|date=4 February 2015|level=Lethal Lava Land|quote='''Peach:''' Mario, please come to my castle. I've baked a cake for you.}}
Giving the following result: [1]
  1. ^ Ubisoft Reflections (4 February 2015). "Grow Home". Ubisoft. Level/area: Lethal Lava Land. Peach: Mario, please come to my castle. I've baked a cake for you. 
Tezero (talk) 23:43, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 11 February 2015, 21:08 UTC)----


Everyday life[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Jackalope[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it occurred to me that it would be a very fun and amusing TFA some day on April Fool's day or a similar event, and wondered if there would be the remotest possibility that it could be brought up to Featured Article status. I've been involved with about 12 TFA articles so far, and so I know the how to get something there, but my question for peer reviewers is if you think this topic would be doomed from the outset (I will note that Mr. Hankey, the Christmas Poo has been a TfA, so I don't think I am lowering the standards here). I know it's nowhere close now, but I'm curious if anyone thinks it's worth the trouble to try. In short, is it possible to find enough reliable sources to expand and verify this article to a FAC-passable standard? My preliminary check give me this and this. Thoughts? Comments? Volunteers?

Thanks, Montanabw(talk) 03:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Finetooth comments[edit]

Yes. I think it's worth the trouble to try, and I would enjoy working on this. Finetooth (talk) 19:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

On further review, maybe not. I found some stuff, but most is fluff. Enough, enough! It might be possible to compile a section of folklore analysis, a sort of critical review of the jackalope, based on scholarly publications. Jackalope as griffin parody? Jackalope as tourist lure. (See biggest ball of twine.) There's a jackalope in Dubois, Wyoming, that's rideable, according to unreliable sources. Jackalope as mechanical bull? Finetooth (talk) 00:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
LOL! Well, have a lot of fun, that's the main thing! Montanabw(talk) 05:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 3 January 2015, 03:05 UTC)----


Engineering and technology[edit]

Morden tube station[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I think this article (Morden tube station), has the potential to reach a featured article status so I would like to know what improvements should be made or none. :p

Thanks, Vincent60030 (talk) 15:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Vincent, the article only went through the good article nomination process in November (see here), so it's in fairly good condition and the peer review buttons on the right don't show anything much to worry about. Whilst it is not an absolute requirement, the FAC process largely operates on the assumption that the nominator will be a significant contributor to the article - so that they can address any issues arising. At the moment, I'm the main contributor (42% of edits and 76.1% of the text); taking this to FAC may be something I do in the future.--DavidCane (talk) 18:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 15 March 2015, 15:48 UTC)----


Mercedes-Benz CLR[edit]

This article passed GA about a month ago and I believe it just needs some final polishing before applying for FA. Specifically grammar and structure, ENGVAR, and a bit of variations just to spice up the article.

Thanks, The359 (Talk) 02:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 8 March 2015, 02:58 UTC)----


General[edit]

Lionel Messi[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to improve the article to the level of a featured article. I nominated it last year for FA but it failed and I was suggested to go through peer reviews first before renominating it. Thus, it would be great to get some reviews about the improvements this article needs. I am planning to get this article to FA level before June 24, 2015.

Thanks, Abhinav0908 (talk) 18:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 10 March 2015, 18:10 UTC)----


Kurkure[edit]

Hello,I've listed this article for peer review because I think this article should be on a higher importance base. Like Doritos is very famous in the America, Kurkure is very famous in India and nearby countries. Kurkure is not a very long running brand because it was created in 1999 and thus it might not need a History section.I think it needs a revision. Thanks for being patient listeners and looking forward for suggestions.

Thanks, Komchi (talk) 17:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Lemuellio

Hello! This looks like a good start to the Kurkure article. There's still plenty of room to grow, though. Here are some ideas to start with:

  • Even though Kurkure hasn't been around a long time, a little history or background would still be nice. For example, what kinds of snack foods were already successful in India when Kurkure was launched? Were corn puff snacks already popular, or was Kurkure the first of its kind? (By the way, the year of origin still needs a reference; it's one of the few unsourced facts in the article.)
  • How successful was Kurkure? Has it been financially profitable for the Kurkure company? If so, how well are they doing? (This is where any market statistics you can find will be very helpful. Take a look at Featured Articles about companies, like Cracker Barrel and Odwalla, for ideas on what kind of information can be included.)

Happy editing!--Lemuellio (talk) 22:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 6 March 2015, 17:01 UTC)----


Geography and places[edit]

Palestine[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to submit it for Featured Article review. It recently reached GA status, and is currently on the main page as a DYK. Hoping to take it to the next level. Thanks, Oncenawhile (talk) 10:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

groupuscule comments[edit]

  • Wow, you have done a really fantastic job with this. Congratulations.
  • Superbly precise and clear wording.
  • Regarding the overall content of the History section; in a sense it is mostly a Political History, focusing mostly on shifts in sovereignty. (For example, no events are mentioned between Ottoman control in 1516 and Egyptian invasion in 1830–1832.) Indeed, the "Demographics" section is really a Demographic History; "Boundaries" is a history of the boundaries. So the whole article is mostly about history. This makes sense to me, since quantitatively the integral of PalestineHistorical far exceeds the integral of PalestinePresent, even for generously expansive interpretations of Present. ;-) But what I'm getting at here is, are there other aspects of history which belong in the article as well? Is enough known about the evolution of the Culture of Palestine to include some of that information? Institutions such as the Khalidi Library (which I only happen to know about because it came across my 'desk' through DYK, but maybe it serves the purpose as an example) might be worth mentioning as Culture or Cultural History.
  • Cities: I notice much discussion of Jerusalem, not much discussion of Ramallah (a relative latecomer incorporated in 1517) or Ghazzah (a lot older). Maybe there's a way to organize information about the biggest cities in the region, when they were founded or became big—and maybe even what it was like to live in them.
  • It might be worth mentioning the religious significance of Bethlehem, and other sites, and maybe even devoting a little more article space to the world significance of the Holy Land angle. (And let us not forget the Bahá'í World Centre and related Bahá'í historical events.)
  • Probably the Palestine Liberation Organization is worth mentioning. (I see that Palestinian National Covenant and Palestinian Declaration of Independence, both manifestations of the PLO, are already in there, but I think it would help to briefly describe the formation of the PLO itself.) In fact, this information is placed a bit awkardly under the header of "Boundaries" — not that it's wrong but — it might make sense to clearly articulate the formation of a political structure around "Palestine" arising in response to the formation of the structure "Israel".

Just a few line-by-line comments. Suggestions/ideas not demands/commands.

  • Etymology
    • "Neither the Egyptian nor the Assyrian sources provided clear regional boundaries for the term" could i.m.o. be slightly improved as a sentence because (1) the sources do or don't provide in present tense (as used earlier in the paragraph with "is found"); we dont really know what they provided in the past; and (2) because to my ear/eye, "the term" does not mean precisely the same thing as "the name".
    • "c. 1234" or "c.1234"? Doesn't much matter but consistency could improve.
  • Ancient period
    • Yahweh might be important enough to raise up from the endnotes to the main text, somewhere. Great notes, by the way.
  • Classical antiquity
    • "In 614 CE, Palestine was annexed by another Persian dynasty; the Sassanids, until returning to Byzantine control in 628 CE"
      • → "In 614 CE, Palestine was annexed by another Persian dynasty, the Sassanids, until returning to Byzantine control in 628 CE" (or use parentheses, or dashes, or whatev)
  • British mandate and partition
    • "The British were formally awarded" → "The League of Nations awarded the British". Right? Or one could be even more explicit about who participated in that decision.
    • It would be appropriate to include another sentence or two about Mandatory Palestine, 1922–1947.
  • Demographics
    • "two methods – censuses" → "two methods: censuses"

Oncenawhile comments[edit]

  • groupuscule, many thanks for your details and constructive comments. I will consider in detail in due course. Regards, Oncenawhile (talk) 02:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 23 March 2015, 10:25 UTC)----


History[edit]

80th Infantry (Reserve) Division (United Kingdom)[edit]

I have recently overhauled the article - about a very obsucre Second World War British divsion with little written about it - from a stub, and would like feedback (comments, concerns, area to improve etc.). My intention is to progress to GA review soon. I am aware that there is currently one fact tag, which I added, but I aim to address that in the coming days when I get the chance. All comments and suggestions welcome. EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 28 March 2015, 15:59 UTC)----


1877 Wimbledon Championship[edit]

This article is about the first Wimbledon tennis tournament, held in 1877, and as such has great historical significance within the sport of tennis. The article achieved GA status in June 2013 and since then I have significantly expanded it, restructured content, added citations and tried to improve prose. While an article is never really finished it is comprehensive in its current state regarding information that can be found in reliable sources. With the help of this peer review I would like to make it a FAC soon. The WikiProject Tennis has more than 20,000 articles but does not yet have a single FA (apart from two FAs for tennis video games) so it would be great if this could become the first one. If all goes well hopefully it will result in a WP:TFA sometime during this year's tournament. Your comments and suggestions are very much welcome on any aspect of the article, certainly as it is my first PR request.

Thanks, Wolbo (talk) 02:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 24 March 2015, 02:59 UTC)----


Mortimer Wheeler[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it has recently gone through GAN successfully and I'm hoping that it will go on to FAC in the near future. The article is about a prominent British archaeologist of the 20th century, so if anyone thinks that this would interest them then please do give it a read and let us know what you think!

Thanks, Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 23 March 2015, 10:57 UTC)----


Fall of the Western Roman Empire[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I have worked hard on it and I hope it's now Good or even worthy of being Featured. But I'm probably too close to it to be a really good judge of whether it's a likely candidate; I worry that there may be obvious flaws that I am missing. I'd be very grateful to anyone, whether familiar with the subject or not, who could take the time to read it through and give feedback.

Thanks, Richard Keatinge (talk) 22:08, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment from Noswall59

  • I think that for this article to stand a chance at GA, it's going to need an historiography section. I am not well read in the Late Antiquity period, but I am aware that you don't really discuss the historical interpretations of the decline of the Roman Empire; the Pirenne thesis is not even mentioned, for instance. The legacy section is also very short. The history of the decline itself appears to be well-cited and thorough, but I will leave that to those more well-read in the subject to assess. On the whole, I wish you the best, but I think this article will need some expansion in the areas I've outlined before it is ready for GA, —Noswall59 (talk) 10:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC).
Many thanks. There are separate articles, on both historiography and legacy, and this article is already at the limits of reasonable length. I'll think it over. Maybe a short section on each point will be appropriate, with a hatnote to the relevant main articles? Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Where are the articles on historiography and legacy? I've probably missed them, but are they actually linked in the article? At 90k, it is long, but not unreasonably so given the topic and there is room for a bit of expansion if needed. FYI, Obama's article (now FA) is over 200k. I think a section on historiography, perhaps with a couple of paragraphs and a link to the main article would be much better; this could be repeated for the legacy section. Regards, —Noswall59 (talk) 14:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Decline of the Roman Empire and Legacy of the Roman Empire, in case you're interested. Very many thanks for your help, much appreciated. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Okay, thank you. Well done on your work so far, I imagine it's not easy when dealing with such a broad and important topic; hopefully I have been of some help. Best wishes and good luck with this article's development, —Noswall59 (talk) 21:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC).

(Peer review added on Thursday 19 March 2015, 22:11 UTC)----


Stefanie Rabatsch[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because... I would like to see it reach GA-status.

Thanks, Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 11:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 18 March 2015, 11:23 UTC)----


Rwandan Revolution[edit]

I have worked on this quite a bit, and it recently had a copyedit. I think all major details of the revolution are covered, but I'm interested to know whether people think it needs expanding, and if so which areas should be covered in more detail. And any other advice people have, that might help this get through GA (I've already added it to the backlog for that), and hopefully an eventual FAC.

Thanks,  — Amakuru (talk) 17:47, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Update: The article has now been promoted to GA, but I'm still very interested to get an in depth peer review so that I can make the necessary improvements to push through to FA. Thanks!  — Amakuru (talk) 16:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Nikkimaria

  • Who held Naturalised identity cards?
  • When was the Conseil Superieur formed?
  • "The first document referring to the Tutsi and Hutu as separate races" - are we certain of this? If the Belgians were previously identifying the two as different, how could they not have had any such document?
  • "at one point he grabbed Giter's throat" - Gitera?
    Yes. Fixed.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "Munyangaju and Gitera began a campaign targeting Kalinga" - what sort of campaign?
  • "according to American professor" - who?
    Done. "according to American theology professor James Jay Carney"  — Amakuru (talk) 17:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Overall death toll? Overall damage estimate?
  • Was the Church at all involved in the revolution itself?
  • Where did the FPR come from? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Brigade Piron I really like this article, but I feel it could perhaps do with a slightly broader perspective. It would be good for the reader to see where the events fit within broader trends in (central) Africa during the period. Paul Nugent (Africa Since Independence) argues that it fits into a wider reaction against indirect rule and tribal structures after independence, as I recall. I think a mention of the very similar situation in neighboring Burundi (Tutsi-dominated monarchy with a predominantly Hutu population) would also be interesting - Nugent makes an explicit comparison. The Burundian monarchy took a very different stance from the Rwandan one and lasted longer, but ultimately suffered the same fate. In any case, well done on completing such an interesting article! —Brigade Piron (talk) 15:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I think Cliftonian and Lemurbaby might be interested in participating here too. —Brigade Piron (talk) 15:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
OK, thanks for your kind comments, Brigade Piron. I will try to incorporate this wider perspective when I am expanding the article. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 20:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 8 March 2015, 17:48 UTC)----


Irataba[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.


I've listed this article for peer review because I want additional input regarding the prose quality before relisting at FAC.

Thanks, Rationalobserver (talk) 17:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley[edit]

There doesn't seem to me to be much wrong with this article, and – though I know next to nothing about the subject – it strikes me as comprehensive, and is clearly well researched from good sources and thoroughly cited. A few minor points on prose:

  • "Goose-grease" – why the inverted commas? (incidentally, and wholly irrelevantly, in Britain, well into the 20th century, children of working-class families would be rubbed with goose fat before donning their undershirts, to keep them warm in the winter. Clearly versatile stuff, goose grease, though I imagine school classrooms may have been something of an olfactory challenge. But I digress.)
  • "In the opinion of author Kenneth M. Stewart", and "According to author Arthur Woodward" – I don't know that the plain "author" here tells the reader anything useful. Something like "historian", "biographer" etc puts the writer into a meaningful context, as you have done with "According to cultural anthropologist…" nearby in the text.
  • "near the explorer's camp" – plural possessive – explorers' – needed.
  • "saved many sheep that had fallen into the river using rafts they had constructed in preparation for the crossing" – I got into a tangle with this. Grammatically it says that the sheep had constructed the rafts, but, ignoring that, I cannot work out who in fact did construct them. If, as I suppose, it was Whipple and his group, I suggest something on the broad lines of, "saved many sheep that had fallen into the river from rafts built for the crossing by Whipple's team."
  • "however, as their supplies dwindled" – I'd lose the "however". Very often, as here I think, "however" adds nothing to the meaning and weakens the prose.
  • "they increasingly anticipated" – not quite clear of the import of this. If you mean they grew increasingly anxious for the arrival of supplies it would be clearer to phrase it thus or thus-ish.
  • "before departing company" – "before parting company" would be the usual way of phrasing this, I think.
  • "which seemed to appease them, many of whom…" – reads rather oddly. Perhaps "which seemed to appease them; many of them" – (a repetition of "them" I admit, but clearer I think).
  • "The group settled-in" – not sure you want the hyphen
  • "Depravation" is a word hitherto unknown to me, and I see from the Oxford English Dictionary it means "The action or fact of making or becoming depraved, bad, or corrupt; deterioration, degeneration". I think you may mean "depredation", but on the whole I'd keep things simple and change "no further depravations would occur" to "there would be no more attacks"
  • Homoseh quahote – this seems to be a name rather than a descriptive term, and if so shouldn't be in italics, I imagine.
  • References: not sure why some have what appear to be verbatim quotes from the sources (e.g. 7, 8, 45, 49 etc) and the rest don't. Works and page numbers would be ample here, in my view, and the presence of the extra stuff in these few refs makes its absence from the other refs look like omissions.

That's all from me. This is an informative and enjoyable article. I hope you will get other visitors to this peer review, and I may do a little (wholly proper) canvassing to that end. Please ping me when you go to FAC. – Tim riley talk 14:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much for this review, Tim riley! I have adopted all of your wonderful suggestions except the one pertaining to notes imbedded in some refs. Per WP:CITEBUNDLE, when you bundle two cites into one you should indicate with some kind of note which ref verifies which point. That's why I only have them in refs that are two of more bundled cites. I hope it looks less odd with that clarified. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Dr. Blofeld[edit]

My initial concern beginning to read this is that in places it reads like a general article on the Mohave and their customs, rather than the biography of an Indian chief. For instance:

"Mohave caught fish in the Colorado River and hunted game, such as rabbits and beaver, using a bow and arrow or traps.[3] In the spring, when the Colorado River flooded the bottomlands, they cultivated corn, watermelons, beans, gourds, tobacco, and pumpkins.[4] The Mohave lived in groups of houses along the riverbank, but eschewed centralized villages. During the winter, they lived in half-buried dwellings built with cottonwood logs and arrowweed covered in earth. In the summer they lived in open-air flat-roofed houses known as ramadas, which provided sufficient shade.[5] Mohave who enjoyed higher status would cover their body in goose fat to help alleviate the summer heat.[6]"

"In the opinion of the anthropologist Kenneth M. Stewart, the Mohave were fierce warriors who were frequently the aggressor, and although they did not plunder their enemy's possessions, they took prisoners and scalps. Mohave war parties, which regularly battled against the Chemehuevi, Paiute, and Maricopa peoples, utilized bowmen tasked with inflicting damage on an approaching group and keeping them distracted in preparation for melee attacks by warriors brandishing war clubs capable of crushing their opponent's skulls."

"In October 1857, an expedition led by Edward Fitzgerald Beale was tasked with establishing a trade route along the 35th parallel from Fort Smith, Arkansas to Los Angeles, California.[15] From Fort Smith, his journey continued through Fort Defiance, Arizona before crossing the Colorado River near Needles, California.[14] This route became known as Beale's Wagon Road and the location where Beale crossed the river, Beale's Crossing.[16] Beale's journal and subsequent report to the United States Secretary of War did not mention any problems with the Mohave; however, an assistant named Humphrey Stacy recorded that the Mohave had prevented Beale from traveling downriver.[17]"

I'm looking to learn about his early life and am seeing next to nothing about him. It looks like there's very little known about him and you're trying to pad it out. Some background might be relevant, but I think you really need to keep in mind it's a biography on him and keep the padding to a minimum. It needs to be cut and reworded I think to make it still seem like his biography instead of a general article on the Mohave. If there's really very little known about him then I'm not sure it is really worth taking to FAC, but if you're certain it's as comprehensive as can be then it might be worth it, I'd have to look into it more. What I would do is not worry about length and really cut out anything which is not really vital to his actual biography. I want to learn primarily about him, so having to read big paragraphs like those and not getting anything on him it's not doing its job. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:00, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

If you like RO I'll work on a sandbox version of it stripping it down with more central focus and then you can see what you think?♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The way I see it is, we can make these statements about how he and the Mohave lived to fill in the story of his life, which is about him. I think this is a pretty standard approach for similar attempts. It's what Scrivner did with his work. But maybe it's too much ethnography. If you are willing to work on that sandbox draft I'd love to see what you have in mind! Rationalobserver (talk) 22:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I think some background is relevant. But in parts it is the way it is worded which detracts from Irataba being the centre of focus which I think we need to avoid. You can cover some of the ethnic background without citing scholars views on them generally, you'd expect that it an article on the Mohave but not his bio. I'll try to give it a go tomorrow anyway in User:Dr. Blofeld/Irataba.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • It's not clear to me what Irataba's role in the Rose-Baley Party ordeal was. In fact there's a whole section there documenting it without mentioning him at all!♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree that there is too much detail now. It's such a pivotal moment in his life; I guess I over did it, then realized that it's really a decent topic in its own right. Rationalobserver (talk) 00:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
OK I've done some trimming and merging, it makes more sense now what happened. I agree that it's largely appropriate to document as it would have been a huge event for the Mohave people, including Irataba, even though he wasn't an assailant. I will see if I can further add to the article but in my opinion it's looking good now.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "In the opinion of Fulsom Charles Scrivner, the author of Mohave People (1970), whereas Cairook helped lead the attack on the Rose-Baley Party, "it appears that Irataba stayed clear of the fracas", arguing "if Irataba had taken an active part he would have offered himself as prisoner", as did Cairook" -if that's the case then it's not worth covering in so much detail if he wasn't even involved in it. At best a small paragraph I think.
I agree. Rationalobserver (talk) 00:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Actually in reading and editing the Fort Mohave section I think it's mostly all relevant. It's the Rose Party section which needs work now to try to establish his role in it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Do we know what "Aha macave yaltanack or hochoch" means?
It means "the leader made, or elected, by the people". Is that unclear? Rationalobserver (talk) 00:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Actually I think the description should cover it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The bottom two or three sections are excellent I think, largely because there's more information specifically about him in that era :-) If we can try to sort out the Rose Baley and Fort sections with more focus we should be really on track with this overall.♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:04, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your edits and insight, Dr.B. You've been really helpful! Rationalobserver (talk) 00:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
You might find something more from here Can you find anything more on Irataba and the Piutes. I think it seems to be particularly notable, He appears to have protected some of the Europeans from the Piutes. This source says that Irataba once said "'Let the men follow me. I'll go meet them. Let the women stay and burn all the crops and granaries and then go down-river for help.'" "With arrows and a few old shotguns they met the Piutes and fought them from willow thicket to ... That's all that I can pick up in the UK. Are you in the US? Perhaps Rosiestep could find something on Irataba and the Piutes.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:26, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
This is mentioned in Disgrace and Death. It's the battle at Cottonwood Island. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Can you tidy Refs 1, 48, 52, 63. 79 and put the notes in the notes section above?
I think those imbedded notes are required by WP:CITEBUNDLE. They differentiate which cite verifies which point so as to aid in verifiability. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I see you mean now; they were overly descriptive and repetitive, so I've tidied them up so as to not look like imbedded endnotes. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • If you got sources from Newspapers.com perhaps like the Weekly Arizona Miner article I found there. they need to all be attributed as such.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
The Weekly Arizona Miner quote comes from Woodward. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
The article looks fantastic! You've made some wonderful improvements, and I cannot thank you enough! Rationalobserver (talk) 16:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, hopefully this article will be given a fair look by others in coming days. It's a really worthy subject and an enjoyable one once you get into it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments by RHM22[edit]

As you may remember, I commented at the FAC, and I'm glad to see this at PR now. It seems to have improved by leaps and bounds so far. I have a few suggestions which I think will help improve the article. Keep in mind that I'm focusing on minutia, because that's what people at FAC will be looking for.

Lede:

  • Be sure to correctly hyphenate terms. For example, "European American" should be hyphenated when used as an adjective.
I'm not sure that's correct. Euro-Americans is usually hyphenated, but I don't think European American, Native American, or African American are. How can we check this? Rationalobserver (talk)
Well, many style guides recommend hyphenating ethnic titles (African American, etc) when using them as an adjective. For example: "African-American music is performed by African Americans." However, that's not universal; some don't hyphenate it at all, and others hyphenate it all the time. I'm not sure whether or not the MOS prescribes on method over the other. If not, I suppose it's mostly up to you.-RHM22 (talk) 17:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • A comma is always needed after "Washington, D.C.," unless it ends the sentence. A comma is also needed after other place names in the article. (example: John lives in a Boise, Idaho, apartment.)
Done. Thanks for that catch! Rationalobserver (talk) 16:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
That one is fixed, but I see a few more as well. A comma is always needed after the states, too, because it's considered a parenthetical. (Example: "The O'Possum family moved from Ireland to Knoxville, Tennessee, last year.")-RHM22 (talk) 17:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • You should probably when the Irataba Society was established, both here and in the body of the article.
I'm not certain. A newspaper source said 13th annual powwow in 1985, but I can't see anything which explicitly says 1972. If anything though you'd have thought 1974 on the centenary of his death.♦ Dr. Blofeld
Some nonprofit websites suggest that it was founded in 1970, but I'm not sure those are reliable enough to use in the article.-RHM22 (talk) 17:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Early life and background:

  • "...Irataba grew to be very tall, particularly for the 19th century...": Perhaps this could be reworded as "...Irataba grew to be very tall, particularly by 19th century standards..." or something similar. Also, his height should be given in metric as well, ideally using {{convert|6|ft|4|in|cm}}.
Yes I was planning on coverting, done anyway and reworded.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "According to the anthropologist Lorraine M. Sherer...": The definite article is not needed here, as this article should use American English. It reads a bit awkward in American English, in my opinion. The same is also repeated throughout the article. If you want to leave it as-is, I wouldn't fret over it.
I'm British, and spend a lot of time around Tim riley ;-) Changed that one anyway.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Quite so. Scrupulous English writers avoid the false title in formal prose, but being credibly assured that it's acceptable in American usage, I attempt to use it along with American spellings when writing about American subjects such as Cole Porter or Jerome Kern. When in Rome, you know… – Tim riley talk 10:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I thought this was an element of formal writing in general, as I've seen this lately in US publications. Is it permissible to use them in an AmEng article, or should we lose them? Rationalobserver (talk) 16:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
As stated by Tim and the Doctor, it's mostly mandated in formal British English, but not so in American English. However, it's not necessarily forbidden. My personal preference is to avoid it because it sounds awkward to me as a native American (not Native American!) English speaker.-RHM22 (talk) 17:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
For the sake of AmEng I took them out, but I might have missed a couple. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Contact with European Americans:

  • "...and other Mohave people encountered a large group...": Maybe reword "Mohave people" to "Mohaves." That's just personal preference, so feel free to ignore.
I think both are OK for variation, to avoid repetition.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Mohave is also acceptable as a plural form, as in "several Mohave joined Irataba at the river". Rationalobserver (talk) 16:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
It's not a big deal to me, so reword or leave as-is at will.-RHM22 (talk) 17:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "...territory of the Paiute to the Old Spanish Trail that would take them to southern California.." should be "...territory of the Paiute to the Old Spanish Trail, which would take them to southern California..." as it's a non-restrictive clause.
Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "...believed to have been the Yavapai.": I would suggest this, because the current wording could suggest that all of the Yavapai were involved. Maybe something like "...believed to have been members of the Yavapai trible." or something along those lines.
Reworded as suggested but made it more precise.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Travels:

  • Why is "civilized" misspelled here? Was that intentional, as a way of mocking his apparently unrefined English (perhaps as a Mark Twain reference?), or was it an error made by Irataba himself? If the former, I'd probably remove and reword it. If the latter, I'd add a {{sic}} tag or just fix the misspelling and remove the quote marks.
The source says "sivilised" with an s, intentional I think to mock how uncivilised they were I guess. What would you prefer?♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
While Irataba could speak some English, I don't think he could read or write, so this misspelling is likely intentional as Dr.B said. Still, if we leave a misspelled word in quotes we need a sic template. My vote would be to correct the spelling and remove the quotes, but the other way might have more rhetorical impact, but I'm not sure that impact is an honest one, as Dr, B said, it was likely done for effect, not accuracy. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I think that would be preferable here. If it were a handwritten note or message by Irataba himself, then I would suggest using the {{sic}} template, but since this is an author who seems to be using it as a humorous intentional misspelling, I would just omit it and use "civilized" in its place. In fact, I'd say that 'sic' is not really appropriate there anyway, since it suggests (to me) an unintentional misspelling.-RHM22 (talk) 17:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I've taken your advice and corrected the spelling while dropping the quotes. Thanks! Rationalobserver (talk) 22:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Disgrace and death

  • "To avoid "a fire in the rear"...": This conjures some unpleasant imagery, but could you explain what it means in-text? I have never heard this term, and I can't really determine its precise meaning from context.
I've heard it used in things with camps like that, but I think it's best removed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
It means he meant to avoid what westerners might call a two-front war. I've added that, but feel free to remove if it's still awkward. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
It looks much better now, in my opinion.-RHM22 (talk) 17:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "He ordered to his people from the island where he was captured, "Let the women stay and burn all the crops and granaries and then go down-river for help"..." This reads a bit strangely. Maybe "From the island on which he was captured, Irataba ordered his people to..." or something like that.
Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Why is it relevant that the Irataba Society held their thirteenth annual powwow in 1985? That seems a bit trivial and haphazard to me.
Well, it was to give some sort of idea of their customs and background. Actually the reason was in answer to your point above, to try to give the reader an idea of when it started, without being able to confirm it was 1972. Perhaps it would be better to say "The society hosts it annually in general?♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:18, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Since it was held annually, do you think it would be appropriate to say that they held their first annual powwow in 1973? I understand that your reference is for the thirteenth, but it would probably seem arbitrary to most readers.-RHM22 (talk) 17:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

That's all I see for now. I'm especially glad that you were able to source an actual photograph, which is a most welcome addition.-RHM22 (talk) 05:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Much appreciated RHM22, cheers.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a million for the wonderful review, RHM22. And thanks to Dr. Blofeld for fielding so many of these comments. It looks like these are largely resolved, but if we missed anything crucial please let us know. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Everything looks good to me, except for the commas after some of the place names, as I've elaborated above. It's an extremely common mistake, and one that I made consistently until being alerted to it earlier this year.-RHM22 (talk) 17:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for joining in the peer review. I'll take a look through for missing commas after place names, but I'll probably miss a few! Rationalobserver (talk) 17:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Jaguar[edit]

I'm just going to pick out any prose/presentation issues I see here, although this article has drastically improved since its GAN: Jaguar 19:34, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

  • I don't know if this could just be me and my strange display resolution but the infobox itself is appearing a little disproportionately wide in comparison to the lead
That's a little too technical for me. I thought they are standardized to your preferences. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
I understand, don't worry about it! Jaguar 21:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "Irataba was a great orator and one of the earliest Mohave to speak English" - could it sound better as one of the first? (if it's plausable)
Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "and in 1859 Fort Mohave was erected near the site of the battle" - when it first opened in 1859 it was known as Camp Colorado
Good point. I'll find a good cite for it and make the change. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:19, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "The Irataba Society, a non-profit charity run by the Colorado River Indian Tribes, was established in his name in Parker, Arizona" - when was it established? I feel that his legacy could be expanded a little in the lead in order to summairse the article fully
I can't seem to find this information, but I'll keep looking. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "She states that Irataba was "probably the first Mojave to learn English" - Mohave?
Those two spelling variations are equally acceptable. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "Having recently returned from Washington" - Washington, D.C.? Unless this would actually cause any confusion with the Washington state
Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Can some of the legacy content from the Disgrace and death section be mentioned in the lead? Especially the part where a venue in Parker was named after him
I'll look in to it. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Also, "was established in his name in Parker, Arizona" - can Parker itself be linked?
Linked. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Maunus[edit]

This is a great article that makes good use of the few extant sources. I think the balance between background and biography is fine. At first reading I noted the quote from John Penn Current in Gazlay's Pacific Monthly. I don't think Curry was a journalist, rather he was a soldier veteran of the Indian wars and author of a military manual used by both sides in the Civil War[30][31]. I think the inclusion of his piece is warranted but, being a primary source which is to my knowledge not cited in other works about Irataba (maybe Woodbury?) I think it should be used with some caution. There is a long tradition of Europeans using native characters as proxy voices for their own critiques of Western society — drawing on the nole savage stereotype. I do detect some of that in Curry's summary and particularly in the quote. Clearly Curry's errand is to advance a critique of urban US society of his time, and we don't know the amount of literary license he may have taken in reporting Irataba's words. I think it might be a good idea to hedge the quote a little to account for this, for example by saying that Curry reported that he had said, instead of accepting it at face value as a dirct quote. The best would be to find a secondary source mentioning Curry's mention. It would also be interesting to read more about how Irataba was portrayed in the media during his visit. Perhaps it would make sense to move the quote about his appearance (also with some rather strong racist overtones) to the travels section where it could exemplify the way New Yorkers saw him as a visitor. I also would suggest cropping the portrait of Beale, to not have the included frame and caption of which ever work it originally appeared. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for joining in the review, Maunus! I've distanced the quote a bit from Curry, who is now described more accurately, per your comments. I'm not sure about moving that description of his size because for one, it fits in with that last paragraph of that section, and two there isn't anymore room in the travels for a quote box. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I swapped out the pic of Beale for one of Whipple ([32]). Rationalobserver (talk) 23:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Maunus, I can't locate the Curry quote in any reliable sources other than the original. I did find this, but as a fictionalized account we should avoid it. I think Dr. Blofeld and I have included everything readily available about media reaction to Irataba, as we've both scrubbed google books and newspapers.com. If you can dig anything else up that would be great, but that aside, how do you feel about the issues you raised above? Rationalobserver (talk) 16:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
I am quite happy with what you have done so far.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Brianboulton[edit]

Late into the field. I apologise if some of my points have been raised in earlier reviews and answered there.

General prose point
  • Rather too much use made of "notes that" or "noted that", when referring to sources.
I think this is fixed now. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:05, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Lead
  • I found the third paragraph a little disorganised. I understand that Irataba helped various expeditions to pass through his territory, but it's not clear why the Whipple and Sitgreaves expeditions alone are mentioned by name; what distinguished them from others? Lorenzo Sitgreaves is not even mentioned in the main text. I think the phrase "explorarory expedition" is clumsy and probably tautologous – weren't all expeditions at the time exploratory? It is surprising, also, to see an atrocity such as the massacre of a family described as "controversial". I would certainly recommend you look at ways of reorganising this paragraph, with some appropriate rephrasing.
  • "Cairook's death in captivity": I understand from the text that he was killed trying to escape from captivity, which is not quite the same thing.
Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • When was the Irabata Society established? This should at least be mentioned in the main text.
We are still looking for a RS that states this. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I am not convinced that the lead does its proper job of summarising the whole article, with due weight given to the most importsnt aspects of Irabata's life. Relatively minor factors such as the Whipple and Sitgreaves expeditions, and the slave girls episode, don't deserve this much prominence in the lead.
Brianboulton, is this better? Rationalobserver (talk) 21:33, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Early life and background
  • "According to Leanne Hinton, an expert in American Indian linguistics at Berkeley.." – last two words unnecessary detail
Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Why isn't Bret Harte linked, and should he be described as "of The Overland Monthly, rather than "writing in The Overland Monthly?
Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "Edward Carlson, a soldier based at Fort Mohave who knew him well in the 1860s..." To whom does "him" refer? The last person mentioned is Cairook.
Fixed. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I believe these points have all been addressed. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Contact with European Americans
  • "Although Olive was forced to be given a chin tattoo..." This is very convoluted wording. I suggest "was forcibly tattooed on the chin".
Thanks and done. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "...let it be said they never offered the least unchaste absure to me" – "absure"? Never heard of this word; is it a typo for something else?
I'll check, but good catch. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
That was a typo. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "camping for a night" → "camping for the night"
Done. Rationalobserver (talk)
  • "they grew increasingly anxious about the arrival of the pack train from Fort Yuma." You write as though readers should be familiar with this pack train, but this is the first mention of it, and indeed of Fort Yuma.
I agree, and I think this is much better now. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I believe these points have all been addressed. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "ambushed by Paiutes aligned with Mormons" – what? Did Mormons ambush exploration parties? Sounds somewhat improbable.
Actually, the Mormons in this period were purposefully using Indian groups to create the image of a threat that their militias could be used to defend against - so not that unlikely. Sometimes Mormons even posed as Indians and attacked trails. Does seem to require a bit more explanation though.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:32, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I thought this note took care the background. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:45, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Rose-Baley Party skirmish and aftermath
  • ..."who were documented to have cried war whoops as they sent arrows flying into the camp". Unnecessary circumlocution: "who uttered war cries as they sent arrows flying into the camp".
Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "When news of the massacre reached the west..." The term "massacre" normally refers to the one-sided infliction of death in large numbers. Here, the presumed perpetrators of the massacre had twice as amny killed as the emigrants, so I don't think the term "massacre" is the most appropriate. "Attack" would better fit the circumstances.
Done and clarified. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Apart from that, what is meant by "the west" here? And presumably the fort was established after, not "when" news of the attack was received?
I've clarified this now; nice catch! Rationalobserver (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Fort Yuma should be linked at first, not second mention
Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "...translating from English to Spanish to Yuman and Mohave and vice versa" puts my head in a spin. If Yuman and Mohave were two distinct languages it should read "and to Mohave". Was there really no more direct way of rendering English to Mohave?
I'm not sure about that in truth, but it is accurate to the source. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "agree to never again harm" → "agree never again to harm"
Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "he ordered that a fort be built at Beale's Crossing to enforce the decree." I thought a fort had already been built there. See previous paragraph
Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "Many soldiers remained to begin construction on Fort Colorado " – is this the same fort?
Yes. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I still find the history relating to this fort confusong. Paragraph 3 reads: "When news of the attack reached California, the US War Department decided to establish a military fort at Beale's Crossing". The next paragraph begins: "Hoffman ... ordered that a fort be built at Beale's Crossing" – so you have Hoffman ordering the building of a fort that the War Department had already ordered should be built. And then later on, "Many soldiers remained to begin construction on Fort Colorado, which was renamed Fort Mohave soon afterward" – without mentioning that this was the Beale's Crossing fort. I suggest you delete the words "and he ordered that a fort be built at Beale's Crossing to enforce the decree" from the beginning of the paragraph, and amend further down: "Many soldiers remained to begin construction on the Beale's Crossing fort, which was named Fort Mohave". There's no real point in bringing the temporary Fort Colorado name in to the narrative. Brianboulton (talk) 13:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
I've made these recommended changes. Thanks a million for all the great input! Rationalobserver (talk) 16:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "five to eight hundred" seems a rather wide range of estimate
Changed to "several hundred". Rationalobserver (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "With a large army of Mohave warriors in his command, he quickly earned a reputation for more than just leadership." Can you explain what this means? How did his reputation extend beyond leadership?
That was bad grammar and not what was intended. It's fixed now. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "however, as white emigration increased, gold seekers founded a town nearby named La Paz..." Wasn't the search for gold and the founding od the town the cause rather than the resultof the increase in white emigration?
I'm not sure I follow. The founding of La Paz was kind of a breaking point in positive relations because the settlements were getting closer and closer to the Mohave homeland. Not everyone went to California for gold, but yes, it was a primary motivator. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "...stirring tensions among the Mohave and building fear of an uprising against further encroachment on their land." This is muddled. You need to specify "fear among settlers of a uprising against further encroachment on Mohave land."
Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I believe these points have all been addressed. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Travels
  • "John Moss, an experienced prospector, suggested they bring Irataba to Washington..." Who do you mean by "they"?
Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "where they boarded a steamship named the Senator" → "where they boarded the steamship Senator..."
Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "In January 1864, they sailed for New York City, by way of the Isthmus of Panama, on the Orizaba" Before the canal was built, they cannot have reached New york on the Orizaba, so I would delete reference to the ship's name.
Great catch. Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "he encountered the slave girl Olive Oatman" – the "former" slave girl, I think. It seems unlikely that this was purely a chance meeting, so I'd probably change "encountered".
Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "Meeting Irataba with a natural hatred of Indians, she was immediately taken with him, despite their past history." Could be much shortened: "Despite her natural hatred of Indians, she was immediately taken with him".
Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "Oatman reportedly said" who reported that she said it? It's a long quotation to be only "reportedly" said.
Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "laps" → "lapse"
Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I believe these points have all been addressed. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Disgrace and death
  • "Having recently returned from Washington D.C" → "On his return from Washington D.C"
Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "So as to avoid fighting..." → "To avoid fighting..."
Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "the militant Mohave sub-chief, Homoseh quahote, also known as Seck-a-hoot" I recommend you only use one of these names, since you have introduced him earlier. e.g. "the militant Mohave sub-chief known as Seck-a-hoot"
Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Close repetition of "documented"
Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure, from what I read, that "disgrace" is the appropriate term in th section heading. He was humiliated, for sure, but that's not the same thing. And you say "As time went on the people softened in their disdain for Irataba", without previously indicating that his people disdained him, only that his influence waned.
I agree with you. Good call. Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I believe these points have all been addressed. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Old age at 60? I am practically a dead man.
I think the point is that for a Native American in 1874, 60 was pretty old. Even today, the average life expectancy at places like the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota is just 48 years. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Changed to "natural causes". Rationalobserver (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I hope these comments are helpful Brianboulton (talk) 20:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

They are extremely helpful! Thank you very much, Brianboulton. I'll work on these suggestions during the next couple of days. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:45, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Save for a few points here and there, I think all your concerns have been addressed. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:33, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Some great comments here Brian, very grateful, a lot on the content I added too haha! Thanks RO for quickly dealing with them.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

  • I'm generally happy with the responses, but see my added comment relating to the Beale's Crossing fort. I'll read through again, of course, when the article comes to FAC, and deal with any final quibbles there. Brianboulton (talk) 13:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

I seem to be on well-plowed ground here, but I have a few concerns about what is generally a very good article.

Lede
  • "European Americans". This may be interpreted as a synonym for the United States, which would be inaccurate. Did Irataba have contact with Buffalo Soldiers, for example? Although our article is substandard, the map seems to indicate they served in that area of Arizona Territory in the 1860s.
Good point. Buffalo Soldiers did serve at Fort Mohave, so Irataba most certainly interacted with them. I've made some edits to address this. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "he was involved with the purchase of Olive Oatman and her sister " this seems a kind way of putting it given the more explicit statements in the body.
Per Brianboulton I removed this from the lead. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • It should be made clearer whether Irataba was removed as Mojave chief or simply mocked.
I think it's clear now. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Travels
  • "In New York he encountered the slave girl Olive Oatman. Meeting Irataba with a natural hatred of Indians, " she was still a slave? Possibly insert "former". Wouldn't her hatred be more towards Irataba personally, if she knew he was complicit in her sale/purchase
Brian mentioned this earlier, good catch; it's now fixed. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
General comments
  • I"m not totally thrilled with the heavy repetition of "European Americans". That the United States owned by the Treaty of Guadeloupe Hidalgo, the area in question (except where it was part of the Gadsden Purchase), seems disregarded. POV concerns may be raised.
I agree; that's an astute observation. I think it's much better now in that regard. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I would reserve inline citation of the source ("According to x", for example) for accounts from the time, or for opinion. They are not needed for historical facts that are not contested.
I removed several, but would happily remove some more if needed. I'm just trying to be safe with attribution. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • There are several sources on JSTOR that mention Irataba at least in passing. Have these been reviewed for possible useful content? With JSTOR access more available than it used to be, I think it should be checked in all historical articles these days.
I'm pretty sure I've gleaned everything useful from JSTOR; I've checked at least three times. It looks like more than it is, but Woodward, Sherer, and Deveroux are on JSTRO. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Infobox
  • Was the area where he was born known as Arizona at the time?
I think it was Mexico in 1814. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Since Mexico didn't declare independence until 1822, and wasn't recognized by Spain until 1836, Irataba was born in Alta California, New Spain, I guess. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:33, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Would it be wise to add the country names for where he was born, and died, or is this a minefield?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't mind. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Wehwalt!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from John[edit]

Article looks a lot better since I last saw it. Here are my copyedits. Comments: I presume we are using lower case for ethnic labels like "native" and "white"; I don't think we should capitalise one and not the other. I don't think we need to state the full name of the Colorado River every time it is mentioned. The subject was unquestionably an American, so we could not state he "first met Americans" in such-and-such a year, as he and his own mother were Americans themselves. Finally, the grim ambiguity of In New York he met with the former slave girl Olive Oatman. Despite her natural hatred of Indians, she was immediately taken with him. was presumably unintentional? I replaced "taken with" by "impressed with" as the meaning is very close and it doesn't have such a double meaning in relation to a former slave. On first reading I thought that she was one of the perks. All in all this article is looking like FA-standard now. Well done, all. --John (talk) 22:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribs and comments, John! I appreciate that you found time to help. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Cheers John for the editing of it and comments!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:37, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage[edit]

Here by request. Will be a little bit until I can go through everything, but I wanted to know that I'm happy to take a look! Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 23:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Referencing[edit]

I've gone ahead and boxed up the long list of resolved stuff. Here's what I've got for outstanding issues:

  • That Stratton citation was harder to deal with than it should have been. Stratton had a lot of different variants of that book printed in 1857/8. The correct one to use here should be: {{cite book |last=Stratton |first=Royal B. |title=Captivity of the Oatman Girls: Being an Interesting Narrative of Life Among the Apache and Mohave Indians |edition=3rd |version=Fourteenth thousand |year=1858 |origyear=1857 |publisher=Carlton & Porter |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=myETAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA231#v=onepage&q&f=false |oclc=17368670 |ref=harv}}
  • The source currently cited as Report upon the Colorado River... was awkward. Here's my best take on it: {{cite book |last=Ives |first=Joseph C. |chapter=Part I: General Report |editor=United States Army Corps of Topographical Engineers |title=Report upon the Colorado River of the West : Explored in 1857 and 1858 by Joseph C. Ives |publisher=Government Printing Office |year=1861 |id=36th Congress, 1st Session Senate executive document, unnumbered |oclc=3095199 |url=https://archive.org/stream/reportuponcolor00bairgoog#page/n90/mode/2up |ref=harv}}
Fixed ([33]). The entries are alphabetized. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:53, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • For Devereux, I think all you need to do is remove the publisher (as you have done so for other journal sources), and you're good to go with it.
  • Audit the date formats in your bibliography. They are mostly MDY (October 22, 1865), but Kulp and "Parker Troth" have DMY (3 April 1974). Either way is fine. Personally, I prefer DMY, but some editors read the MOS as encouraging MDY use for articles about American subjects.
  • And one thing that I actually have made worse, not better. You need to decide how you want to display page ranges: 480–496 or 480–96, for example. You've got a mixed selection in both notes and references, which wasn't helped by my contributions. Sorry about that.

And then, unless I've overlooked something, I'm out of things in the reference section to pick on! As for your question in the collapsed section, yes; if you're citing a chapter/section/whatever with a different author than the parent work, best practices are to include that chapter's page range in its bibliography entry. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, well I think I've fixed everything now. Thanks again for being so helpful! I hate to press my luck, but do you plan to also take a look at the prose? Rationalobserver (talk) 20:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I always look at references first because even the most brilliant prose doesn't help if it's sourced to unreliable or unverifiable material. Also, I think I'm better at reference formatting pedantry than copyediting! But, yes, I should be able to give it a read-through in the next day or so. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Other Sources[edit]

You've done excellent work making this a comprehensive review of the literature. I was able to drag up a handful of scholarly publications that you don't cite. These may or may not be worth including (or even worth bothering tracking down).

This is mostly about unrelated topics, but p. 62 has some material of interest, including that Irataba was the subject of a portrait by Balduin Möllhausen. I know the article mentions the Harper's Ferry appearance, so there perhaps there's some value here?
Thanks for this! The image to which they are referring, File:Chief Irataba of the Mojave Nation, February 1864, artist's impression.jpg, is in the article, so this is valuable! Rationalobserver (talk) 17:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
The Elsasser source led to this awesome tidbit. Thanks! Rationalobserver (talk) 18:13, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Miller, David H. (1972). "The Ives Expedition Revisited: Overland into Grand Canyon". The Journal of Arizona History 13 (3): 177–196. 
I believe I have access to this one, if needed, although I don't have it on hand at the moment. No idea how valuable the content is, but it does appear to be a modern examination of events that you currently depend on contemporary sources to describe.
I can access this at JSTOR, but I don't see any particular need since I source everything in there directly to Ives. What do you think? Rationalobserver (talk) 20:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I think Ives is a 150 year old primary account, so if there's some modern analysis to be had, it might be worth looking at. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for this too! You were right; there was some really nice stuff in there that was well worth adding ([34]). Rationalobserver (talk) 22:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Hinton, Leanne (1979). "Irataba's Gift: A Closer Look at the ṣ> s> θ Soundshift in Mojave and Northern Pai". Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology, Papers in Linguistics 1: 3–37. 
I have no copy of this on hand, and can confirm that I do not have immediate access to this journal. I really don't know how metaphorical the title is. If it is literal, and Irataba himself is cited as influential in a phonemic shift in the Mojave language, that would be fantastic information. If it's metaphorical, well, then tracking this down is probably a waste of time. I would not count this against a check for comprehensiveness, but if someone happens to have easy access to it to check its contents, there's no reason not to at least take a look.
I've asked Maunus if they can find this, as I agree that if the title is accurate this might be a great addition. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
My normal "Hey, I need this super-weird journal article..." contact failed to come through on this one, but I agree that if it is what it sounds like, it's worth seeing. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Otherwise, I see no significant publications not already represented. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Prose[edit]
  • I'm not sure the way Irataba's Mohave name is given in the lead is MOS-compliant. I've never actually done articles where this applied, but I'm used to seeing a parenthetical note, with the language linked, then the original format, and ideally an IPA pronunciation. If it turns otu that's not as standard as I thought, ignore me. I don't do much work with non-English stuff, nor biographies.
We discussed this at Talk:Irataba#Pronunciation, and it appears that this is the best we can do without a definitive source for an IPA. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "Renowned for his physical size and strength and gentle demeanor, Irataba was a great orator" : The second part doesn't follow from the first, so perhaps an "also" or something in there?
Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "when he and the Mohave head chief, Cairook" : You've introduced Irataba as head chief in the first paragraph, but here, Cairook is. Obviously, that's because Irataba is well-known for that role, but his relevant history started before holding it. Perhaps "...when he and Cairook, then Mohave head chief, met..." Not sure I like that any better, really.
Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "They also imprisoned several Mohave leaders" : The problem here is that the antecedent, "US War Department" is a collective noun, and in American English collective nouns take singular verb and pronoun forms. But just replacing "they" with "it" here reads strangly, so you may need to reword things to avoid the metonymy.
As a group of people, I think it's okay to refer to the Department as they, as you might do for journalists and such; e.g.; "The New York Time gave Irataba their stamp of approval". Rationalobserver (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • You give the year of Fort Mohave in the lead, but not the month. This is a problem because Cairook's failed escape is introduced "in June"; there's no way to determine the time elapsed. Consider giving the month to start, or chaning the escape introduction to a difference "[foo] months later" or just "later that year" if there's no way to make the statement off reliable sources.
Good point. Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "a US president." : I would prefer "an American president", but others may weigh in here.
I agree, and I've changed it. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "He received considerable attention during his tours of the US capital, New York City, and Philadelphia" : There's no immediate way to know that this is a list rather than an appositive phrase. It's mostly a problem since, historically, both NYC and Philadelpha have been the US capital. Various solutions are possible, including "and of" or more vigorous rewording.
Nice catch. Thanks! Rationalobserver (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "when he was given" : I might introduce with where instead of when since you're discussing these in the context of their locations, rather than their times.
Done, but I hope that doesn't imply he was given all these things in Philadelphia. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "Mohave did not believe him, and they accused him of lying" : Redundant; I'd cut the last clause entirely.
I kept the last clause, as it gets right to the point, but cut the first one. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "The Mohave never replaced Irataba as head chief; he was their last, and was mourned for a prolonged period after his death in 1874." : Order of clauses makes it sound like he lost the position (his influence was eroded in the previous sentence), until you get further in the sentence and learn he died. Consider something like: "He died in 1874 and was mourned by the Mohave for a prolonged period; he was never replaced as head chief."
This one I disagree on, because it's odd to me to say they never replaced him after stating that he died, and it might also be misleading, because new chiefs were elected after he died, but since the Mohave were then on the reservation these chiefs are not considered "independent", as Irataba was, because they relied on the US Government for rations. Of course, I'm open to further discussion on this point. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Something something about the way non-English names are presented, again, that I'm not qualified to discuss with certainty...
If we knew more about the Mohave language we could improve this. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Do we really have nowhere to link for Mohave Canyon? Yikes.
That surprised me too! Rationalobserver (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • " In the opinion of anthropologist Kenneth M. Stewart, the Mohave were fierce warriors who were frequently the aggressors, particularly against the Chemehuevi, Paiute, and Maricopa peoples. Although they did not plunder their enemy's possessions, they took prisoners and scalps." : I think this sentence needs to go in the previous paragraph, which is about the tribe, rather than where it is, which is about Irataba specifically. I'd also reword the introduction as something like "Anthropologist Kenneth M. Stewart describes the Mohave as fierce warriors..."; opinion has a different connotation that what I think this warrants. (Needless to say, I'm not at all concerned about the use of false titles.)
Good call. Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "He documents that Irataba and Cairook" : Unclear antecedent at this point. Go ahead and replace "He" with "Woodward".
Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "several Mohave including Irataba" : comma needed after Mohave here.
I thought so, but for some reason I omitted that one (pesky commas!). Rationalobserver (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not 100% sold that the paragraph about Beale's journey is relevant. I didn't go look up the source; did Stacy actually mention Irataba? If not, I'm not sure this belongs in an article about Irataba, although it certainly might in one about the history of the Mohave Nation. If it does, ignore this...
The background of Beale's expedition is central to the story, as this is the beginning of the end for the independent Mohave, and Beale's road and crossing brought the Rose-Baley Party to Mohave country, whereas without Beale they wouldn't have gone that way. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for these excellent suggestions! I think I've adopted all of them except the last one. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Boson[edit]

Here by request. Just a few comments/questions:

  • "Visit with" sounds odd to British ears. In the interests of commonality, would it be possible to replace it with "meeting(s) with"?
  • Not knowing exactly what bottomlands are, I would appreciate a link. This may be a word that Americans are more familiar with.
  • Since it is followed by "an unusually eloquent and persuasive speaker", does "a great orator who was" add anything? Removing it would make the prose "tighter".
  • "This route became known as Beale's Wagon Road and the location where Beale crossed the river, Beale's Crossing." I would use "as" before "Beale's Crossing" instead of a comma (to stop the reader temporarily misreading it as apposition).
  • "Eight members of the party were killed, including five children, and thirteen were wounded". I think I would write that as "Eight members of the party – including five children – were killed, and thirteen were wounded", to make it more immediately obvious that "thirteen" refers to members of the party, not children.
  • "translating from English to Spanish to Yuman and to Mohave and vice versa" I believe you said that this is true to the source, but I think it needs changing; otherwise it is unclear what it is supposed to mean. If it means that he translated separately from English into three different languages, the punctuation and wording should be corrected to "translating from English into Spanish, Yuman, and Mohave – and vice versa". As it is punctuated, it appears to mean that he translated from English to Mohave via Spanish and Yuman, but since only one person is involved, his thought processes cannot be known.
  • 'In the opinion of Fulsom Charles Scrivner, author of Mohave People (1970), whereas Cairook helped lead the attack on the Rose-Baley Party, "it appears that Irataba stayed clear of the fracas", arguing that "if Irataba had taken an active part he would have offered himself as prisoner", as did Cairook.' Presumably because of previous editing, "arguing . . . " does not appear to have a valid implied subject. I presume it is meant to refer to Scrivner, but that would require something like "Scrivener stated ..." I think it would be better to express it differently..
  • It is not clear to me why "quahote" is not capitalized. If it is part of a proper name shouldn't it be capitalized (or perhaps preceded by a hyphen)?
  • Changing the order of "relations between the Mohave and American settlers" to "relations between American settlers and the Mohave" would prevent a temporary misreading (with both proper names modifying "settlers"). Since the Mohave are also American, would "European American settlers" be better? Or should the adjective be removed completely ("relations between settlers and the Mohave"? I'm not sure about American sensibilities here.
  • "Upon arriving in New York, Harper's Weekly described Irataba as ..." reads at first as if the magazine arrived in New York.
  • "Irataba ordered to his people" sounds incorrect to me (possibly American English?).

--Boson (talk) 00:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for these comments, Boson. I'll do my best to resolve them starting first thing tomorrow. Rationalobserver (talk) 00:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for these, Boson! I've fixed all your above concerns except one: the reason why I didn't capitalize "quahote" or "tav" is because Sherer doesn't. Presumably, the second word is not really a proper name like it would be in the west; e.g., "tav" means good or beautiful, so it's more of an adjective than a proper name; I assume similar reasons for not capitalizing "quahote", but I do not have a translation of that name to hand. Rationalobserver (talk) 15:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Simon Burchell[edit]

This is a very nice looking article, I'm just reading through now, but it looks in fine shape. Apologies if any comments are already covered above. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

  • The article makes reference to a drawing of Irataba by Balduin Möllhausen. Is this available anywhere? I had a quick look on archive.org but couldn't find it. Since it would be out of copyright, it would be interesting to see it in the article.
I believe it's this image: File:Chief Irataba of the Mojave Nation, February 1864, artist's impression.jpg, which is in the article, but I'm unable to confirm that at this time. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
I did wonder - and it seemed likely. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Nope, it is this one[35], with Kairook - Möllhausen spelled the bname Ireteba, that is why it doesnt come up on searches for Irataba. It would be good to have a depiction of him before he took up the habit of using European clothes. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Well found! Simon Burchell (talk) 20:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Nice work, Maunus! Is that PD? Rationalobserver (talk) 21:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
I dont know how the NY publiclibrary licenses their collections, but it should be eligible for fair use if it is not PD which it probably is. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
I think this was first published in Ives's 1861 report, which would make it PD. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
this page says it was published in 1857, at any rate, it is definitely PD. Simon Burchell (talk) 21:48, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanls, Maunus and Simon! Wow's this look? Rationalobserver (talk) 21:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
I would right align it, remove the one with the two men by the river or move it to another section and then make it a bit bigger.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Since the image is PD, I think we can use a cropped version - I'll upload one tomorrow. Simon Burchell (talk) 00:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
I've switched it for a cropped version. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
But Irataba is looking right, and Whipple is looking left, and the images should stagger. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
I've also been going back and forth with different people about image sizes and mark-up, and I admit that I have no clue what's actually right – or FAC compliant. So all I'm confident to do is put it in thumb, but I think making it bigger will invite complaints. You can see it full-sized if you click on it. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
I think the image of Cairook should be included as well. He was an important figure in Irataba's life, more so than some of the other Anglo-Americans whose portraits are in the article. And it is really remarkable that a drawing of him exists. So maybe consider if you could crop it to include both, or include the full drawing.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
I've started Cairook, where I've included his image, but I suppose I could swap out File:Mohave Indians.jpg for File:Cairook.jpg, but it's nice to have an actual picture of Mohave near the river. I also wonder if it's better to have Irataba and Cairook together than two separate, but I suppose the topic is Irataba, not Cairook, so we probably don't need it here. I'm not sure what to do, but I was hoping to close this PR this week and re-nom at FAC. What do you think, Simon? Rationalobserver (talk) 16:47, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
I would say, since it is an individual biography, use the picture of the subject alone, unless the subject is shaking hands with someone important to the article, or in a tight group. Also, if you are planning on taking this to FAC, you had best find a way to lay out the images so that no text is squeezed between two images (as has happened with my addition of the cropped picture) - there are ways around this, such as using the multiple image template. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Simon. I've moved a few images around, so I don't think any text is currently being squeezed by images, but if I'm wrong please let me know which ones are causing an issue. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
It is PD-Old, published in the US before 1923. Simon Burchell (talk) 21:45, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "Contact with Americans" section header. What? This section header surely needs to be renamed. As far as I can see, both sides could be counted as "Americans". Looking at the article history, this looks like it has already been renamed from "Contact with European Americans", the change is not an improvement, in my opinion. Perhaps "Contact with settlers", or something? Simon Burchell (talk) 09:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
How about "Contact with explorers and settlers"? Rationalobserver (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Much better. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • In the same section, the Sitgreaves Expedition is linked, is Whipple's expedition also worthy of an article? If it is, then redlink it. maybe someone will come along and write it... Simon Burchell (talk) 10:03, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • It looks like "Tolkepaya tribe" should also be redlinked/linked somehow. I realise it redirects at the moment, is there any likelihood they would ever get their own article? Simon Burchell (talk) 10:08, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Redlinked "Tolkepaya band", as the tribe is Yavapai. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! Rationalobserver (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Not sure about this one. There is a spin-off article (Rose-Baley Party), but the details are summarized pretty tightly, and the episode is one of the most important of Irataba's life. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
It seems to me that the whole first two paragraphs gives way too much detail for an article about Irataba, considering that he didn't take part, and could be concisely summarised along the following lines:
In 1858, the first emigrant train to venture onto Beale's Wagon Road was harassed by Mohave warriors, who drove away and slaughtered many of the party's cattle. On August 30, three hundred Mohave warriors attacked the emigrants and eight members of the party – including five children – were killed, and thirteen were wounded. The emigrants killed seventeen Mohave warriors.[41] With the wounded in one wagon, the children in another, and the healthy adults on foot, the party began the journey back to Albuquerque, 500 miles (800 km) away. According to Kroeber, "the event sealed the fate of the Mohave as an independent people.
I think you're right. How about this ([36])? Rationalobserver (talk) 21:45, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for that - I know how painful it is to cut interesting information... Hopefully the whole lot is in the Rose-Baley article, if not, you should put it in. Simon Burchell (talk) 00:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Anecdotes on Iritaba's bearing and character are sprinkled throughout the article — it would be nice to have a short section near the beginning to summarise his appearance/personality. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
I think the last paragraph in "Early life and background" does this pretty well. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, although it appears a little buried there - how about a subheading for that para? If I were coming to the article to learn something about his physical characteristics/character, it wouldn't leap out at me. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:36, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Is this better ([37])? Rationalobserver (talk) 21:45, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
That should do it, thanks. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Overall a very interesting, weel-written article. Simon Burchell (talk) 11:08, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look, Simon Burchell! I appreciate your comments and suggestions. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for responding promptly to my comments, I believe I am done here. Well done on producing such a fine article. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 09:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Simon! I appreciate your taking the time to make these extremely helpful comments. Thanks also for cropping the Möllhausen rendering. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Csisc[edit]

Thank you for your work about Irataba... In fact, the most important general thoughts about American Indians are minorizing... They describe them as a wild, primitive, illiterate and even aggressive society. It was a good thing to valorize that the Indians were active and engaged. However, you did not include this in your work... It is more useful to talk about the circumstances of the birth of Irataba in the first part in the work... It is very useful to say whether Indians were misconsidered or not and how the situation of Indians had deeply influencing him. Furthermore, you did not talk about the debates that were supported by Irataba and about his convictions and beliefs. In fact, you just mentioned that he was a person that helped Explorers to discover America until the important Mohave War. You had better to consider this and give more interests to the Social and Cultural Part of the personality of Irataba. Moreover, you did not mention whether he had some influencing familial relationships... You did not mention his parents and you never said whether he was married once or not... You should mention whether he was passioned by someone or something. In another side, you did not mention some quotes or manners of Irataba. So, try to work on this in order to better efficiently the work. You probably think that these details are not very important. However, in order to get the FA Status, you should include all important information about Irataba and particularly social ones. Yours Sincerely,

--Csisc (talk) 11:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. While I agree that it would be good to include these types of things, none of the specific "deficiencies" you mentioned above are verifiable. At least not as far as my research revealed. We looked at every available source, and these are the things that we cannot write about because we cannot source any of it to reliable sources. This article is about as comprehensive as it can be given the relative lack of details regarding these points. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Victoriaearle[edit]

I've been watching here, on and off, and think the page needs a little more balance. I spent a lot of time thinking about whether to comment, but in light of the above, have decided to add a few comments below (in no particular order and not comprehensive).

  • "Irataba was the hereditary chief of the Huttoh Pah group of Mohave, who lived near the east bank of the Colorado River.[3]" >> This needs a bit of clarification in terms of the system of tribal government and chieftainships. Sherer explains that Sickahoot abdicated as head chief in 1861 and says, (page 5), "Yara tav's election to the head chieftainship as hochoch interrupted but did not change the line of succession away from the hereditary line of great chieftains". My sense is that it's slightly complicated and so needs some more explanation and would be better set in context.
If you've read the source then you realize that it is complicated, but to explain it here would be to go way off topic. I.e., this article is about Irataba, not Mohave government, which is too complicated to get into in great detail here. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:15, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "they also caught fish; hunted game such as rabbits and beaver with bows and arrows, traps…" >> this source has very good background about the tribe, how they lived and specifically about the warrior society (kwanamis). If Irataba was kwanami then should be developed and context added. "According to anthropologist Lorraine M. Sherer, Irataba was what the Mohave called, kwanami, which means brave or fearless.[14]" >> this also needs context and explanation about what kwanami means. Here on page 30 in her long note Sherer says brave, but kwanamis were also warrior caste, etc. which needs explanation and development.
I've added some clarification to this point ([38]). Rationalobserver (talk) 20:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "In the opinion of anthropologist Kenneth M. Stewart, the Mohave were fierce warriors in general who were frequently the aggressor, particularly against the Chemehuevi, Paiute, and Maricopa peoples. Although they did not plunder their enemy's possessions, they took prisoners and scalps.[15]" >> again, to the concept of a warrior caste or society, the kwanami, there's quite a lot more in this source. It also explains the significance of dreaming (Irataba had dreams) and its relationship to being kwanami, the importance and function of kwanimis (warriors), their clothing and weapons, some of which should be added.
I've restored this bit about dreaming and will add a little more. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I've added some stuff that I think resolves this particular concern ([39]). Rationalobserver (talk) 19:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "Higher status Mohave would cover their body in goose fat to help alleviate the summer heat.[7]" > > this NYT piece is from a gossip column and isn't a great source insofar as factual information. Do we know whether geese thrive in the Mohave desert?
The Colorado River brings in all kinds of birds to the region, but per your concern with the source I've removed it. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "They were captured and enslaved and sold to Irataba and the Mohave in return for two horses and three blankets. Although Olive was forcibly tattooed on the chin during her time with the tribe, the Mohave treated Oatman and her sister well, and she remarked of the experience, "To the honor of those savages, let it be said they never offered the least unchaste abuse to me."[21]" >> this source on Jstor has some good information and explains that Sharer's account was written as a sensationalist piece. Probably better to use the more recent scholarly account which suggests that she might not have been enslaved.
To be honest, I didn't add anything about Oatman because of concerns that the original story was not reliable. All the Oatman material was added by Dr. Blofeld. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes I added all of that. If another source can't be found then it can always be removed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I've removed the Stratton source for Putzi ([40]). Thanks for providing that source. Rationalobserver (talk)
  • "up the Colorado River" >> needs clarification regarding east/west direction. This source on Jstor is a good summary of the Whipple expedition. Note the date - Whipple expedition was in 1853-1854
Good catch. Fixed. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "Played a game" >> why no mention of trading for food? There was quite a lot of trading involved, the expedition was low on supplies - this can be spun out more given better context. Very nice image here of the Whipple party trading with the Mohave tribe.
I had some detail about that in the article that someone eels removed for brevity. I'll re-add it. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I added that picture pre your awesome suggestion ([41]). Thanks! Rationalobserver (talk) 22:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Restored ([42]). Rationalobserver (talk) 18:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • This source has information about Irataba with Moss and Irataba's later years.
I don't see anything here that's not already included. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Also doesnt look like a reliable source to me.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:06, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Images are available at the Huntington Library: [43]

Victoria (tk) 17:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Which specific images do you suggest we include, because we are currently brimming with them? Rationalobserver (talk) 23:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Victoriaearle, I believe I've addressed all of these above concerns with this series of edits: ([44]). Would you mind stopping back in to take another look? Rationalobserver (talk) 20:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to try to approach this in broad brush strokes and then let you take it from there. Also, I'm pinging Maunus because, although familiar with the geographical area and the subject, I'm not an anthropologist and he might have an easier time parsing what I'm trying to articulate. On a most basic level I think this is a very good article about a Native American chief and as an FA would set a standard. In that sense it's quite important. Equally it's probably the best biography of Irataba on the web and so I think it has to be written with some care.

  • Re - leadership, chiefs. What you've added is good, but we lead off with "Irataba was the hereditary chief of the Huttoh Pah group of Mohave." My suggestion is to use the information from Sherer, p. 2, [45], to explain the two types of chief and then elsewhere in the article explain that Irataba was head chief only from 1861 to 1866, (Sherer 10-11 [46]) and explain how Irataba was chosen because Homoseh Quahote (we might need a decent English translation of his name), basically abdicated (Sherer p. 5 [47]).
I couldn't find any translations of Homoseh Quahote, but then we also don't have a translation for Cairook either. I disagree about explaining the different kinds of chiefs here, as it would be off-topic, but since you seem to know what you want added I encourage you to go ahead and add some more. Rationalobserver (talk) 15:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
RE: chiefs and chieftains, the article currently states: "According to ethnographer George Devereux, white officials 'tended to act on the assumption that Indian chiefs exercised absolute authority'; he describes Mohave government as 'one of the least understood segments of Mohave culture',". So, I am more than reluctant to attempt an explanation that has largely eluded anthropologists, because 1) we will almost certainly get it wrong if we do, and 2) even if we get it right, it's off-topic for an article about Irataba. Does our article on Abraham Lincoln explain the process of becoming a US president, or does it summarize that he was elected and leave the detail at that level? I think the easiest way forward here is for you to add the material you think is needed, versus you and I going back and forth over this point, because I don't really agree with you, but might change my mind once you add some material. If you look at the early stages of this PR, you'll see that there was some concern about focus. Now the article is focused, but I fear that too much backgrounb details about Mohave leadership will once again distract from the focus. Rationalobserver (talk) 15:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Re - kwanami - it seems important from the point of view of how one becomes chief that a certain path is followed, in this case becoming kwanami. As an unfamiliar cultural concept, and because almost certainly defines the man, imo it needs better explanation. Much is available on pages 234 onward about kwanami in this piece Kenneth Stewart wrote, [48].
  • Re - dreaming. Again, this is a cultural difference that needs to some explaining. I think Kroeber does it best in this piece on page 280, [49], where he writes "it is dreams that are the cause of everything that happens." Once one understands that, then one understands why the repeated encounters with whites (and I think we should use the term "white"), and eventually the reason for the trip to the east.
I've added the above quote from Kroeber ([50]). Rationalobserver (talk) 16:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Re - Olive Oatman. It should stay in but it not be presented in such a way that she was a "captive" for five years. Personally I'd keep the mention of the tattoo because it's an indication that she acculturated, mentioned in Putzi. Whipple mentions that only married women were tattooed, fwiw.
I think that to assert that Oatman wasn't actually a captive is WP:OR, or it's unverifiable. By all reliable accounts, she was a captive who was essentially "owned". I'm not supportive of re-casting this until I see a reliable source that suggests her stay with the Natives was voluntary. Rationalobserver (talk) 15:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
The tattoo is strictly about Olive Oatman, so it has nothing to do with Irataba, unless she was married to him, which she wasn't. But if I was going to give the meaning of it I would find a better expert than Whipple, who was a soldier, not an anthropologist. As I said below, the meaning of the tattoo is disputed anyway, so not only is it off-topic it's a rabbit hole to boot! Rationalobserver (talk) 19:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Re - tribal rift. I think that needs more explanation. It's important to explain that the US gov't wanted to move the Mohave away from the valley where it was easier to grow crops to the desert, that as a result the tribe split, half following Irataba, the other half following Homoseh Quahote (the chief who abdicated? but then didn't?).
the US gov't wanted to move the Mohave away from the valley where it was easier to grow crops to the desert Is this in Sherer, because I don't remember her ascribing this motivation to the US Government? Rationalobserver (talk) 16:28, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
This really seems like too much detail about something that is little understood. Plus, it's really a topic for Mohave people. Rationalobserver (talk) 15:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree with RO, in fact one of the biggest problems I had when I started on this was the unfocused bloat about the general tribe. This is a biography.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Re images - i just thought it interesting that the Huntington has images of the fort, steamboats, a Mohave chief in warpaint, etc.
We are pretty stuffed with images as is, so if you think one should be included, please be more specific. Rationalobserver (talk) 15:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Anyway, I'll stop here, but the point I'm trying to make is that we should approach this from the point of view of Irataba in Mohave society at a time when whites were encroaching in the area, with emphasis on Mohave culture which made him the man he was, whilst simultaneously avoiding describing him a a noble savage. This may not make sense and if not, that's fine. But it's how I'd approach the article, fwiw. Victoria (tk) 00:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks so much for these wonderful suggestions, Victoria. I won't be able to start working on these until tomorrow, but I'm very excited by the coming improvements. Rationalobserver (talk) 00:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Victoriaearle, after re-reading your recent batch of comments, I really think that the best way forward here is for you to add what you think is needed, and let subsequent discussion and editing determine an appropriate level of detail. I strongly disagree with trying to explain the difference between hereditary chiefs, elected chiefs, chieftains and great chieftains, in an article about one particular chief, but maybe this wouldn't be as difficult as I think. Anyway, I don't think it's a good idea to push for me to add this stuff, because I don't share your concerns or vision enough to agree with you. Having said that, I wouldn't be too surprised if after you add some stuff I see what you were saying and change very little of what you add. Does this sound acceptable? Rationalobserver (talk) 15:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I think I do understand most of what Victoria means, and like her I do think that it is good to provide background about the people, their cultural and social organization, and the political situation in which the encounters between Mohave and Whites took place. However, from the comments above some other editors clearly disagree that this kind of social context belongs in a biography in a major way. I think the dreaming part is important because it provides some clear context for understanding his actions. Also some detail about what the titles and leadership positions in Mohave society actually meant also would make sense, because otherwise we dont know what this particular chiefs title actually means. With Olive the I am not sure we can depict her as anything other than a captive, because that seems to be what the sources do, following her own (probably distorted testimony). The tattoo needs to be mentioned, since it is rather important in the coverage of her life and salient in the picture of her. But we might remove the word "forcible" unless there is a very good reason to keep it? Also mentioning that it was something reserved for married women might provide an interesting perspective. The trick with this kind of article is that the sources are always inflected through Anglo minds - the indigenous perspective is rarely found in them and consequently we cant do it justice. I am not entirely sure on how to be more clear about the political situation of encroaching whites, maybe Victoria has some concrete ideas here. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:06, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm open to people adding what they think is needed, but the distinctions regarding hereditary chiefs, elected chiefs, chieftains and great chieftains is far too nuanced to do it here, assuming we could explain it accurately. Maunus, I don't see the word "forcible" currently in the article, can you point it out? Rationalobserver (talk) 16:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, the exact meaning of Olive's tattoo is disputed; she claimed it marked her as a slave, but others say it was a sign of marriage, or a symbol of her belonging to the Mohave. As I said, if others want to add more detail in this regard, I think they should do so, but it would be much easier to look at specific additions and go from there, because At this point I don't see the benefit to adding more detail that does not specifically pertain to Irataba. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I think we alreayd have more than enough background filling on this. If we start going into a detail of detail on distinctions it's going to affect the general readability and concision of people looking for info about Irataba. It's already padded enough as it is.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I think the thing to do when we know there are conflicting views on a detail like this is to decide if it is important, in which case we include it or if it isnt in which case we simply omit mention of it. So, we probably should simply mention that she was tattooed without discussing why that was.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Btw. I think the way you integrated the dream part was really good.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:42, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I'll repeat this here: According to ethnographer George Devereux, Mohave government is "one of the least understood segments of Mohave culture", which I take as a good sign that we shouldn't try to crack the enigma in this article, which is not about Mohave government; it's about one chief. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:37, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I think that is wrong, it is about a person who is called a chief in English, but whose actual title was something else which does not mean the same as chief. Then in order for the reader to know what Irataba was, we need them to know what the role of a person with his title was in Mohave society as well as possible., I.e. this is crucial for the reader to actually understand the subject of the biography.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I just noticed the ping and am about to go offline so haven't read through the comments. If I can, will revisit later today or tonight. Victoria (tk) 16:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Since who've mentioned the Huntington Library a couple of times, I want to make sure that images there can be freely uploaded to Wikicommons. Per their website, "The nature of certain collections often makes it difficult to determine the copyright status of an item" and "The responsibility for determining whether any such intangible rights exist, for obtaining all necessary permissions, and for guarding against the infringement of those rights that may be held elsewhere, remains with the requester."([51] and [52]) We hope, can you clarify this point? Are the images at the Huntington Digital Library suitable for uploading to Wikicommons, because I'm confident that all the pictures currently used are PD, and I'd like to keep it that way. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Maunus makes a good point in that the sources are inflected through Anglo minds, and we have to keep in mind that here too, on WP, to some extent the writing and reviewing is as well. No offense to anyone, but it's best to try to avoid a European white male point of view. The article would benefit greatly from a "Historiography" section. Furthermore, FA criteria, re context, literature survey, etc, need to be kept in mind. Insofar as specifics, if we mention he's kwanami then the context in this source seems important; if we mention hereditary chief, then the context in Sherer's "Great Chieftains of the Mohave Indians" is important. If we mention a rift developed between Homoseh quahote (Seck-a-hoot), we should explain why. If we know a person has a chin tattoo but the sources don't agree on its significance then we should explain why, and so on. Anyway, those are my concerns and thanks for responding. I'll unwatch now. Victoria (tk) 19:29, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks for your comments. FTR, the Huntington Library is not a suitable source for images for Wikipedia articles ([53]). Rationalobserver (talk) 19:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
My point was that untill some non-white women write something about Irataba we are stuck with the white male perspective. There is nothing we can do about that under current policy. I also dont think we can do a historiography section without engaging in OR. Someone certainly should write an essay or research article critically examining how Irataba has been represented by historians, but it seems no one has. I do agree with the need to explain as well as possible the mohave concepts expressed by the tattoo, the names, titles etc. But again we are limited by the sources.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:34, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
We could probably explain that little is known about him until contact with whites and he shows up in the Ives expedition report (which only mentions him by name once), and that aside from Kroeber and apparently Sherer's work in terms of Mohave culture, we don't know a lot more. That's what I meant by a histiography section. Nonetheless, there's plenty in sources for context. For example, there's quite a lot in terms of how the location for the reservation was chosen, Irataba's involvement with that decision, and why that decision caused a rift. Victoria (tk) 19:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Ok, that does make sense though again I am a little unclear on how we could provide analytical metacommentary on the sources without doing OR? We could state that there are few sources about Mohave culture and that what we know comes from anthropologists working in the 20th century. Probably not enough for a section, but perhaps a paragraph would do? The question of the reservation does seem important, also in terms of its significance for later Mohave people.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Victoria, since neither Maunus or I think we could write a histiography without engaging in OR, are you willing to write one? Why is this not enough about the split? "After its completion, Irataba and several hundred of his most ardent supporters moved to the Colorado River Valley, where in 1865 the Colorado River Indian Reservation was established.[48] This marked the beginning of a rift between two rival factions of Mohave, the other led by an influential sub-chief named Homoseh quahote, known by the whites as Seck-a-hoot.[49]" Rationalobserver (talk) 19:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Maunus, what do you think of this addition: ([54]). Do you think the leadership system is now adequately explained, or do we need more detail? Rationalobserver (talk) 19:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, sounds like a clan system. She doesnt use the word clan? I think the interesting part is if we know anything about the kind of authority and responsibility the chief and subchief positions implied. Does Shere give the Mohave terms for "chief" and "subchief" btw?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
The article is on JSTOR, why don't you read it, because I can't do all this myself, and this pile of options that only I am acting on is getting old. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I have other stuff I am working on Rationalobserver. You are the one who asked for comments, you are not required to act on them. No need to stress out. There is no deadline.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I see that Sherer does use the word clan in her 1965 book, and probably there is some useful info in the "Bitterness Road" book as well. Both of those are at my university library, so I will take a look at them next week one day when I have time.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
It's definitely a clan system. You should take a look at The Clan System of the Fort Mojave Indians: A Contemporary Survey. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, I'm closing this peer review now, I think we've had more than enough input here. Thankyou everybody, most helpful. I invite anybody who still has concerns to assist with editing the article before this heads to FAC, Rational has already put extraordinary effort into this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 6 March 2015, 17:22 UTC)----


Princess Alice of the United Kingdom[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review with a view to nominating it to GA status. I would like some feedback on the current state of the article and how to improve it to meet GA requirements. Thanks, Sotakeit (talk) 13:04, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Noswall59

  • In the first paragraph "greeted with a mixture of feeling" could be "greeted with fixed feelings" or "with mixed emotions".
  • Before "Sophia Matilda of Gloucester" in the list of godparents, you need an "and".
  • I think the children and ancestry sections ought to be referenced - I am aware that the information exists elsewhere on WP, but the article shouldn't rely on other pages being reliably sourced and, I imagine, some aren't.
  • I notice that you've used Heraldica for the coat of arms, which is probably reliable, but I should think that J.H. and R.V. Pinches, Royal Heraldry, 1974 (Heraldry Today), is a better source, if Burke or Debrett do not suffice.

These are just a few things, I am sure there are a more prose tweaks that need to be made, but this a good article (lower case). Best wishes, —Noswall59 (talk) 10:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC).

Thanks! Updated all your points. I've used Debretts to cite the general points regarding royal heraldry and then a contemporary journal for the specifics regarding Alice's arms. Sotakeit (talk) 10:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 6 March 2015, 13:04 UTC)----


Natural sciences and mathematics[edit]

Cécile Vogt-Mugnier[edit]

In addressing clean-up issues, I have expanded and organized this page on an important neuroscientist. The article is currently rated as a "B-class" article, but I would like it to go higher. It has received little editing since it was updated 10 months ago, so a review would be the best way to impartially address issues with the article.

Thanks, Iamozy (talk) 15:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from 1bandsaw

Iamozy, this is an nice article about a very interesting scientific pioneer. Here are a few suggestions for improving:

General

  • There is no citation on her birth or death dates in the infobox or in the article, and the cited date of her death in the article only includes the year.

Research Contributions

  • From a biographical standpoint, it might be of interest to note where she was living and working while doing this work. Which institution was she doing this at? The same ones that she and her husband founded in the next section? Who paid for her work? This is particularly relevant for the note about clashing with the Nazi party, which seems to imply she was working in Germany.
  • Was this work solo, or was she part of/leading a team?
  • The first paragraph does not have a citation for most of its content.

Family

  • No citations on the information about their daughters.

Personality

  • The statements after the first blockquote ("According to Klatzo...") do not have any citation.
  • It is unclear who the final quote in this section is quoting.

I look forward to learning more about her! 1bandsaw (talk) 18:02, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 20 March 2015, 15:03 UTC)----


Gaseous signaling molecules[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get some feedback and to improve the article as much as possible. Maybe at some point after your feedback and improvements it will be considered good enough to nominate it at good article nomination page. I'm glad to listen and accept your comments, suggestions, edits, style and language improvements, fact-checking, etc.Roman Bekker (talk) 18:13, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Roman Bekker (talk) 18:13, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Opabinia regalis

Specific thoughts as I'm reading through:

  • The lead needs some cleanup and expansion. The first sentence is really long and would be better split up. Instead of the long list of examples, you could mention a few prominent ones and their biological roles. There's no need for "outlined below"; that's implicit in the structure of a wiki article.
  • The criteria for being a "gasotransmitter" as opposed to a mere "signaling molecule" are still somewhat unclear to me.
  • Oxygen section is empty (and is it really a "signaling molecule"? I suppose...)
  • Carbon dioxide section has some irrelevant information. Keep the article focused on signaling at the molecular level.
  • "NO is one of the few gaseous signalling molecules known..." Aren't you writing an article with twelve subsections for gaseous signaling molecules?
  • Sub-note: "signalling" with two l's here, but just one in the title.
  • Nitric oxide section needs subsections, and a good trim. Some of this material probably belongs in the subarticle.
  • Carbon monoxide functional summary can go, especially with something as hilariously vague as "may play a role as potential therapeutic agent." Again, stay focused on signaling, and leave the other roles of these molecules to their own main articles.
  • Carbon suboxide: which "living organisms" were the polymers found in? Is there any evidence these occur in humans? That very vague "endogenous anticancer protective mechanisms" statement is sourced to one publication in Italian?
  • Hydrogen sulfide: also needs subsections and a trim.
  • Ethylene: same. You could use the existing material to spin off a new subarticle.

Overall comments:

  • The current organization makes it hard to tell which molecules are known to be signaling molecules in mammals, which occur in plants, and which are so far just a few papers' worth of intriguing data and speculation. This should be much more clearly stated - maybe a section at the top with a table summarizing the molecules and which organisms/cell types they occur in. You might even go so far as to restructure the sections so that the organism of interest is the top-level section with relevant molecules as subsections.
  • There's a lot of statements like "some authors have shown", "it was shown that", ("shown" appears 25 times!), "it is known", etc. An encyclopedia article doesn't need to report cases where there's only a handful of equivocal papers out so far and the biology is far from settled knowledge. For one thing, it gets out of date quickly. It's also hard for the reader to get a sense of how these specific observations have been integrated into the knowledge of the field - it starts to read like a collection of facts. I suggest refactoring some of this to cite appropriate review articles, instead or in addition to the primary literature.
  • For the specifically medical claims (including what may/may not cause/cure cancer/aging/acne/whatever), make sure the sources fit the WP:MEDRS guideline, or are reasonably close.
  • There's also a couple of oddball sources in there: Berkeley Test? The Scientific American article is fine to report on news coverage, but it looks like it's used to cite a scientific claim, in which case you can probably find the original paper. The article overall is thoroughly referenced, obviously, but that makes these oddballs stand out.
  • I mentioned this above, but there is a lot of material in here and it would benefit from more attention to summary style. Some of the very specific details about individual molecules can be moved to their own subarticles. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks. I will work out those issues. Roman Bekker (talk) 15:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 12 March 2015, 16:57 UTC)----


Language and literature[edit]

Baron Munchausen[edit]

There's a lot of information in this article, and I'd really appreciate thoughts as to whether all that information is arranged in a user-friendly way. Would the article read better if the sections were reordered/changed/shifted?

Thanks, Lemuellio (talk) 22:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 26 March 2015, 22:34 UTC)----


Live and Let Die (novel)[edit]

Live and Let Die is the second in Ian Fleming's series of Bond stories. There are some oddities to the story and, to the modern reader, a few passages of toe-curling embarrassment when Fleming expounds on his well-meaning but patronising views on race. This has undergone a re-build over the last month or so, bringing in information from new sources, re-structuring the article along the lines of Casino Royale, and giving a few passages a brush up to bring it into line with the MoS. A visit to FAC is the post-PR aim. Many thanks to all who care to constructively comment. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 11:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Cassianto's Quarrel's[edit]

  • The first thing that strikes me is the infobox. The front cover tells us everything we need to know. The infobox just repeats this.
  • Ian Fleming (name given three times!) YesY
  • Live and Let Die YesY
  • Published by Jonathan Cape YesY
  • Casino Royale YesY

The first para of the lead section tells us everything else. CassiantoTalk 21:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

  • There's a few other pieces in there which aren't covered, and the repeat of Fleming's name is partly because he had a hand in the cover design too. - SchroCat (talk) 08:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Plot

  • We link Florida on the second mention and not the first.
  • We don't technically link it at all (I think it probably counts as overlinking). The second 'link' is part of the link to St. Petersburg, but I've tweaked to take Florida out of there. - SchroCat (talk) 08:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "...ties Solitaire and Bond to a line behind his yacht and plans to drag them over the shallow coral reef and into deeper water so that the sharks and barracuda that he attracts in to the area with regular feedings will eat them". Didn't this happen in For Your Eyes Only too?
  • Only in the film (I guess you haven't got down as far a the Adaptations section yet!) - SchroCat (talk) 08:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Background

  • "The academic Daniel Ferrera Savoye considers the titles of Fleming's novels have importance individually and collective." -- is there a word missing from this?
  • No longer! Good spot - SchroCat (talk) 08:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Tim[edit]

  • Plot
    • I'm not convinced that "pirate" and "fortune-telling" need blue links.
    • The bolded initial letters don't bother me, and as far as I can see don't violate the MoS. I think you have made a good choice on this.
    • "Sir Henry Morgan" – to my eye it breaks the flow of the prose to leave the "Sir" outside the link. Piping as Sir Henry Morgan makes for a smoother read, I find.
  • Background
    • "following the same working practice he had the previous year" – doesn't read quite right to me: perhaps, "following his working practice of the previous year"?
    • "the RMS Queen Elizabeth" – is it usual to use the definite article before "RMS"? (Question asked from pure ignorance.)
    • "have a more serious tone from his debut novel" – "than" rather than "from", I'd say.
    • "Epistemological" – a link would be helpful despite the MoS's odd injunction to avoid links from within quotations.
  • Development
    • Duplicate link to St Petersburg could be blitzed.
    • "Leiter's Christian name" – best to use the secular "first name" perhaps
  • Characters
    • Quotation in first sentence could do with an in-line attribution
    • "Bond's battle with the same opponent is won by the agent" – I had to read this twice: clearer as "Bond wins his own battle with the same opponent"?
    • "which Bond can eliminate" – "whom Bond can eliminate"?
    • "For Benson, "Mr Big is only adequate villain"" – missing a word, by the look of it.
  • Style
    • "sees the two books have" – not keen on "sees", which implies that the openness is a fact.
    • "ending which Bond battling" – another phrase with a missing or mistyped word, it appears
    • "école du regard" – a link or a footnote would be nice here: I haven't the least notion what Eco is referring to
      • All now done - SchroCat (talk) 18:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
        • First rate footnote - bravo! I scratched around for a quarter of an hour without finding anything before I posted my comment, above. Tim riley talk 14:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Themes
    • In my self-proclaimed role as Noël Coward's vicar on Wikipedia I should like to see chapter and verse that he expressed views about American colonisation of the island. Does Parker (citation at end of para) say so? On what evidence? Remind me next week when I'm back in London and I'll comb the Coward section of my bookshelves, if wanted.
      • Yes, it's from Parker, who writes: "both Fleming and Coward saw the preponderance of Americans among Jamaica's hotel owners and tourists—'millionaires in beach clothes'—as cause for regret and a threat to Jamaica's integrity."
        • Hmmm. Do not be surprised to hear from me further on this next week. I don't recall reading of any such anti-American sentiments from Coward in re Jamaica, and I want to check this out in the numerous books about Coward on my shelves. More anon. Tim riley talk 21:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Friendship
    • "with regards to" – "with regard to" or "as regards", possibly?
  • Critical reception
    • "Sunday Times … sister paper, The Times" – a reasonable but in fact incorrect inference from the titles. The two papers were not under the same ownership until 1966.
    • "a lurid meller" – a what? Should this be melée or is it an unfamiliar Americanism? (Later: I find it is slang for "melodrama": an explanatory footnote would be a kindness to speakers of the Queen's English.)

That's all from me. Most enjoyable. – Tim riley talk 10:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Many thanks Tim - all much appreciated, as usual. Just one point for me left to address, Eco's "école du regard", which I have something suitable to use later. All now sorted. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Crisco[edit]

  • Hmmmm... For some reason my crop has an error tag on it from a bot. Could you have a look and let me know what else I need to do? Ta - SchroCat (talk) 14:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oh, that just means a Flickr reviewer needs to come check. Just give it time. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Apart from the bird error, I think I've done the right thing on all the others. - SchroCat (talk) 14:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Themes section feels a bit choppy, what with the one/two sentence sections
  • There's only one sub-section that has a two sentence format, but that's probably the least newsworthy one of the lot. The other three havea bit more meat to the bones. There was a similar comment on the Casino Royale (novel) PR/FAC, and I'm still in two minds about the divisions there and here. I think it sort of works, butif others come along and comment at some point then I'll strip out the titles and go with the block of prose. Sound OK? - SchroCat (talk) 18:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The story centres on Bond's pursuit of an American criminal, Mr Big, who has links to the American criminal network, the world of voodoo and SMERSH, an arm of the Russian secret service, all of which are a threat to the West. - way too many commas and parentheticals
  • real name Buonaparte Ignace Gallia. - bold really necessary?
  • I think it may be too easy to flick over the name without appreciating that it's an acronym
  • I'm with SchroCat on this, though I foresee alarums and excursions at FAC. I think some form of emphasis is wanted, as the reader is likely to miss the acronym. I'm fairly sure I'd have missed it without the prompt. Out of interest I have experimented with italics (temporarily, in my sandpit) and bold is better, I think. But prenez garde, SchroCat! There will assuredly be those of a contrary opinion at FAC. Tim riley talk 14:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • but is either captured and fed to a shark or tricked into standing on a trap door over the shark tank: he survives, but loses an arm and a leg. - how is this an either-or situation?
  • "He disagreed with something that ate him" - CN, as this is a direct quote (no matter how famous the quote)
  • My impression of the plot summary is that it tries to convey too much in too little space. May want to streamline a bit
  • a more serious tone from his debut novel, - from or than?
  • based in events and situations - in or on?
  • Fleming did not use class enemies for his villains instead relying on physical distortion or ethnic identity - lack of comma in the original?
  • Mr Big is only adequate villain - missing a word?
  • and considers the discussion Bond has with René Mathis of the French Deuxième Bureau in Casino Royale, in which the Frenchman predicts Bond will seek out and kill the evil men of the world. - is "considers" the best word?
  • In May 1954, Live and Let Die was banned in Ireland by C. J. O'Reilly, a member of the Irish Censorship of Publications Board. - why?
  • The sources don't explain, unfortunately. The notebooks themselves have the title, author, date and "banned", while the two secondary sources that mention it just say it was banned, without the reasoning. - SchroCat (talk) 18:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Watch out for the Mr. / Mr thing. They're both present. — Crisco 1492 (talk)
  • Many thanks for your thoughts on this. I've covered all the points, except where commented on above. Thanks again - much apreciated as always. - SchroCat (talk) 20:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments[edit]

My Bond education continues apace. You will see from the article's edit history that I have made a few jabs at the text, all ptretty minor stuff. The main points arising from the review are as follows:

Lead
  • "Mr Big" should be in inverted commas, as in first mention in main text. As a matter of curiosity, is this the first known literary use of "Mr Big" as a desciption of a master villain behind the scenes?
  • No-one has made the claim thsat I can see, so I guess not. (I have a thought that Sapper McNeile may also have used it once or twice, but I may be wrong on that). - SchroCat (talk) 22:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "all of which are a threat" → "all of which are threats"
Plot
  • "girlfriends" by definition do not exclude men from their life. Perhaps a different description?
  • Leiter survives – temporarily, or permanently? The former I guess, but needs clarifying
  • No, it was permanent - and he appears in a couple of later stories - SchroCat (talk) 22:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "outwits" would be better then "tricks"
  • What is a "fiasherma"? Probably a typo for "fisherman", but you never know.
  • Fourth para: You should mention earlier in the para that Bond and Solitaire are still working together, rather than leaving them in St Petersburg
Background
  • Sentence needing attention: "Fleming conducted research for Live and Let Die and completed the novel before Casino Royale was published: in January 1953, still four months before the book was published, Fleming and his wife Ann flew to New York before taking the Silver Meteor train to St. Petersburg in Florida and then on to Jamaica." First, the sentence is far too long, even with the mysterious colon which was probably intended to be a semi. Also, which book does "in January 1953, still four months before the book was published" refer to? As written, this could be either of the two mentioned titles.
  • "following his working practice of the previous year": these words seem redundant as you go on to describe the working practice in detail.
  • I really dislike the description "the academic". It tells the reader nothing beyond the suggestion that he works in a university. Could ne not be described as a literary critic or some such?
Plot inspirations
  • "Much of the novel drew" → "Much of the novel draws"
  • Who was "Tommy Leiter"?
  • "From his Goldeneye home on Jamaica's northern shore, Fleming had visited Port Royal on the south of the island, which was once the home port of Sir Henry Morgan." I'm not sure how this information is relevant to the plot.
Characters
  • "the novelist Raymond Benson, who later wrote a series of Bond novels": I suggest you explain this a bit more, e.g. "the American novelist Raymond Benson, who between 1997 and 2002 wrote a series of Bond novels and short stories". You should also wikilink Raymond Benson.
  • I would combine the first two paragraphs of this section. They are conjoined by "Similarly..."
  • "The relationship between Bond and Quarrel was based on a colonial relationship of Bond's superiority" – there must be a neater way of putting this, avoiding "relationship ... relationship" (the word occurs again in the following sentence). Perhaps "based on a mutual assumption of...", im which case you wouldn't need "which was to be unchallenged by Quarrel".
  • "that if a Scots laird with his head stalker" → "that of a Scots laird with his head stalker"
  • "the academic" again. He could be a litersry analyst
  • "a departure away from" → "a departure from". I found these final sentences somewhat opaque, as a characterisation of Mr Big – perhaps they could be tweaked into more clarity.
Style
  • "thinks that the story had" → "thinks that the story has" (tense consistency)
  • Second paragraph: "considers" is not the best choice of verb. Also, can you look at the second sentence in this para, which appears to be missing a word or two towards the end?
  • Over-elaborate description of Eco; just essayist would suffice
Themes
  • "America was the Soviet objective..." I think you should preface this with "In the book,..."
  • " to outline his views on what saw as..." – definitely something missing
  • Can you be concerned "on" something? Maybe " a subject that concerned both him and his neighbour Noel Coward" would be better?
  • "Bond's briefing also provides an opportunity for Fleming to offer his views through his characters and "M and Bond ... offer their views on the ethnicity of crime, views that reflected ignorance, the inherited racialist prejudices of London clubland"; the academic Jeremy Black has pointed out that "the frequency of his references and his willingness to offer racial stereotypes [was] typical of many writers of his age". A mega-sentence if ever there was one. At the very least, break at the first "and", and I would think also at the semicolon. You also need to clarify whose quotation the statement beginning "M and Bond" is.
  • " opinions shared with Fleming from contacts in the intelligence industry" → " opinions shared by Fleming with the intelligence industry", and place a comma after industry.
  • What is "the Jamaican sphere", other than Jamaica itself?
  • Just "Puertu Rico", not "the Puertu Rico".
  • "avidly anti-communist" seems wrong. Perhaps "avowedly"? In any event, the sentence needs splitting at this point.
  • "in the form of Leiter and Quarrel" should perhaps be "in Bond's relationships with Leiter and Quarrel".
  • The meaning of the second "Friendship" sentence escapes me. Maybe the lack of punctuation is partly the reason, but perhaps a litle redrafting might be in order?
  • "Benson considers the main theme in the book to be evil" – ambiguous as written. Perhaps "Benson considers evil as the main theme of the book".
Publication and reception
  • I don't think it's necesaary to mention O'Reilly, who I imagine was acting on behalf of the censorship board. Thus: "In May 1954, Live and Let Die was banned in Ireland by the Irish Censorship of Publications Board".
  • For how long did the offensive chapter heading remain in the UK editions? Is it still the case?
  • Yes, it's still there - I've added to the footnote. - SchroCat (talk) 22:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Adaptations
  • Did Korda actually show the story to Lean and Reed, or did he just "want to"?
  • The source says he wanted to and goes no further. - SchroCat (talk) 22:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • In the lead you specifically mention that the 1973 film was the eighth in the Eon Productions series, but you don't mention the series here. You should do that, and perhaps say a word or two about the series which had, I believe, starred Connery up to that point – although I am not an expert on these things.
  • Connery and Lazenby by then - now added. - SchroCat (talk) 22:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

General note: I am always surprised, when I am the fourth or even fifth peer reviewer, at the number of typos, deficient punctuation, minor syntactical error (e.g. missing words), etc, that I find as I go through. It is astonishing how many of these manage to survive like cockroaches. I can't by any means guarantee that I have picked them all up, and more of course might creep in as the article is amended during the review. All I can advise is that, when the PR is over, you give yourself a couple of days for a long, slow, final read-through, before going to FAC. I invariably do this, and find it generally pays off. Brianboulton (talk) 16:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Huge thanks Brian, both for the tweaks and the extensive comments. I've done all but one or two which I'll think how best to address before PR. Yes, I'll take your last comment on board and give it a few solid read throughs between PR and FAC. Thanks again - SchroCat (talk) 22:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 24 March 2015, 11:56 UTC)----


Philosophy and religion[edit]

Social sciences and society[edit]

Hawaii[edit]

I want to get this article up to GA status and eventually FA status if possible. I understand that this article needs a lot of work, so the more feedback, the better! I'm listing this as a social sciences topic because I would like this article to be written more from a social sciences perspective than only a geographical perspective. I'd like people knowledgeable in society, history, and politics to feel free to contribute, particularly if they're well-acquainted with Hawaii's socioeconomic history. All are welcome to help clean up links, sources, and grammar, though!

Thanks! The Obento Musubi (talk · contribs) 06:58, 18 March 2015‎ (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 18 March 2015, 06:58 UTC)----


United Nations Parliamentary Assembly[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because…

  1. It might be WP:POV towards the subject.
  2. It has not been reviewed in any sense for a while, and may not deserve its WP:FA status.

Thanks, Mr. Guye (talk) 01:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Csisc[edit]

First, I thank you for the work. However, there are some importants comments to be considered:

  • The Composition of the General Assembly: The work does not give any comment about whether all countries would be represented or not, or about whether the members of this assembly would be members of the recognized national parliaments or not, whether the vote would be public or not... These information are important to predict the influence and the importance of the given institution... You can also write a table in which you give the full composition of the Assembly according to all possible country repartitions... This will be useful to give countries and audiences more information about this fact.
  • Election Standards: This part should be well expanded in order to include a better explanation about all possibilities of the choice of voters... You should include Age Requirements, Affiliation Requirements, Social Requirements, Scientific Requirements...
  • General Opinions: You have to include some important quotes explaining the advantages and disadvantages of creating such organization. You can even cite some research papers dealing with this important issue... You can even write two parts about the advantages and disadvantages of the General Assembly
  • Place of the assembly: It is also important to include the probable place where such created institutions will meet regularly, whether this place is prestigious or not and give some description to that assembly place.

Yours Sincerely,

--Csisc (talk) 11:23, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 13 March 2015, 01:29 UTC)----


Stephen V. Cameron[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to solicit advice from the community on how to take this article to the next level. Specifically, I have the following questions:

  1. My goal is to bring the article eventually to Good Article or Featured Article status. What are immediate next steps in this direction? What are the most obvious ways the article can be improved with this goal in mind? Are there any Wikipedia community resources (e.g., Wikiprojects) that might be able to assist improving article quality
  2. Are there any other Wikiprojects or lists that this article should be added to?
  3. Should this article reference any additional Wikipedia articles, or should any additional Wikipedia articles link this article?
  4. Is anyone aware of additional sources for citations that would be helpful to include?
  5. Should any external links be added to the article? (Perhaps some currently used as citations?) If so, which ones?
  6. What parts of the article or topics need clarification or expansion?
  7. General comments about article quality?
  8. General assessment of article quality.
  9. Any other suggestions

Thanks, Dk3298371 (talk) 19:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Csisc[edit]

I thank you for the work about Stephen V. Cameron... I think that sending it for Review is an excellent idea.

  • First Steps: The first steps you should do is to cite the Economic Family of this excellent scientist, to write about his childhood and education and how he could begin his researches... If he was interviewed or he had said something important about his life and his studies, try to quote this as well. You can also cite his publications in famous journals like Journal of Economic Literature and Journal of Political Economy...
  • Possible Projects: Many projects are meant by the work. United States, Education, Science and Economics are important examples for that.
  • Possible Sources: His Biography on the Columbia University Official Website and his works that can be retrieved using Google Scholar can be important for this.
  • External links: the link of his Economic Family, James Heckman...
  • Work Review: I think that all the parts of the work need expansion because this work does not give enough information about this important scientist. It does not give for example whether the scientist had interested only in Education Outcomes or he had interested in other issues. The work does not give the comments of the scientists about Keynesianism, GET and other main and important Economic Matters. This work does not give even the precise date of birth of this important scientist. His relationship with his wife who is scientist is important and can give more importance to the work... So, there are many facts that can be expanded... But, I think that you should begin with the most important facts: His scientific Research, his books, his prizes, his ideas... and then, you can expand other facts: his childhood, his relationships, his children, his passions... However, if you found some information about the relationships of Cameron, you can include them.

Yours Sincerely,

--Csisc (talk) 10:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 11 March 2015, 19:13 UTC)----


Vladimir Lenin[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… It is a well-known topic in social philosophy and it is likely viewed by many. I am not sure if this article is ready for WP:GA status but it might be. There appears to be many problems with this page, just judging by the size of its "Hidden categories" section. Most importantly, I request that a To-do list is formed and the end of the reviewing process. This is my first peer review nomination. --Mr. Guye (talk) 04:42, 8 March 2015 (UTC) Thanks, Mr. Guye (talk) 04:42, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Really you shouldn't do peer review like this. You haven't edited the article, which seems clearly not very ready for the process. Reviewers are very stretched & peer review should normally only be done after sorting out basic problems, and when it's clear there are competent editors ready to fix review points. Neither applies here. I suggest this is closed. Johnbod (talk) 04:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments. Just some copyediting comments. - Dank (push to talk)

  • "He served as head of government of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic from 1917, and of the Soviet Union from 1922 until his death.": "From" is ambiguous here in AmEng, I'd recommend "from 1917 to 1922, and then of the Soviet Union until his death."
  • "all wealth": I don't know what "all wealth" means, but I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be possible to nationalize everything of value in a country.
  • "he devoted the following years to a law degree and to radical politics": Since the years aren't mentioned, better would be: "he earned a law degree and devoted himself to radical politics"
  • "sedition": I'd link it.
  • "he married Nadezhda Krupskaya, and fled to Western Europe": I generally don't comment much on commas because everyone seems to have their own idea of when to use them, but they're so common in this article that they lose their usefulness. This is one I'd axe.
  • "later campaigned for the First World War to be transformed into": later campaigned to transform the First World War into
  • "Homosexuality and abortion were legalized; Lenin's Russia was the first country in the world to establish both of these rights. Free access was being given to both abortion and birth control.": Lenin's Russia was the first country in the world to legalize homosexuality and abortion, and birth control was made available.
  • "free education ... free healthcare": the source given for the supporting statement below the lead is this; it doesn't inspire confidence. Even if it did, those terms tend to be loaded and tend to mean different things at different times and places, so a bit more explanation of exactly what was provided would help clarity. - Dank (push to talk) 02:53, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

groupuscule comments

  • The article seems detailed at parts but is somewhat disproportionate in coverage. Specifically, it needs more treatment of the years 1919–1923. The events of 1917 gets 9474+ characters; whereas 1920–1922, an obviously crucial period, get ~ 2495 characters. Okay this is a little tough to determine, since some events beginning in 1917–1918 continued into the 1920s. But I hope you catch my drift, that the period of Lenin's actual power over the Soviet Union is arguably the least developed section of the article! So this is where effort should be directed, in my opinion.
  • Other sections might have to shed some material which deals with political happenings at large but not with Lenin directly. Yes the context is important but there is a lot of ground to cover. Some paragraphs don't refer to Lenin at all.
  • The very short section on the Civil War hardly contains any information about the war itself, or Lenin's relationship to it. Some relevant material is elsewhere, a bit out of place, which I would say is sort of a theme for this part of the article. Consider searching for a workable conceptual division (such as "Economics", "Politics", and "War") and reorganizing along those lines.
  • Consider whether this guy is the best source on what Lenin was actually doing on the daily in 1922.
  • Addendum: I don't mean to suggest that Lenin was a monster and the article needs to bash him over the head with all the problems experienced in Russia 1917–1923—only that, given the major significance of these problems it is worthwhile to more clearly address Lenin's relationship to them.

(Peer review added on Sunday 8 March 2015, 04:43 UTC)----


Lists[edit]

WikiProject peer-reviews[edit]

References[edit]