Talk:Yavapai people

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Yavapai people has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on July 6, 2007.
March 17, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
This article is part of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, which collaborates on Native American, First Nations, Inuit, Métis and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.
Suggested article edit guidelines:

This article has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it needs.

This article is part of WikiProject Arizona, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Arizona.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article has been rated as GA-importance on the importance scale.

[edit] Looking towards GA

Here are my thoughts on the article's readiness for GA per the criteria, and the issues that would be brought up in a review:

  • The article has a lot of very small paragraphs that should probably be consolidated in to larger ones. 3 or 4 sentences should be a minimum paragraph size, never one.
  • Each section or subsection should have at least one inline citation. One for each paragraph would be even better. Just because something doesn't seem like it might be controversial (like their diet), it is still required of GA-class work for the facts in the article to be generally attributed to particular references through citations. If it's a quotation or is possibly controversial, then an inline citation is always required.
  • The format of the references is improper in many instances. A bare url, without title, author, publication date, retrieval date, is unacceptable. If the references section doesn't tell the reader who wrote something, when it was written, etc. then it isn't sufficient verification of reliability. They are not required, but you might consider using an appropriate citation template. It makes providing the necessary info easier.

Hope that's helpful, if you have any questions feel free to contact me further. Other than those, it basically looks to be GA-class. Best of luck with the nomination! VanTucky talk 03:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA review

I have reviewed this article against the Good article criteria and found the following:

  • Well written: meets criteria
  • Factually accurate and verifiable: meets criteria
  • Broad in its coverage: meets criteria
  • NPOV: meets criteria
  • Stable: meets criteria
  • Images: All the images are properly licensed, but there's some captioning problems here. Specifically, the image of the bowl having no caption is probably the biggest issue here. Also, captions which aren't a complete sentence shouldn't end in a period.

The image issue is the only problem I see here, so I'm going to apply a hold to the nomination. Just fix it by next Sunday, and I'll be more than happy to pass the article. (You can post to my user talk page when you're done.) —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

All right, looks good. Congratulations on a successful GA nom! —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)