Talk:Nipo Strongheart/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

• Closed as not listed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Cirt review

Cirt requests another reviewer take over. I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 17:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC) Smkolins, I've got a couple other things on my agenda before I get to reviewing this one. But before the actual full GA Review itself, I wanted to please ask you to expand the lede intro sect. It can be a maximum of four full paragraphs (of four sentences or so each paragraph). Per WP:LEAD, the lede intro sect should be able to function as a standalone summary of the entire article's contents. This is quite a long article and the lede should be expanded a bit more to reflect that. Shouldn't be too hard, and the rest of the article looks quite good. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 01:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC) Thanks. I'll do that tomorrow. --Smkolins (talk) 02:15, 5 October 2014 (UTC) Okay, totally no rush whatsoever. — Cirt (talk) 02:19, 5 October 2014 (UTC) Smkolins, looks much, much better. However, cites are not needed in lede per WP:LEAD, as long as the material is cited later in the main article body text. Could you pleas remove the cites from the lede and make sure they're included in main body text, instead? — Cirt (talk) 15:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC) lol, ok - I thought "…four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate." per WP:LEAD meant cite. I'd often see people say it isn't necessary in the lead and then arguments would still come up and people would cite. I just got used to including citations more often than not when the lead is long. Bad habit I guess. I'll work on that in a bit. --Smkolins (talk) 18:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC) Cites only needed in lede intro sect if for contentious controversial material likely to be challenged or direct quotations. More info at WP:LEADCITE. — Cirt (talk) 18:18, 5 October 2014 (UTC) I appreciate the idea, it is just that in practice I've tended to find if the lead is long its going to be controversial to someone. But I'll do it as you see these things as uncontroversial (and so do I.) --Smkolins (talk) 19:49, 5 October 2014 (UTC) My apologies, Smkolins, but I didn't realize I can't do this review as it's under a WikiProject related to a new religious movement. I didn't see that earlier and just thought it was predominantly related to the subsection under which I found the nomination, which was Media and drama. Please ask for a different GA Reviewer to take over. — Cirt (talk) 20:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC) Cirt, I didn't realize there was a subsection for a separate request. This is a hybrid situation I suppose - I tried to review them and didn't see what to pick otherwise. Can you suggest where to look? Are you saying I should move it to Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations#Philosophy_and_religion because of the one section mentioning his religion? I wouldn't want to get into bouncing around because the majority of the article is around his career, another about him being a native american and another about his religion.--Smkolins (talk) 21:15, 5 October 2014 (UTC) Hi Smkolins, I'm jumping in so Cirt doesn't have to. I don't think he was criticizing your nomination, you did fine. He just needs to avoid new religious movement articles for the time being, and hadn't noticed this was one. Best to find another reviewer -- but I wouldn't worry about the categorization. -Pete (talk) 22:02, 5 October 2014 (UTC) Hi Peteforsyth, I didn't take it personally. I'm confused what and how to do though.It just seemed to me more appropirate that if Cirt signed up and wanted to stop then he/she should re-sign the article for review however it was needed. I tried [1] but you can see it was taken out. I'd appreciate any assistance.--Smkolins (talk) 02:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

SilkTork review

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 09:52, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

First look

I'll start reading over the next few days and then begin to make comments. I am normally a slow reviewer - if that is likely to be a problem, please let me know as soon as possible. I tend to directly do copy-editing and minor improvements as I'm reading the article rather than list them here; if there is a lot of copy-editing to be done I may suggest getting a copy-editor (on the basis that a fresh set of eyes is helpful). Anything more significant than minor improvements I will raise here. I see the reviewer's role as collaborative and collegiate, so I welcome discussion regarding interpretation of the criteria. SilkTork ✔Tea time Sounds all good to me. Thanks --Smkolins (talk) 10:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC) Tick box GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria Is it reasonably well written? A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors: B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: Is it factually accurate and verifiable? A. Has an appropriate reference section: B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: C. No original research: Is it broad in its coverage? A. Major aspects: B. Focused: Is it neutral? Fair representation without bias: Is it stable? No edit wars, etc: Does it contain images to illustrate the topic? A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: Overall: Pass or Fail: Comments on GA criteria Pass Has an appropriate ref section. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC) Stable. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC) There's one image, which meets criteria. Caption has been trimmed and refocused to meet criteria. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC) Query Fail Prose is unclear and contains errors. This is consistent throughout the article. The article will need a copyedit. Try asking for assistance at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC) SilkTork, can you see if these edits fit the kind of changes suggested? --Smkolins (talk) 14:22, 22 October 2014 (UTC) Yes, that helps. Though there are a number of prose issues that need looking at - is it "Yakama Nation" or "Yakama nation" (both are used in the article); these don't make sense: "His estrangement from reservation life began by her marrying a white man and leaving it, though she soon died"; "Strongheart's exposure to native culture was from infancy in the hands of his mother's kin, at two Indian schools, and with his father while performing for Buffalo Bill's Wild West Show and its successors"; this needs correcting: "After WWI was over and his job ended, he moved briefly to the Yakama Indian Reservation, but left again and had successful career in the Lyceum and Chautauqua circuits of fairs where he was known for presentations on Native American culture and often spoke against the reservation lifestyle enforced by government policy". Etc. There is a fair amount of work - too much for me to do, and if you are unable to see the mistakes, then you need a fresh set of eyes on the article. If you are unable to get a copyeditor in the next seven days, then it might be best to close this review. You can renominate the article after its had a copyedit. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC) You could try asking User:Eric Corbett, the topic is quirky enough to possibly interest him. He'll not only copyedit, but will also improve the article. If he does take the job, please leave him alone to do it. He works fast and hard and will make many edits - this can unnerve some editors. But if you trust him, and let him get on with it, he'll do a damn good job. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC) General comments There is only the one image in the article. There is an external link to this source, which contains other images. Some of these anonymous publicity shots might meet our Wikipedia:File copyright tags/Public domain criteria. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC) It may be. I've avoided loading pictures most of the time in the past because of the contentious process but I can see what can be done. I would like there to be more pictures. --Smkolins (talk) 10:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC) On hold There's a decent amount of information collected here, and the topic is interesting; I think there is potential here for this article to become a Good Article. It does, though, need a stiff copyedit to make it more readable and to eliminate minor errors. I am pausing the review to allow that work to be done. Please ping me either when the work has been done, or if you have difficulty in getting someone to do it. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC) Hmm - ok, is there a likely place to go looking for a detailed copyeditor? --Smkolins (talk) 10:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC) Yes, see my note at Fail, above. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC) Done. I suppose I must have a lot to learn. One example is [2] where I thought books were bold and articles or journals were italics. ah well. --Smkolins (talk) 12:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC) There is guidance on Wikipedia for most matters. In this case it's Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting. To find such advice, think of the main aspect of your query (in this case it might be "bold"), and then in the search box first type"wp:" and then your query - so: WP:Bold. In this case it takes you to Wikipedia:Be bold, but there is a hatnote which suggest you may be looking for the use of boldface in Wikipedia text formatting, and directs you to MOS:BOLD. These two categories are also useful: Category:Wikipedia policies and guidelines, Category:Wikipedia help. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC) Well I experience some of those matters differently. Since I work on a Mac most of these changes ([3]) appear either perfectly invisibly different or are insignificant to my eyes. So my experience of some of these matters of style that need "correction" come as a majority/minority situation. I even wonder if some default set in an editing tool is favored over whatever it is I experience. The evolution of detailed syntax is far from the obvious and seems to depend on assumptions of technology rather than actual meaning where form overwhelms content. I've had articles, for example where date order is changed and changed and changed as I watch people edit it all. But I'm also aware that the purpose of form is to represent things most clearly and most consistently to the diversity of audience. I'm glad there are people who can see it and do it. And my experience doesn't preclude my learning such as I had to undertake to get another reviewer when there was no simple direction. I don't mean to sound put off by the attention to such detail. But it is not my everyday experience as a wikipedia editor to focus on such details. --Smkolins (talk) 23:21, 15 October 2014 (UTC) I fully relate to your points. There is much petty detail that irks me as well. On the positive side, those that care about such matters will deal with it. If your interest is to add content and leave formatting to others, that's perfectly fine - there are plenty of Wikipedians who add no or little content, but enjoy dealing with formatting. The difference between dashes means nothing to me - I can't really see it; but when submitting articles for FAC there are editors who point out when the wrong dashes are used. You can of course edit Wikipedia all day long and not even have to think about these minor formatting issues; however, if one wants to submit an article for GA or FA, then these things need to be attended to. But, no worries, if you want to nominate an article for GA there are people who will help out - such as the copyeditors, and much information and pleasure can be gained from working with others. Or you can look to see if there is a tool, gadget or user script to help you: Wikipedia:User scripts. For example, to deal with the dashes, I use User talk:GregU/dashes.js. The wonderful thing about Wikipedia is that there are answers here to most problems, and users who are willing to help. It's a learning curve, of course, but provided you remain positive, have patience, and be prepared to do a little bit of research and experimentation, you can use Wikipedia itself to assist that learning experience. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC) Thanks. --Smkolins (talk) 16:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC) Sorry for long delay. Our move was a little more difficult than expected. I'll take a look at what's been done on the article in my absence, and then see where we are. SilkTork ✔Tea time 01:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Refresh

• Starting again. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Tick box

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments on GA criteria

Pass

• Has an appropriate reference section. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:55, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
• Stable. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:57, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
• Images and captions OK. Only one image used in the article. Consideration could be given to finding more informative images to illustrate the article. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:59, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Query

• There is a often some confusion over using citations in the lead. The guideline is that too many cites in the lead can look unattractive and possibly hinder reading enjoyment; therefore if a statement is unlikely to be challenged it may be preferable not to use a citation in the lead as the statement should be cited elsewhere in the main body. However, if a statement is likely to be challenged or contains statistics or a large claim, then it is preferable that it is cited. Statements such as "His talks encouraged hundreds to volunteer for service" and "He played an important role in the development of the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924" are large claims that are likely be challenged, therefore they need citing. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Citations. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:07, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
• Prose is tidier and easier to read this time, though I am still encountering awkward phasing: "His estrangement from reservation life began when his mother married a white man and left the reservation, dying soon afterwards." Rather than simply trying to rephrase this statement, consider what important information you wish to convey at this point. Given the sentence that follows, I wonder if this statement is needed here. As the lead is a summary of important details, is the important information that he spent most of his life away from the reservation where he was born? (that is said in the next sentence); is it that his Indian heritage was challenged? (that is said in the next sentence); is it that his mother married a white man (what influence would that have on him?); or that she died when he was still young? (did that impact on him in some manner important enough for the lead?).

Is the phrase "it soon became apparent" important? And if so, who did it become apparent to?

Organisation of material. Still on the lead. In the second paragraph we get his death and legacy, then two paragraphs on his life. Some planning of the lead would be helpful to the reader so information is grouped and presented in a helpful and/or logical manner. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:22, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Fail

• MoS issues:
  • Lead. To meet GA criteria 1(b), which relates to specific manual of style guidelines, the article needs to comply with the advice in WP:LEAD. That is, in addition to being an introduction, the lead needs to be an adequate overview of the whole of the article. As a rough guide, each major section in the article should be represented with an appropriate summary in the lead. Also, the article should provide further details on all the things mentioned in the lead. And, the first few sentences should mention the most notable features of the article's subject - the essential facts that every reader should know. In this article we have a lot of information about advocacy which is not adequately dealt with in the lead - either the advocacy sections should be more fully summarised in the lead, or the sections reduced. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:36, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Layout. There are long and short sections. Sometimes this cannot be helped. But a single sentence section is rarely required. Per WP:Layout: "Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose". Some organisation of the sections would be helpful. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:36, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
• NPOV. This statement: "According to two biographic summaries,[1][2] Strongheart had few connections to the Yakama[3] nation in his childhood, but it is confirmed that his mother was a Yakima named Chi-Nach-Lut Schu-Wah-Elks" is argumentative. It is taking a position, and asserting to the reader that Strongheart was a Yakima despite what other sources say. All information should be presented neutrally, and in a balanced manner. Allow the reader to make their own judgement - don't lead the reader in any particular direction. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
• Original research. On looking at the two sources for the above statement that "Strongheart had few connections to the Yakama nation", and coupling that statement with the unsourced one in the lead: "the Yakama Nation did not accept his claim to Indian heritage", I feel that the sources have been misread and the reader given incorrect information. The sources indicate that while touring he received letters from the general public; two of those letters questioned his Indian heritage, which he responded to with proof supplied by tribal leaders. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Maybe the article needs to be more explicit about the "few connections" somehow but it's all there. He was born of a Yakama mother and raised off reservation so they didn't know who he was. Worse he intentionally often dressed as a yakama chief when they knew who their chief's were and he wasn't one. But it extended beyond that because even when elders documented his descent he needed to be adopted to be recognized and accepted. --Smkolins (talk) 12:19, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

On hold

• I'm putting the review on hold again. That the article appears to be putting over claims that appear to be contrary to the sources is a serious concern. Could the sources please be read again carefully, and if the Yakama Nation truly did not accept his claim to Indian heritage, that needs to be made clearer. If the statements regarding the challenge to his Indian heritage are incorrect/misleading, then they need to be removed or rewritten. Happy to discuss further. Mistakes do happen - I may be misreading the sources and the article. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:06, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

They required him to be adopted to be recognized as Yakama. Like trying to prove you are who you say you are he was asked to prove it. In the 1930s there are records he gathered testimonials he was descended from a Yakama mother but he still had to seek adoption which came to pass in the 1940s. I can see there isn't a source saying at some date and place the Yakama people didn't accept he was Yakama - but why else is one who is born of a Yakama need to prove one is Yakama? I realize that is a question but I can't see any other answer even possible unless there is serious doubt he was born of a Yakama mother and he was just a white man with a costume claiming to be yakama and all the evidence is clear he was indeed born of a yakama mother, even by yakama elder's own testimony before he was actually adopted. --Smkolins (talk) 11:36, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

The Muntz article on page 42:

Although he claimed Yakama heritage, he could not prove that heritage by documentation; he was adopted as an honorary member of the Yakama Nation during the administration of the 1946 Yakima Enrollment Act. This occurred after a lifetime of advocacy on behalf of the Yakama Nation and for Indigenous people generally.

that kind of thing. He was asked to prove it. --Smkolins (talk) 11:52, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

And from the Fisher article:

He did achieve his lifelong quest to rejoin the Yakama Nation, however, when members of the Tomaskin family adopted him in thanks for taking them under his wing in Los Angeles. The Yakama Tribal Council also honored his request to be buried on the reservation, further evidence that for Strongheart--as for many Native Americans today--tribal citizenship mattered just as much as American citizenship.

--Smkolins (talk) 12:05, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• I can see what you're thinking, though we can't put two and two together to make four - see WP:OR. If there are no sources that say that the Yakama Nation questioned his ethnicity, then we shouldn't be implying or saying that. We can say what is in the sources and allow readers to join the dots. Your assertion that he was asked to prove his ethnicity is based on your own reading of the sources. Another assertion would be that he personally wanted formal identification with the Yakima Nation because he emotionally identified with them; perhaps it was a need to formally be accepted because he had left the tribe when younger and so felt isolated. The article needs re-phrasing to become much more neutral on this aspect. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 05:10, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I can see that you are noting there is no specific evidence he needed to prove his membership or that the nation did not accept his status as a member of the yakama nation, just that he was eventually adopted, that his mother was Yakama, and that simply documenting evidence from others that this was true (his mother was Yakama) happened before he was adopted and his status changed. I see the conclusion that he was not accepted because he pursued a way to be accepted is a step in reasoning but uncontroversial. But you differ. Ok. I shall endeavor to see if there is some evidence I've missed. I considered it obvious but accept that that is not a universal and easy step to accept.--Smkolins (talk) 12:22, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

While I puruse this I will underscore "rejoin" in the Fisher article - that is was and then later was again. Again it is an indirect statement of the issue. Another indirect statement of the issue (I can't find any definition of tribal membership perse let alone a historical review of the rules or traditions of membership) I do find another case of a half-Yakama who is acknowledged as a chief of the yakama in the case of EXHIBITS - KAMIAKIN. However I recognize this is all indirect and still pursuing specific evidence of a data and place where the authority of the Yakama nation addressed Strongheart's status before he was adopted officially. --Smkolins (talk) 13:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

There is a great deal of contextual information at [4] with notes about the implications of being recognized affecting entitlements to land and attitudes against both "half-breeds" and people who were not of the reservation. If more cna be found specifically this would provide great context. --Smkolins (talk) 01:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Update! SilkTork, I'm in email communication with the scholar Andrew Fisher who is working on a biography of him. He confirms the scenario I present of an enrollment application being denied but hasn't published on the matter yet. Would an independent comment from him here be sufficient proof? Can we figure out something? --Smkolins (talk) 18:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I new there wasn't an obvious way to cite an email to me (not to mention the discussion I later found at Wikipedia_talk:Citation_templates/Archive_3#Cite_an_email.3F) so I suggested to him that an email to a professional mailing list addressing the topic could work and use the {{cite mailing list}} formation would work. --Smkolins (talk) 14:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

We could look into that, but due to the nature of the situation, it would need to be in terms of a scholar having a theory rather than presenting it as a fact. And the scholar would need to be significant enough to make such a statement worthwhile. As the book hasn't been published, I would prefer at this stage that the statement is withdrawn or rewritten. Leaving it out would be the appropriate thing as Wikipedia summarises what is already published and accepted in reliable sources. If this theory has not yet been published, then it shouldn't really be in a Wikipedia article, and we shouldn't be looking into creating a publication situation simply in order to insert that information into Wikipedia. That's like the tail wagging the dog. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:21, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

On looking up Andrew Fisher and Strongheart I came upon this, which gives a clear and direct summary of his early life that for me made sense: "He was born George Mitchell Jr., and when his Yakama mother died, his white father raised him away from the tribal culture. His first real exposure to Indians was as a teen, when he performed as a cowboy in the Buffalo Bill Wild West Show. He befriended the show’s Lakota performers and they nicknamed him Nipo. Disillusioned with how Buffalo Bill presented Indians as savages to make money, he reinvented himself, Fisher said. He christened himself Strongheart and set out to put his skills as an entertainer to more beneficial use, helping the people he had begun to see as his own." Though our Wikipedia article indicates that even these simple facts are contested, as indicated by this source which has him remaining in the Yakima culture during his youth. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:34, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I think the GAN process has helped develop this article, but I think we have gone as far as we reasonably can at this stage. The article has potential, though there is a reasonable amount of work still to be done on the prose, the lead, and the structuring of the article. Added to which we have this situation regarding the subject's ethnicity, and lack of appropriate sourcing to back up what has been said in the article. I think that issue needs to be resolved first. I am closing this as not listed. When a solution has been found as to the best way to present the uncertainty regarding the subject's ethnicity, then the article can be renominated. I will remove comments from the article that have been raised in this GAN as being unsound. Remember to only use reliable published sources for information - not emails. And remember to remain close to what the published sources say. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok. To be clear the scholar doesn't claim a theory that Strongheart attempted to be recognized as Yakama. He claims to have the paperwork of the claim and the rejection. Interpreting it is perhaps most frameable by another book about the generalities and history of the peoples in question though not of Strongheart himself - see the book "Shadow Nation" which discusses the angles of being seen as a half-breed as well as having lived his life off-reservation as compromising recognition as a Yakama by the Yakama especially around pages 100-110. But of the particulars of Strongheart's own story… that will have to wait.--Smkolins (talk) 15:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

- Andrew H. Fisher (2010). "They Mean to Be Indian Always". Shadow Tribe: The Making of Columbia River Indian Identity. University of Washington Press. pp. 62–89, 103–110. ISBN 978-0-295-99020-0. --Smkolins (talk) 01:16, 22 November 2014 (UTC)