Talk:Yavapai

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)

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)

GA Reassessment

Yavapai

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Two weeks, no attempt at improvement. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (she/they 🎄 🏳️‍⚧️) 06:40, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

This 2008 listing contains significant amounts of uncited material, failing GA criterion 2b. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:19, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Subtribes, bands, clans

I condensed and summarized a lengthy, uncited section about various subtribes, groups within these subtribes, and clans. If anyone wants to access the removed information to potentially cite it or used it for another article, it's in this version of the article. —Yuchitown (talk) 18:37, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Likewise, the sprawling list of "Yavapai chiefs and headmen" can be found in this version of the article. I retained the people with articles. –Yuchitown (talk) 19:17, 29 July 2024 (UTC)