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

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 15:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC) [1].Reply[reply]

Irataba[edit]

Nominator(s): Rationalobserver (talk) 20:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is about Irataba (also known as Yara tav, from eecheeyara tav; c. 1814 – 1874), the last independent head chief of the Mohave Nation of Native Americans. He was the first Native from the Southwestern United States to meet a US president; Abraham Lincoln gave him a fancy cane. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image review[edit]

Two days ago, another user suggested that I remove the upright parameter from all images, so I'm not sure what to do with the conflicting advice. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As the picture tutorial explains, omitting upright from an image that is taller than it is wide has the potential to create display problems; it suggests using upright=1.0 to obtain the default thumbnail width, which would accomplish what that other user appears to want. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Did this edit fix the problem? I don't know how to add the upright parameter for the infobox image. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've fixed this. To clarify, upright should be used when the image is meant to be taller than it is wide; in other cases omitting the parameter and using default size. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know the answer to that, but I did add the US PD tag as requested. If this image's PD status is questionable, I'd be happy to replace it, but I'll retain it until you explicitly tell me it should be removed. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it is likely PD, but the tag you have added does not appear to be correct — the image description gives a date of 1886, but your tag states that "it was published in the United States between 1923 and 1977 and without a copyright notice". Can you explain why you selected that particular tag? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not really. I'm not up on all the different tags, so I picked the wrong one. Can you please point me to the right one? Rationalobserver (talk) 19:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is this one correct? Rationalobserver (talk) 19:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, that one will work — you might consider removing the life+70 tag since we can't demonstrate that it's correct, and it isn't needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done. [2] Rationalobserver (talk) 16:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Mirokado[edit]

I will have to spread this review over several days. I'll copyedit while reviewing, please treat those as any other edit.

Those are awesome suggestions. Thanks and done! Rationalobserver (talk) 23:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

--Mirokado (talk) 23:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More comments later, run out of time tonight. --Mirokado (talk) 00:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have several comments about the images. The first, which is what started me looking at them, is arguably stylistic choice, but others are more substantial issues, so I end with a suggestion for changes:

  • The color images, particularly the first, dominate the article visually and detract from the black-and-white ones.
  • The fist and third color images are generic as opposed to those in black-and-white which illustrate specific points made in the article content.
  • A bit fussy, but since I am mentioning problems: the second color image View from Mohave Point of the Colorado River flowing through the Grand Canyon is probably showing air pollution haze which would not have been present in Irataba's time. Also: the caption mentions Mohave Point but the file description says Pina Point. Looking here I see the two are two miles apart.
  • The image Mohave woman by a ramada, or open thatch-covered shelter, c. 1900 belongs to the Early life section where ramadas are mentioned
  • The image A Mohave funeral pyre, c. 1902 belongs to the Disgrace and death section which mentions the tradition of burning body, hut, and belongings.

For these reasons, I suggest removing the color images and moving the two black-and-white images mentioned. --Mirokado (talk) 21:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Those are great suggestions, thanks! Completed here Rationalobserver (talk) 21:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And thanks to you for the quick response. The left/right disposition may need a bit of tweaking, that is best done after looking at the article several times, thinking a bit and fine-tuning at leisure. --Mirokado (talk) 21:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've now read through the article once. You are currently making quite a lot of changes, so please could you ping me when you are ready for me to go through it again? Thanks. --Mirokado (talk) 21:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've incorporated your above suggestions with these edits. I got a new source today, so I added a couple of points from it, but I don't see any significant issues with stability, and I don't foresee adding much more. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:25, 28 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. I'm glad you have now got that new source. No more tonight but I will get back here in a day or two. --Mirokado (talk) 23:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More later. --Mirokado (talk) 00:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I fixed the first two; thanks for those suggestions. The hoop and ball game is often mentioned, and Kroeber talks about it at length (here). But I'm not sure if it's still played or displayed. I'll look into it. Rationalobserver (talk) 00:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've read through until the Fort Mohave section with no further comments at this stage. Please respond to RHM22's "Speaking of images" comment above, which has become sandwiched by strikeouts. I'm sorry to do this in such little bits (I'm nursing a broken ankle while back at work part-time), but I'm reasonably satisfied that I will support in the end! --Mirokado (talk) 23:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've moved the note to the article body and changed the lead image's caption as suggested ([3]). Don't worry about the pace; it's perfectly fine. I'm just grateful for your input! I hope your ankle feels better, I broke mine during my basketball playing days, and it was a doozy! Rationalobserver (talk) 23:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by RHM22[edit]

I learned quite a bit from this article! It's well done overall, but I do have a few comments and suggestions, organized by section.

Lede: "This elicited a stern response from the US War Department, who in..." I think that the War Department should probably not be referenced as a person. In other words, "...from the US War Department, which in..." would probably be preferable.

Early life: "Irataba or Yara tav, from the Mohave eecheeyara tav, meaning "beautiful bird"..." Maybe you could include "meaning "beautiful bird"" inside parentheses rather than between commas? I think it would help make the sentence a little easier to digest.

Early life: Another point that I must bring up is the quote about dreams here. I know you've addressed it above, but I think it should probably be removed for now, since it has no clear relevance to the subject. If you had some information about how Irataba had some significant dream or vision, then such a quote would be useful in the context of that. However, as it is, it doesn't really belong in this article, regrettably.

Adulthood: Do you think that you could include a sentence or two about Irataba's involvement in these war parties? As it stands now, this section suffers a similar problem as the quote in the previous section. I know that Irataba was a Mohave and that the Mohaves were warlike, but how does that relate specifically to Irataba?

Contact with European Americans: Is J.C. Ives the same person as Joseph Christmas Ives? Some of the chronology of the latter seems to conflict, so maybe not. If it is, he could be linked.

Rose-Bailey Party Massacre: "Around 2 p.m. on August 30, the emigrants working near the river were attacked by approximately three hundred Mohave warriors, who let out terrifying "war whoops" as they sent arrows flying into the camp." Where does the phrase "war whoops" come from? Was that a quote from someone involved? If so, could you add something along the lines of "...who according to X, let out terrifying "war whoops"..."?

Rose-Bailey Party Massacre: Do you think that the bit about the comet is relevant here? I was thinking that maybe it should be relegated to the notes, since it doesn't really seem pertinent to Irataba or the attack on the party.

Fort Mohave: "...the US War Department decided to establish a military fort at Beale's Crossing..." how about "...the US War Department established a military fort at Beale's Crossing..."? I just think that reads a bit nicer.

Fort Mohave: "vice versa" probably doesn't need to be italicized, as an expression quite common to English.

That's it from me! The writing is very nice overall, so I don't really have any other suggestions besides the above. Nicely done.-RHM22 (talk) 23:34, 22 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your comments, RHM22. I've made an edit that adopts your great suggestions! Please let me know if I missed anything, or if there is anything else you think I should do. Rationalobserver (talk) 00:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Ok, it looks good enough for me. I'd like to see something in there about how Irataba was involved in the war parties described, but if there's nothing available, then it's acceptable as-is, in my opinion.-RHM22 (talk) 05:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, RHM22. I'm not aware of any sources other than Waters that put Irataba in the context of war parties, but I'll keep looking. Rationalobserver (talk) 15:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I added this, which speaks indirectly to the point. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rationalobserver: It looks good. Since you don't know of any precise information relating to Irataba as a warrior, I think that what do you have helps to avoid that non-sequitur effect, which sometimes removes the reader from the narrative and makes them wonder why it's relevant. It would still be better if there were some sort of direct correlation, but since you don't have the information to state that explicitly, I'd say it's just fine as it is. Thank you for considering my suggestions and working them into the article.-RHM22 (talk) 21:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Today I ordered a copy of a 1970 doctoral dissertation by Fulsom Charles Scrivner that includes a chapter about Cairook and Irataba, so hopefully that source will allow me to tie-in this point and others, such as the importance of dreams to Mohave. Thanks a lot for your review and encouragement! Rationalobserver (talk) 21:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great! More good information is always better. I hope you will be able to expand a bit upon his early tribal life. Please ping me whenever you'd like me to come and take a look.-RHM22 (talk) 00:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am striking my support for now, as the article is currently undergoing considerable alteration, per Mirokado's statement above. I will revisit later.-RHM22 (talk) 21:33, 28 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by John[edit]

On first look it's going to be an oppose from me, just on prose. That's without getting past the lead yet. What is a "principle chief"? --John (talk) 22:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See Principal Chiefs of the Cherokee. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, so it should be "principal chief" then. "Principle" and "principal" are different words with different meanings. I think there are a lot of problems like this throughout the article. --John (talk) 23:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry. I'm dyslexic, so I sometimes do silly stuff like that. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't realize it was misspelled even in your comment. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If "there are a lot of problems like this throughout the article" it won't be hard for you to list a few specific examples. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
According to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates#Supporting and opposing "To oppose a nomination, write *Object or *Oppose, followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the coordinators may ignore it."(original emphasis) Rationalobserver (talk) 18:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If "there are a lot of problems like this throughout the article" it won't be hard for you to list a few specific examples. If you don't your oppose is meaningless. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are certainly welcome to your opinion. The article should not have been submitted to FAC in this state. I recommend a rewrite and a resubmission after this is done. FAC is not the place to have your article improved. --John (talk) 19:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nor is it the place to enact revenge for your buddies! Rationalobserver (talk) 19:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can everyone please keep this sort of nonsense out of here? John is correct that FAC isn't meant as a forum for general article improvement, although almost all submissions do require touchups before passing. The FAC coordinators will decide how much weight to give reviews and comments, so there's no need for accusations and other claptrap that is better reserved for other sections of this website.-RHM22 (talk) 20:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're right. I apologize. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by Boson[edit]

The following text could do with rewriting. It's hard to follow who is doing what and why, but it might be easier to prune it rather than clarify details that may not be that important.

In March 1865, he helped defeat the Chemehuevi in response to their allies, the Paiutes, having killed two Mohave women in retaliation for the Mohave's killing of a Paiute medicine man after he failed to heal nine Mohave people afflicted with smallpox. Irataba attacked the Chemehuevi first because they had disrespected the Mohave, and to avoid "a fire in the rear" when he turned his attention to the Paiutes, who were planning an attack on the Mohave farm and granary on Cottonwood Island.

--Boson (talk) 23:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree; that's a twister! Did this edit fix the problem? Rationalobserver (talk) 23:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some things still seem a little unclear:
  • Why "helped defeat the Chemehuevi? Since he was the chief of the Mohave, this seems to suggest that there was another tribe involved on the side of the Mohave.
  • I think "in response to their allies, the Paiutes, killing two Mohave women" would be better expressed using finite verbs rather than nouns/gerunds ("response", "killing") and it took me a while before I was sure whose allies the Paiutes were.
  • The reason for attacking the Chemehuevi first seems a little unclear. The logical reason for the timing/order would seem to be 'to avoid "a fire in the rear"', but "because they had disrespected the Mohave" is mentioned first; that might be a reason to attack them, but not necessarily to attack them first.
--Boson (talk) 00:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks so much for the input! I've looked at this so many times it's getting harder for me to spot the problems or find solution to the problems I do see. Did this edit fix it? Rationalobserver (talk) 00:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I think it's much clearer now. --Boson (talk) 00:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Coordinator comment: Looks like there are substantive issues here that will be best addressed outside FAC. I will be archiving shortly. --Laser brain (talk) 15:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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