Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Ohlone/1

Ohlone

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page

Result: List as GA per improvements made and consensus below. Geometry guy 19:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Reassessment Request

I have decided to enter the page for a Reassessment. Goldenrowley (talk) 04:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC) Reasons to reassess:[reply]

It is a good article with additional new material, since last review.
Editors were not given much time to respond to the spot review when it was delisted (as I said at the time it caught me at a busy time of year)....
The reviewer made what they admitted were minor change requests that should not have disqualified it. I consider them minor matters when you see the length of the article.
The reviewer wanted a longer intro. I do not think a longer introduction is in the interest of the article, its a long enough article as it stands.
The reviewer wanted two sentences to be cited.... Requesting citations can be better handled by adding a fact flag. I believe he did not see some of the cites. Everything was cited to cut down on footnotes everywhere, we put most footnotes at the end of each paragraph about the entire paragraphs.

I respectfully request new consideration. Goldenrowley (talk) 04:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Things done to help article

I just fixed the two citations the reviewer requested when he delisted it. Goldenrowley (talk) 05:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The concern raised by Nehrams2020 (talk · contribs) about the WP:LEAD of the article in the review at Talk:Ohlone#GA_Sweeps_Review:_On_Hold appears to still be a valid issue. The subsection Language should probably be moved up closer to and/or integrated with the subsection on Culture. Notable Ohlone people - could this subsection be expanded upon, and split off into its own List of Ohlone people instead? See cite id style of Notes/References formatting (for a good example of this in action, see The Simpsons (season 3)) - this is certainly not necessary but it would be most helpful in checking cited sources instead of scrolling back and forth. Just a suggestion for further improvement. Cirt (talk) 08:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a purpose in moving notable people to a new page? Other items about what order to put things in are worth thinking about. Goldenrowley (talk) 21:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ohlone#Notable_Ohlone_people subsection looks awkward as is, especially the "Notable" in the subsection header. I really think it would be better placed in its own list page. Perhaps keep a link to it with a subsection and prose/paragraph format discussion of a few of the most famous/noteworthy, perhaps three or max five or so, instead of a list, in this article. Cirt (talk) 23:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List ~~Comment~~. I think this article pretty much meets the GA criteria as it stands (I agree that the lead should be expanded a little though) and it should probably be listed. I do have a minor unease about the ordering of some sections—I'd prefer to see the History section first, for example, but nothing that I think is serious enough to make me fail the article. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A new editor has graciously risen to the challenge of improving the intro over night, I hope you like his/her additions. Goldenrowley (talk) 22:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I like it now, looks good. If this was at FAC I'd still be critical of a couple of things, like the shamanism apparently being lobbed in like a hand grenade, but it's not, so you're in the clear so far as I'm concerned. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When I first reviewed the article, I left the article on hold for a week as well as left messages on the talk pages of the main contributor(s)/WikiProjects. I will always be willing to leave a review open for a longer duration if progress is being made or if someone requests for additional time. Compared to the initial revision, it looks like the lead has been expanded significantly. The statements that needed sources now have them. It would probably be beneficial to merge or expand on the single sentences in the article, but I won't hold those against the article. However, the dead links should be fixed. As a side note, I tagged the free images in the article earlier to be moved to Commons, if someone has an account it would be beneficial to move them overs so that other language Wikipedias could use them. Good work on the improvements so far. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I hope I did not sound critical of you in making my initial case here, but I now have the time to address the page again and thought it's "good". I can work on the dead links. Thanks ! Goldenrowley (talk) 04:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was devastated. No just kidding, there's no worries, and I'm glad someone is returning to improving the article back to its prior state. If you need help fixing any of the links, let me know and I'll try to help you out. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed almost all the dead links but 2. The orange one (Mutsun revitalization - language [mutsunlanguage.com] is not "dead" so I don't know why it's "suspicious"? The other "California Federal Recognition: A Request for Your Support [native-net.org]" used to be there it's white paper or letter if I recall, our citation says Data retrieved November 21, 2006. I think should remain in as such. Goldenrowley (talk) 07:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was considered suspicious because it was redirecting to the other page. I changed the link to bypass this. Sometimes old articles will redirect to the main newspaper's page so it's beneficial to use the Wayback Machine to find an old revision. That wasn't the case here, so it looks to be fine. Looking over the article, I believe the article can be relisted since the issues I initially raised have been addressed. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just a heads up to let you all know that I will be offering significant changes to the Before Europeans (or whatever that header said) subsection of the History section in coming weeks. That section reflects 1960s thought on San Francisco Bay Area prehistory. Significant new works were published in 1984, 1992, and a major new time scale was offered in a 2007 publication. I have not done the changes yet because I am waiting for a copy of the 1968 piece by Stanger (a historian, not an archaeologist) from my local library. The article was the source of current text, and I feel that I need to have read it and make sure he was a "second-hand" source even in 1968, before I try to convince user Goldenrowley that the text needs to be completely replaced. I do not know if this is relevant to the GA process, but do not want you to think everyone is completely happy with this article.Middle Fork (talk) 10:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite normal for work on improving an article to continue after its GA listing. GA isn't the end of the road, it's just a step on the way. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like what Middle Fork adds, so I don't think we'd have any edit war brewing. Except for a few places, I believe Milliken (a modern author/historian) influenced the writing the most (not Stanger). I just think we've addressed everything on the (first) GA list. I just reviewed and deleted the last badlink. Everything else were recommendations not required by above people. . Goldenrowley (talk) 21:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wuuuhooo!!! I'm glad for all the work of the long-time editors, and glad I could add. May the gods shine on the Ohlone article.Middle Fork (talk) 23:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I had a look at the article with a view to closing the reassessment in the light of the improvements made and the encouraging commentary above. At first it seemed that the article might be undercited, but then I looked at one of the footnotes and was very impressed. I really like the citation method employed. Not only is the article less cluttered, but the single cite per paragraph encourages commentary on the source material that would be an unhelpful digression for most readers, but is extremely useful for a few. Nice work!

Can I check though what are the sources for the following assertions?:

"The ethnographic Ohlone did not have a writing system." (Asserts a negative, which is hard to prove!)
"The Costanoan language family is considered extinct, although today Mutsun, Chochenyo and Rumsen are being "revitalized" (relearned from saved records)." (Considered extinct by whom?)
The population graph File:OhlonePopulation5.png looks like original research: it would benefit from a caption and a source.

Many thanks. Geometry guy 19:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These are good comments we can work on them. So should I be bold and mark it as a good article again? I am not sure how and when to close the discussion. Goldenrowley (talk) 03:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, you shouldn't. It's important for the integrity of the process that reviews are closed by a dispassionate third-party without any stake in the outcome. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thank you. I worked on Geometry Guy's requests today.Goldenrowley (talk) 01:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the last of the three criticisms from Geometry Guy, prior to European colonization, no culture or language group north of Mexico had a writing system. They did not have space ships either. I do not know why you even have to mention it one way or the other.Middle Fork (talk) 02:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and removed the fact that they "did not have a writing system" as you pointed out, since they did not have spaceships either. I also deleted a word that inferred they might have spelling without writing. This takes care of what I perceive are the stopping points on the discussion. I'll go get Geometry Guy to reassess it now.Goldenrowley (talk) 16:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the comparison is fair. Most readers would not expect them to have spaceships, but many might imagine that they had a writing system, since many civilizations did at the time. "No culture or language group north of Mexico had a writing system [prior to colonization]" is a strong statement, in which I would either replace "had" by "is known to have had" or preface by "Scholars believe that". However, dropping the sentence is a perfectly acceptable solution at the GA level. Geometry guy 20:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this discussion can be closed as list as GA (as the delisting reviewer is among those making this recommendation), and will do so in a couple of days, unless there are objections, or another reviewer does so sooner. Geometry guy 20:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks GGuy, lacking a direct citation I thought best to just leave the comment about written language out. It was not an elemental point. Goldenrowley (talk) 21:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]