Toolbox
Copying check Manual of Style

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I want additional input regarding the prose quality before relisting at FAC.

Thanks, Rationalobserver (talk) 17:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't seem to me to be much wrong with this article, and – though I know next to nothing about the subject – it strikes me as comprehensive, and is clearly well researched from good sources and thoroughly cited. A few minor points on prose:

• "Goose-grease" – why the inverted commas? (incidentally, and wholly irrelevantly, in Britain, well into the 20th century, children of working-class families would be rubbed with goose fat before donning their undershirts, to keep them warm in the winter. Clearly versatile stuff, goose grease, though I imagine school classrooms may have been something of an olfactory challenge. But I digress.)
• "In the opinion of author Kenneth M. Stewart", and "According to author Arthur Woodward" – I don't know that the plain "author" here tells the reader anything useful. Something like "historian", "biographer" etc puts the writer into a meaningful context, as you have done with "According to cultural anthropologist…" nearby in the text.
• "near the explorer's camp" – plural possessive – explorers' – needed.
• "saved many sheep that had fallen into the river using rafts they had constructed in preparation for the crossing" – I got into a tangle with this. Grammatically it says that the sheep had constructed the rafts, but, ignoring that, I cannot work out who in fact did construct them. If, as I suppose, it was Whipple and his group, I suggest something on the broad lines of, "saved many sheep that had fallen into the river from rafts built for the crossing by Whipple's team."
• "however, as their supplies dwindled" – I'd lose the "however". Very often, as here I think, "however" adds nothing to the meaning and weakens the prose.
• "they increasingly anticipated" – not quite clear of the import of this. If you mean they grew increasingly anxious for the arrival of supplies it would be clearer to phrase it thus or thus-ish.
• "before departing company" – "before parting company" would be the usual way of phrasing this, I think.
• "which seemed to appease them, many of whom…" – reads rather oddly. Perhaps "which seemed to appease them; many of them" – (a repetition of "them" I admit, but clearer I think).
• "The group settled-in" – not sure you want the hyphen
• "Depravation" is a word hitherto unknown to me, and I see from the Oxford English Dictionary it means "The action or fact of making or becoming depraved, bad, or corrupt; deterioration, degeneration". I think you may mean "depredation", but on the whole I'd keep things simple and change "no further depravations would occur" to "there would be no more attacks"
• Homoseh quahote – this seems to be a name rather than a descriptive term, and if so shouldn't be in italics, I imagine.
• References: not sure why some have what appear to be verbatim quotes from the sources (e.g. 7, 8, 45, 49 etc) and the rest don't. Works and page numbers would be ample here, in my view, and the presence of the extra stuff in these few refs makes its absence from the other refs look like omissions.

That's all from me. This is an informative and enjoyable article. I hope you will get other visitors to this peer review, and I may do a little (wholly proper) canvassing to that end. Please ping me when you go to FAC. – Tim riley talk 14:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for this review, Tim riley! I have adopted all of your wonderful suggestions except the one pertaining to notes imbedded in some refs. Per WP:CITEBUNDLE, when you bundle two cites into one you should indicate with some kind of note which ref verifies which point. That's why I only have them in refs that are two of more bundled cites. I hope it looks less odd with that clarified. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My initial concern beginning to read this is that in places it reads like a general article on the Mohave and their customs, rather than the biography of an Indian chief. For instance:

"Mohave caught fish in the Colorado River and hunted game, such as rabbits and beaver, using a bow and arrow or traps.[3] In the spring, when the Colorado River flooded the bottomlands, they cultivated corn, watermelons, beans, gourds, tobacco, and pumpkins.[4] The Mohave lived in groups of houses along the riverbank, but eschewed centralized villages. During the winter, they lived in half-buried dwellings built with cottonwood logs and arrowweed covered in earth. In the summer they lived in open-air flat-roofed houses known as ramadas, which provided sufficient shade.[5] Mohave who enjoyed higher status would cover their body in goose fat to help alleviate the summer heat.[6]"

"In the opinion of the anthropologist Kenneth M. Stewart, the Mohave were fierce warriors who were frequently the aggressor, and although they did not plunder their enemy's possessions, they took prisoners and scalps. Mohave war parties, which regularly battled against the Chemehuevi, Paiute, and Maricopa peoples, utilized bowmen tasked with inflicting damage on an approaching group and keeping them distracted in preparation for melee attacks by warriors brandishing war clubs capable of crushing their opponent's skulls."

"In October 1857, an expedition led by Edward Fitzgerald Beale was tasked with establishing a trade route along the 35th parallel from Fort Smith, Arkansas to Los Angeles, California.[15] From Fort Smith, his journey continued through Fort Defiance, Arizona before crossing the Colorado River near Needles, California.[14] This route became known as Beale's Wagon Road and the location where Beale crossed the river, Beale's Crossing.[16] Beale's journal and subsequent report to the United States Secretary of War did not mention any problems with the Mohave; however, an assistant named Humphrey Stacy recorded that the Mohave had prevented Beale from traveling downriver.[17]"

I'm looking to learn about his early life and am seeing next to nothing about him. It looks like there's very little known about him and you're trying to pad it out. Some background might be relevant, but I think you really need to keep in mind it's a biography on him and keep the padding to a minimum. It needs to be cut and reworded I think to make it still seem like his biography instead of a general article on the Mohave. If there's really very little known about him then I'm not sure it is really worth taking to FAC, but if you're certain it's as comprehensive as can be then it might be worth it, I'd have to look into it more. What I would do is not worry about length and really cut out anything which is not really vital to his actual biography. I want to learn primarily about him, so having to read big paragraphs like those and not getting anything on him it's not doing its job. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:00, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you like RO I'll work on a sandbox version of it stripping it down with more central focus and then you can see what you think?♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The way I see it is, we can make these statements about how he and the Mohave lived to fill in the story of his life, which is about him. I think this is a pretty standard approach for similar attempts. It's what Scrivner did with his work. But maybe it's too much ethnography. If you are willing to work on that sandbox draft I'd love to see what you have in mind! Rationalobserver (talk) 22:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think some background is relevant. But in parts it is the way it is worded which detracts from Irataba being the centre of focus which I think we need to avoid. You can cover some of the ethnic background without citing scholars views on them generally, you'd expect that it an article on the Mohave but not his bio. I'll try to give it a go tomorrow anyway in User:Dr. Blofeld/Irataba.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not clear to me what Irataba's role in the Rose-Baley Party ordeal was. In fact there's a whole section there documenting it without mentioning him at all!♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there is too much detail now. It's such a pivotal moment in his life; I guess I over did it, then realized that it's really a decent topic in its own right. Rationalobserver (talk) 00:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK I've done some trimming and merging, it makes more sense now what happened. I agree that it's largely appropriate to document as it would have been a huge event for the Mohave people, including Irataba, even though he wasn't an assailant. I will see if I can further add to the article but in my opinion it's looking good now.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "In the opinion of Fulsom Charles Scrivner, the author of Mohave People (1970), whereas Cairook helped lead the attack on the Rose-Baley Party, "it appears that Irataba stayed clear of the fracas", arguing "if Irataba had taken an active part he would have offered himself as prisoner", as did Cairook" -if that's the case then it's not worth covering in so much detail if he wasn't even involved in it. At best a small paragraph I think.

I agree. Rationalobserver (talk) 00:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually in reading and editing the Fort Mohave section I think it's mostly all relevant. It's the Rose Party section which needs work now to try to establish his role in it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Do we know what "Aha macave yaltanack or hochoch" means?

It means "the leader made, or elected, by the people". Is that unclear? Rationalobserver (talk) 00:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think the description should cover it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The bottom two or three sections are excellent I think, largely because there's more information specifically about him in that era :-) If we can try to sort out the Rose Baley and Fort sections with more focus we should be really on track with this overall.♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:04, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits and insight, Dr.B. You've been really helpful! Rationalobserver (talk) 00:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You might find something more from here Can you find anything more on Irataba and the Piutes. I think it seems to be particularly notable, He appears to have protected some of the Europeans from the Piutes. This source says that Irataba once said "'Let the men follow me. I'll go meet them. Let the women stay and burn all the crops and granaries and then go down-river for help.'" "With arrows and a few old shotguns they met the Piutes and fought them from willow thicket to ... That's all that I can pick up in the UK. Are you in the US? Perhaps Rosiestep could find something on Irataba and the Piutes.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:26, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is mentioned in Disgrace and Death. It's the battle at Cottonwood Island. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you tidy Refs 1, 48, 52, 63. 79 and put the notes in the notes section above?

I think those imbedded notes are required by WP:CITEBUNDLE. They differentiate which cite verifies which point so as to aid in verifiability. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see you mean now; they were overly descriptive and repetitive, so I've tidied them up so as to not look like imbedded endnotes. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• If you got sources from Newspapers.com perhaps like the Weekly Arizona Miner article I found there. they need to all be attributed as such.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Weekly Arizona Miner quote comes from Woodward. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks fantastic! You've made some wonderful improvements, and I cannot thank you enough! Rationalobserver (talk) 16:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, hopefully this article will be given a fair look by others in coming days. It's a really worthy subject and an enjoyable one once you get into it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As you may remember, I commented at the FAC, and I'm glad to see this at PR now. It seems to have improved by leaps and bounds so far. I have a few suggestions which I think will help improve the article. Keep in mind that I'm focusing on minutia, because that's what people at FAC will be looking for.

Lede:

• Be sure to correctly hyphenate terms. For example, "European American" should be hyphenated when used as an adjective.

I'm not sure that's correct. Euro-Americans is usually hyphenated, but I don't think European American, Native American, or African American are. How can we check this? Rationalobserver (talk)

Well, many style guides recommend hyphenating ethnic titles (African American, etc) when using them as an adjective. For example: "African-American music is performed by African Americans." However, that's not universal; some don't hyphenate it at all, and others hyphenate it all the time. I'm not sure whether or not the MOS prescribes on method over the other. If not, I suppose it's mostly up to you.-RHM22 (talk) 17:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• A comma is always needed after "Washington, D.C.," unless it ends the sentence. A comma is also needed after other place names in the article. (example: John lives in a Boise, Idaho, apartment.)

Done. Thanks for that catch! Rationalobserver (talk) 16:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That one is fixed, but I see a few more as well. A comma is always needed after the states, too, because it's considered a parenthetical. (Example: "The O'Possum family moved from Ireland to Knoxville, Tennessee, last year.")-RHM22 (talk) 17:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• You should probably when the Irataba Society was established, both here and in the body of the article.

I'm not certain. A newspaper source said 13th annual powwow in 1985, but I can't see anything which explicitly says 1972. If anything though you'd have thought 1974 on the centenary of his death.♦ Dr. Blofeld

Some nonprofit websites suggest that it was founded in 1970, but I'm not sure those are reliable enough to use in the article.-RHM22 (talk) 17:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Early life and background:

• "...Irataba grew to be very tall, particularly for the 19th century...": Perhaps this could be reworded as "...Irataba grew to be very tall, particularly by 19th century standards..." or something similar. Also, his height should be given in metric as well, ideally using {{convert|6|ft|4|in|cm}}.

Yes I was planning on coverting, done anyway and reworded.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "According to the anthropologist Lorraine M. Sherer...": The definite article is not needed here, as this article should use American English. It reads a bit awkward in American English, in my opinion. The same is also repeated throughout the article. If you want to leave it as-is, I wouldn't fret over it.

I'm British, and spend a lot of time around Tim riley ;-) Changed that one anyway.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quite so. Scrupulous English writers avoid the false title in formal prose, but being credibly assured that it's acceptable in American usage, I attempt to use it along with American spellings when writing about American subjects such as Cole Porter or Jerome Kern. When in Rome, you know… – Tim riley talk 10:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this was an element of formal writing in general, as I've seen this lately in US publications. Is it permissible to use them in an AmEng article, or should we lose them? Rationalobserver (talk) 16:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As stated by Tim and the Doctor, it's mostly mandated in formal British English, but not so in American English. However, it's not necessarily forbidden. My personal preference is to avoid it because it sounds awkward to me as a native American (not Native American!) English speaker.-RHM22 (talk) 17:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of AmEng I took them out, but I might have missed a couple. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contact with European Americans:

• "...and other Mohave people encountered a large group...": Maybe reword "Mohave people" to "Mohaves." That's just personal preference, so feel free to ignore.

I think both are OK for variation, to avoid repetition.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mohave is also acceptable as a plural form, as in "several Mohave joined Irataba at the river". Rationalobserver (talk) 16:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a big deal to me, so reword or leave as-is at will.-RHM22 (talk) 17:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "...territory of the Paiute to the Old Spanish Trail that would take them to southern California.." should be "...territory of the Paiute to the Old Spanish Trail, which would take them to southern California..." as it's a non-restrictive clause.

Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "...believed to have been the Yavapai.": I would suggest this, because the current wording could suggest that all of the Yavapai were involved. Maybe something like "...believed to have been members of the Yavapai trible." or something along those lines.

Reworded as suggested but made it more precise.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Travels:

• Why is "civilized" misspelled here? Was that intentional, as a way of mocking his apparently unrefined English (perhaps as a Mark Twain reference?), or was it an error made by Irataba himself? If the former, I'd probably remove and reword it. If the latter, I'd add a {{sic}} tag or just fix the misspelling and remove the quote marks.

The source says "sivilised" with an s, intentional I think to mock how uncivilised they were I guess. What would you prefer?♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While Irataba could speak some English, I don't think he could read or write, so this misspelling is likely intentional as Dr.B said. Still, if we leave a misspelled word in quotes we need a sic template. My vote would be to correct the spelling and remove the quotes, but the other way might have more rhetorical impact, but I'm not sure that impact is an honest one, as Dr, B said, it was likely done for effect, not accuracy. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that would be preferable here. If it were a handwritten note or message by Irataba himself, then I would suggest using the {{sic}} template, but since this is an author who seems to be using it as a humorous intentional misspelling, I would just omit it and use "civilized" in its place. In fact, I'd say that 'sic' is not really appropriate there anyway, since it suggests (to me) an unintentional misspelling.-RHM22 (talk) 17:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken your advice and corrected the spelling while dropping the quotes. Thanks! Rationalobserver (talk) 22:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disgrace and death

• "To avoid "a fire in the rear"...": This conjures some unpleasant imagery, but could you explain what it means in-text? I have never heard this term, and I can't really determine its precise meaning from context.

I've heard it used in things with camps like that, but I think it's best removed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It means he meant to avoid what westerners might call a two-front war. I've added that, but feel free to remove if it's still awkward. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks much better now, in my opinion.-RHM22 (talk) 17:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "He ordered to his people from the island where he was captured, "Let the women stay and burn all the crops and granaries and then go down-river for help"..." This reads a bit strangely. Maybe "From the island on which he was captured, Irataba ordered his people to..." or something like that.

Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Why is it relevant that the Irataba Society held their thirteenth annual powwow in 1985? That seems a bit trivial and haphazard to me.

Well, it was to give some sort of idea of their customs and background. Actually the reason was in answer to your point above, to try to give the reader an idea of when it started, without being able to confirm it was 1972. Perhaps it would be better to say "The society hosts it annually in general?♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:18, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since it was held annually, do you think it would be appropriate to say that they held their first annual powwow in 1973? I understand that your reference is for the thirteenth, but it would probably seem arbitrary to most readers.-RHM22 (talk) 17:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I see for now. I'm especially glad that you were able to source an actual photograph, which is a most welcome addition.-RHM22 (talk) 05:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated RHM22, cheers.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a million for the wonderful review, RHM22. And thanks to Dr. Blofeld for fielding so many of these comments. It looks like these are largely resolved, but if we missed anything crucial please let us know. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks good to me, except for the commas after some of the place names, as I've elaborated above. It's an extremely common mistake, and one that I made consistently until being alerted to it earlier this year.-RHM22 (talk) 17:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for joining in the peer review. I'll take a look through for missing commas after place names, but I'll probably miss a few! Rationalobserver (talk) 17:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just going to pick out any prose/presentation issues I see here, although this article has drastically improved since its GAN: ☯ Jaguar ☯ 19:34, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know if this could just be me and my strange display resolution but the infobox itself is appearing a little disproportionately wide in comparison to the lead

That's a little too technical for me. I thought they are standardized to your preferences. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, don't worry about it! ☯ Jaguar ☯ 21:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Irataba was a great orator and one of the earliest Mohave to speak English" - could it sound better as one of the first? (if it's plausable)

Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "and in 1859 Fort Mohave was erected near the site of the battle" - when it first opened in 1859 it was known as Camp Colorado

Good point. I'll find a good cite for it and make the change. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:19, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "The Irataba Society, a non-profit charity run by the Colorado River Indian Tribes, was established in his name in Parker, Arizona" - when was it established? I feel that his legacy could be expanded a little in the lead in order to summairse the article fully

I can't seem to find this information, but I'll keep looking. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "She states that Irataba was "probably the first Mojave to learn English" - Mohave?

Those two spelling variations are equally acceptable. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Having recently returned from Washington" - Washington, D.C.? Unless this would actually cause any confusion with the Washington state

Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Can some of the legacy content from the Disgrace and death section be mentioned in the lead? Especially the part where a venue in Parker was named after him

I'll look in to it. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, "was established in his name in Parker, Arizona" - can Parker itself be linked?

Linked. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a great article that makes good use of the few extant sources. I think the balance between background and biography is fine. At first reading I noted the quote from John Penn Current in Gazlay's Pacific Monthly. I don't think Curry was a journalist, rather he was a soldier veteran of the Indian wars and author of a military manual used by both sides in the Civil War[1][2]. I think the inclusion of his piece is warranted but, being a primary source which is to my knowledge not cited in other works about Irataba (maybe Woodbury?) I think it should be used with some caution. There is a long tradition of Europeans using native characters as proxy voices for their own critiques of Western society — drawing on the nole savage stereotype. I do detect some of that in Curry's summary and particularly in the quote. Clearly Curry's errand is to advance a critique of urban US society of his time, and we don't know the amount of literary license he may have taken in reporting Irataba's words. I think it might be a good idea to hedge the quote a little to account for this, for example by saying that Curry reported that he had said, instead of accepting it at face value as a dirct quote. The best would be to find a secondary source mentioning Curry's mention. It would also be interesting to read more about how Irataba was portrayed in the media during his visit. Perhaps it would make sense to move the quote about his appearance (also with some rather strong racist overtones) to the travels section where it could exemplify the way New Yorkers saw him as a visitor. I also would suggest cropping the portrait of Beale, to not have the included frame and caption of which ever work it originally appeared. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for joining in the review, Maunus! I've distanced the quote a bit from Curry, who is now described more accurately, per your comments. I'm not sure about moving that description of his size because for one, it fits in with that last paragraph of that section, and two there isn't anymore room in the travels for a quote box. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I swapped out the pic of Beale for one of Whipple ([3]). Rationalobserver (talk) 23:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maunus, I can't locate the Curry quote in any reliable sources other than the original. I did find this, but as a fictionalized account we should avoid it. I think Dr. Blofeld and I have included everything readily available about media reaction to Irataba, as we've both scrubbed google books and newspapers.com. If you can dig anything else up that would be great, but that aside, how do you feel about the issues you raised above? Rationalobserver (talk) 16:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite happy with what you have done so far.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Late into the field. I apologise if some of my points have been raised in earlier reviews and answered there.

General prose point

• Rather too much use made of "notes that" or "noted that", when referring to sources.

I think this is fixed now. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:05, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

• I found the third paragraph a little disorganised. I understand that Irataba helped various expeditions to pass through his territory, but it's not clear why the Whipple and Sitgreaves expeditions alone are mentioned by name; what distinguished them from others? Lorenzo Sitgreaves is not even mentioned in the main text. I think the phrase "explorarory expedition" is clumsy and probably tautologous – weren't all expeditions at the time exploratory? It is surprising, also, to see an atrocity such as the massacre of a family described as "controversial". I would certainly recommend you look at ways of reorganising this paragraph, with some appropriate rephrasing.
• "Cairook's death in captivity": I understand from the text that he was killed trying to escape from captivity, which is not quite the same thing.

Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• When was the Irabata Society established? This should at least be mentioned in the main text.

We are still looking for a RS that states this. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not convinced that the lead does its proper job of summarising the whole article, with due weight given to the most importsnt aspects of Irabata's life. Relatively minor factors such as the Whipple and Sitgreaves expeditions, and the slave girls episode, don't deserve this much prominence in the lead.

Brianboulton, is this better? Rationalobserver (talk) 21:33, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Early life and background

• "According to Leanne Hinton, an expert in American Indian linguistics at Berkeley.." – last two words unnecessary detail

Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Why isn't Bret Harte linked, and should he be described as "of The Overland Monthly, rather than "writing in The Overland Monthly?

Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Edward Carlson, a soldier based at Fort Mohave who knew him well in the 1860s..." To whom does "him" refer? The last person mentioned is Cairook.

Fixed. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe these points have all been addressed. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contact with European Americans

• "Although Olive was forced to be given a chin tattoo..." This is very convoluted wording. I suggest "was forcibly tattooed on the chin".

Thanks and done. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "...let it be said they never offered the least unchaste absure to me" – "absure"? Never heard of this word; is it a typo for something else?

I'll check, but good catch. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That was a typo. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "camping for a night" → "camping for the night"

Done. Rationalobserver (talk)

• "they grew increasingly anxious about the arrival of the pack train from Fort Yuma." You write as though readers should be familiar with this pack train, but this is the first mention of it, and indeed of Fort Yuma.

I agree, and I think this is much better now. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe these points have all been addressed. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "ambushed by Paiutes aligned with Mormons" – what? Did Mormons ambush exploration parties? Sounds somewhat improbable.

Actually, the Mormons in this period were purposefully using Indian groups to create the image of a threat that their militias could be used to defend against - so not that unlikely. Sometimes Mormons even posed as Indians and attacked trails. Does seem to require a bit more explanation though.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:32, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this note took care the background. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:45, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rose-Baley Party skirmish and aftermath

• ..."who were documented to have cried war whoops as they sent arrows flying into the camp". Unnecessary circumlocution: "who uttered war cries as they sent arrows flying into the camp".

Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "When news of the massacre reached the west..." The term "massacre" normally refers to the one-sided infliction of death in large numbers. Here, the presumed perpetrators of the massacre had twice as amny killed as the emigrants, so I don't think the term "massacre" is the most appropriate. "Attack" would better fit the circumstances.

Done and clarified. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Apart from that, what is meant by "the west" here? And presumably the fort was established after, not "when" news of the attack was received?

I've clarified this now; nice catch! Rationalobserver (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Fort Yuma should be linked at first, not second mention

Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "...translating from English to Spanish to Yuman and Mohave and vice versa" puts my head in a spin. If Yuman and Mohave were two distinct languages it should read "and to Mohave". Was there really no more direct way of rendering English to Mohave?

I'm not sure about that in truth, but it is accurate to the source. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "agree to never again harm" → "agree never again to harm"

Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "he ordered that a fort be built at Beale's Crossing to enforce the decree." I thought a fort had already been built there. See previous paragraph

Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Many soldiers remained to begin construction on Fort Colorado " – is this the same fort?

Yes. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I still find the history relating to this fort confusong. Paragraph 3 reads: "When news of the attack reached California, the US War Department decided to establish a military fort at Beale's Crossing". The next paragraph begins: "Hoffman ... ordered that a fort be built at Beale's Crossing" – so you have Hoffman ordering the building of a fort that the War Department had already ordered should be built. And then later on, "Many soldiers remained to begin construction on Fort Colorado, which was renamed Fort Mohave soon afterward" – without mentioning that this was the Beale's Crossing fort. I suggest you delete the words "and he ordered that a fort be built at Beale's Crossing to enforce the decree" from the beginning of the paragraph, and amend further down: "Many soldiers remained to begin construction on the Beale's Crossing fort, which was named Fort Mohave". There's no real point in bringing the temporary Fort Colorado name in to the narrative. Brianboulton (talk) 13:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've made these recommended changes. Thanks a million for all the great input! Rationalobserver (talk) 16:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "five to eight hundred" seems a rather wide range of estimate

Changed to "several hundred". Rationalobserver (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "With a large army of Mohave warriors in his command, he quickly earned a reputation for more than just leadership." Can you explain what this means? How did his reputation extend beyond leadership?

That was bad grammar and not what was intended. It's fixed now. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "however, as white emigration increased, gold seekers founded a town nearby named La Paz..." Wasn't the search for gold and the founding od the town the cause rather than the resultof the increase in white emigration?

I'm not sure I follow. The founding of La Paz was kind of a breaking point in positive relations because the settlements were getting closer and closer to the Mohave homeland. Not everyone went to California for gold, but yes, it was a primary motivator. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "...stirring tensions among the Mohave and building fear of an uprising against further encroachment on their land." This is muddled. You need to specify "fear among settlers of a uprising against further encroachment on Mohave land."

Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe these points have all been addressed. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Travels

• "John Moss, an experienced prospector, suggested they bring Irataba to Washington..." Who do you mean by "they"?

Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "where they boarded a steamship named the Senator" → "where they boarded the steamship Senator..."

Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "In January 1864, they sailed for New York City, by way of the Isthmus of Panama, on the Orizaba" Before the canal was built, they cannot have reached New york on the Orizaba, so I would delete reference to the ship's name.

Great catch. Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "he encountered the slave girl Olive Oatman" – the "former" slave girl, I think. It seems unlikely that this was purely a chance meeting, so I'd probably change "encountered".

Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Meeting Irataba with a natural hatred of Indians, she was immediately taken with him, despite their past history." Could be much shortened: "Despite her natural hatred of Indians, she was immediately taken with him".

Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Oatman reportedly said" who reported that she said it? It's a long quotation to be only "reportedly" said.

Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "laps" → "lapse"

Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe these points have all been addressed. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disgrace and death

• "Having recently returned from Washington D.C" → "On his return from Washington D.C"

Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "So as to avoid fighting..." → "To avoid fighting..."

Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "the militant Mohave sub-chief, Homoseh quahote, also known as Seck-a-hoot" I recommend you only use one of these names, since you have introduced him earlier. e.g. "the militant Mohave sub-chief known as Seck-a-hoot"

Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Close repetition of "documented"

Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure, from what I read, that "disgrace" is the appropriate term in th section heading. He was humiliated, for sure, but that's not the same thing. And you say "As time went on the people softened in their disdain for Irataba", without previously indicating that his people disdained him, only that his influence waned.

I agree with you. Good call. Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe these points have all been addressed. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Old age at 60? I am practically a dead man.

I think the point is that for a Native American in 1874, 60 was pretty old. Even today, the average life expectancy at places like the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota is just 48 years. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to "natural causes". Rationalobserver (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these comments are helpful Brianboulton (talk) 20:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They are extremely helpful! Thank you very much, Brianboulton. I'll work on these suggestions during the next couple of days. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:45, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Save for a few points here and there, I think all your concerns have been addressed. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:33, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some great comments here Brian, very grateful, a lot on the content I added too haha! Thanks RO for quickly dealing with them.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm generally happy with the responses, but see my added comment relating to the Beale's Crossing fort. I'll read through again, of course, when the article comes to FAC, and deal with any final quibbles there. Brianboulton (talk) 13:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to be on well-plowed ground here, but I have a few concerns about what is generally a very good article.

Lede

• "European Americans". This may be interpreted as a synonym for the United States, which would be inaccurate. Did Irataba have contact with Buffalo Soldiers, for example? Although our article is substandard, the map seems to indicate they served in that area of Arizona Territory in the 1860s.

Good point. Buffalo Soldiers did serve at Fort Mohave, so Irataba most certainly interacted with them. I've made some edits to address this. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "he was involved with the purchase of Olive Oatman and her sister " this seems a kind way of putting it given the more explicit statements in the body.

Per Brianboulton I removed this from the lead. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It should be made clearer whether Irataba was removed as Mojave chief or simply mocked.

I think it's clear now. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Travels

• "In New York he encountered the slave girl Olive Oatman. Meeting Irataba with a natural hatred of Indians, " she was still a slave? Possibly insert "former". Wouldn't her hatred be more towards Irataba personally, if she knew he was complicit in her sale/purchase

Brian mentioned this earlier, good catch; it's now fixed. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

• I"m not totally thrilled with the heavy repetition of "European Americans". That the United States owned by the Treaty of Guadeloupe Hidalgo, the area in question (except where it was part of the Gadsden Purchase), seems disregarded. POV concerns may be raised.

I agree; that's an astute observation. I think it's much better now in that regard. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I would reserve inline citation of the source ("According to x", for example) for accounts from the time, or for opinion. They are not needed for historical facts that are not contested.

I removed several, but would happily remove some more if needed. I'm just trying to be safe with attribution. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• There are several sources on JSTOR that mention Irataba at least in passing. Have these been reviewed for possible useful content? With JSTOR access more available than it used to be, I think it should be checked in all historical articles these days.

I'm pretty sure I've gleaned everything useful from JSTOR; I've checked at least three times. It looks like more than it is, but Woodward, Sherer, and Deveroux are on JSTRO. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

• Was the area where he was born known as Arizona at the time?

I think it was Mexico in 1814. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since Mexico didn't declare independence until 1822, and wasn't recognized by Spain until 1836, Irataba was born in Alta California, New Spain, I guess. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:33, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Would it be wise to add the country names for where he was born, and died, or is this a minefield?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input Wehwalt!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article looks a lot better since I last saw it. Here are my copyedits. Comments: I presume we are using lower case for ethnic labels like "native" and "white"; I don't think we should capitalise one and not the other. I don't think we need to state the full name of the Colorado River every time it is mentioned. The subject was unquestionably an American, so we could not state he "first met Americans" in such-and-such a year, as he and his own mother were Americans themselves. Finally, the grim ambiguity of In New York he met with the former slave girl Olive Oatman. Despite her natural hatred of Indians, she was immediately taken with him. was presumably unintentional? I replaced "taken with" by "impressed with" as the meaning is very close and it doesn't have such a double meaning in relation to a former slave. On first reading I thought that she was one of the perks. All in all this article is looking like FA-standard now. Well done, all. --John (talk) 22:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contribs and comments, John! I appreciate that you found time to help. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers John for the editing of it and comments!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:37, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here by request. Will be a little bit until I can go through everything, but I wanted to know that I'm happy to take a look! Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 23:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and boxed up the long list of resolved stuff. Here's what I've got for outstanding issues:

• That Stratton citation was harder to deal with than it should have been. Stratton had a lot of different variants of that book printed in 1857/8. The correct one to use here should be: {{cite book |last=Stratton |first=Royal B. |title=Captivity of the Oatman Girls: Being an Interesting Narrative of Life Among the Apache and Mohave Indians |edition=3rd |version=Fourteenth thousand |year=1858 |origyear=1857 |publisher=Carlton & Porter |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=myETAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA231#v=onepage&q&f=false |oclc=17368670 |ref=harv}}
• The source currently cited as Report upon the Colorado River... was awkward. Here's my best take on it: {{cite book |last=Ives |first=Joseph C. |chapter=Part I: General Report |editor=United States Army Corps of Topographical Engineers |title=Report upon the Colorado River of the West : Explored in 1857 and 1858 by Joseph C. Ives |publisher=Government Printing Office |year=1861 |id=36th Congress, 1st Session Senate executive document, unnumbered |oclc=3095199 |url=https://archive.org/stream/reportuponcolor00bairgoog#page/n90/mode/2up |ref=harv}}

• Needs re-alphabetized now, though. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed ([4]). The entries are alphabetized. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:53, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• For Devereux, I think all you need to do is remove the publisher (as you have done so for other journal sources), and you're good to go with it.
• Audit the date formats in your bibliography. They are mostly MDY (October 22, 1865), but Kulp and "Parker Troth" have DMY (3 April 1974). Either way is fine. Personally, I prefer DMY, but some editors read the MOS as encouraging MDY use for articles about American subjects.
• And one thing that I actually have made worse, not better. You need to decide how you want to display page ranges: 480–496 or 480–96, for example. You've got a mixed selection in both notes and references, which wasn't helped by my contributions. Sorry about that.

And then, unless I've overlooked something, I'm out of things in the reference section to pick on! As for your question in the collapsed section, yes; if you're citing a chapter/section/whatever with a different author than the parent work, best practices are to include that chapter's page range in its bibliography entry. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well I think I've fixed everything now. Thanks again for being so helpful! I hate to press my luck, but do you plan to also take a look at the prose? Rationalobserver (talk) 20:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I always look at references first because even the most brilliant prose doesn't help if it's sourced to unreliable or unverifiable material. Also, I think I'm better at reference formatting pedantry than copyediting! But, yes, I should be able to give it a read-through in the next day or so. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've done excellent work making this a comprehensive review of the literature. I was able to drag up a handful of scholarly publications that you don't cite. These may or may not be worth including (or even worth bothering tracking down).

• Elsasser, Albert B. (1977). "Mohave Indian Images and the Artist Maynard Dixon". The Journal of California Anthropology. 4 (1): 60–79.

This is mostly about unrelated topics, but p. 62 has some material of interest, including that Irataba was the subject of a portrait by Balduin Möllhausen. I know the article mentions the Harper's Ferry appearance, so there perhaps there's some value here?

Thanks for this! The image to which they are referring, File:Chief Irataba of the Mojave Nation, February 1864, artist's impression.jpg, is in the article, so this is valuable! Rationalobserver (talk) 17:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Elsasser source led to this awesome tidbit. Thanks! Rationalobserver (talk) 18:13, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Miller, David H. (1972). "The Ives Expedition Revisited: Overland into Grand Canyon". The Journal of Arizona History. 13 (3): 177–196.

I believe I have access to this one, if needed, although I don't have it on hand at the moment. No idea how valuable the content is, but it does appear to be a modern examination of events that you currently depend on contemporary sources to describe.

I can access this at JSTOR, but I don't see any particular need since I source everything in there directly to Ives. What do you think? Rationalobserver (talk) 20:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think Ives is a 150 year old primary account, so if there's some modern analysis to be had, it might be worth looking at. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this too! You were right; there was some really nice stuff in there that was well worth adding ([5]). Rationalobserver (talk) 22:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Hinton, Leanne (1979). "Irataba's Gift: A Closer Look at the ṣ> s> θ Soundshift in Mojave and Northern Pai". Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology, Papers in Linguistics. 1: 3–37.

I have no copy of this on hand, and can confirm that I do not have immediate access to this journal. I really don't know how metaphorical the title is. If it is literal, and Irataba himself is cited as influential in a phonemic shift in the Mojave language, that would be fantastic information. If it's metaphorical, well, then tracking this down is probably a waste of time. I would not count this against a check for comprehensiveness, but if someone happens to have easy access to it to check its contents, there's no reason not to at least take a look.

I've asked Maunus if they can find this, as I agree that if the title is accurate this might be a great addition. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My normal "Hey, I need this super-weird journal article..." contact failed to come through on this one, but I agree that if it is what it sounds like, it's worth seeing. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, I see no significant publications not already represented. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure the way Irataba's Mohave name is given in the lead is MOS-compliant. I've never actually done articles where this applied, but I'm used to seeing a parenthetical note, with the language linked, then the original format, and ideally an IPA pronunciation. If it turns otu that's not as standard as I thought, ignore me. I don't do much work with non-English stuff, nor biographies.

We discussed this at Talk:Irataba#Pronunciation, and it appears that this is the best we can do without a definitive source for an IPA. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Renowned for his physical size and strength and gentle demeanor, Irataba was a great orator" : The second part doesn't follow from the first, so perhaps an "also" or something in there?

Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "when he and the Mohave head chief, Cairook" : You've introduced Irataba as head chief in the first paragraph, but here, Cairook is. Obviously, that's because Irataba is well-known for that role, but his relevant history started before holding it. Perhaps "...when he and Cairook, then Mohave head chief, met..." Not sure I like that any better, really.

Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "They also imprisoned several Mohave leaders" : The problem here is that the antecedent, "US War Department" is a collective noun, and in American English collective nouns take singular verb and pronoun forms. But just replacing "they" with "it" here reads strangly, so you may need to reword things to avoid the metonymy.

As a group of people, I think it's okay to refer to the Department as they, as you might do for journalists and such; e.g.; "The New York Time gave Irataba their stamp of approval". Rationalobserver (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• You give the year of Fort Mohave in the lead, but not the month. This is a problem because Cairook's failed escape is introduced "in June"; there's no way to determine the time elapsed. Consider giving the month to start, or chaning the escape introduction to a difference "[foo] months later" or just "later that year" if there's no way to make the statement off reliable sources.

Good point. Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "a US president." : I would prefer "an American president", but others may weigh in here.

I agree, and I've changed it. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "He received considerable attention during his tours of the US capital, New York City, and Philadelphia" : There's no immediate way to know that this is a list rather than an appositive phrase. It's mostly a problem since, historically, both NYC and Philadelpha have been the US capital. Various solutions are possible, including "and of" or more vigorous rewording.

Nice catch. Thanks! Rationalobserver (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "when he was given" : I might introduce with where instead of when since you're discussing these in the context of their locations, rather than their times.

Done, but I hope that doesn't imply he was given all these things in Philadelphia. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Mohave did not believe him, and they accused him of lying" : Redundant; I'd cut the last clause entirely.

I kept the last clause, as it gets right to the point, but cut the first one. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "The Mohave never replaced Irataba as head chief; he was their last, and was mourned for a prolonged period after his death in 1874." : Order of clauses makes it sound like he lost the position (his influence was eroded in the previous sentence), until you get further in the sentence and learn he died. Consider something like: "He died in 1874 and was mourned by the Mohave for a prolonged period; he was never replaced as head chief."

This one I disagree on, because it's odd to me to say they never replaced him after stating that he died, and it might also be misleading, because new chiefs were elected after he died, but since the Mohave were then on the reservation these chiefs are not considered "independent", as Irataba was, because they relied on the US Government for rations. Of course, I'm open to further discussion on this point. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Something something about the way non-English names are presented, again, that I'm not qualified to discuss with certainty...

If we knew more about the Mohave language we could improve this. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Do we really have nowhere to link for Mohave Canyon? Yikes.

That surprised me too! Rationalobserver (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• " In the opinion of anthropologist Kenneth M. Stewart, the Mohave were fierce warriors who were frequently the aggressors, particularly against the Chemehuevi, Paiute, and Maricopa peoples. Although they did not plunder their enemy's possessions, they took prisoners and scalps." : I think this sentence needs to go in the previous paragraph, which is about the tribe, rather than where it is, which is about Irataba specifically. I'd also reword the introduction as something like "Anthropologist Kenneth M. Stewart describes the Mohave as fierce warriors..."; opinion has a different connotation that what I think this warrants. (Needless to say, I'm not at all concerned about the use of false titles.)

Good call. Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "He documents that Irataba and Cairook" : Unclear antecedent at this point. Go ahead and replace "He" with "Woodward".

Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "several Mohave including Irataba" : comma needed after Mohave here.

I thought so, but for some reason I omitted that one (pesky commas!). Rationalobserver (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not 100% sold that the paragraph about Beale's journey is relevant. I didn't go look up the source; did Stacy actually mention Irataba? If not, I'm not sure this belongs in an article about Irataba, although it certainly might in one about the history of the Mohave Nation. If it does, ignore this...

The background of Beale's expedition is central to the story, as this is the beginning of the end for the independent Mohave, and Beale's road and crossing brought the Rose-Baley Party to Mohave country, whereas without Beale they wouldn't have gone that way. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these excellent suggestions! I think I've adopted all of them except the last one. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here by request. Just a few comments/questions:

• "Visit with" sounds odd to British ears. In the interests of commonality, would it be possible to replace it with "meeting(s) with"?
• Not knowing exactly what bottomlands are, I would appreciate a link. This may be a word that Americans are more familiar with.
• Since it is followed by "an unusually eloquent and persuasive speaker", does "a great orator who was" add anything? Removing it would make the prose "tighter".
• "This route became known as Beale's Wagon Road and the location where Beale crossed the river, Beale's Crossing." I would use "as" before "Beale's Crossing" instead of a comma (to stop the reader temporarily misreading it as apposition).
• "Eight members of the party were killed, including five children, and thirteen were wounded". I think I would write that as "Eight members of the party – including five children – were killed, and thirteen were wounded", to make it more immediately obvious that "thirteen" refers to members of the party, not children.
• "translating from English to Spanish to Yuman and to Mohave and vice versa" I believe you said that this is true to the source, but I think it needs changing; otherwise it is unclear what it is supposed to mean. If it means that he translated separately from English into three different languages, the punctuation and wording should be corrected to "translating from English into Spanish, Yuman, and Mohave – and vice versa". As it is punctuated, it appears to mean that he translated from English to Mohave via Spanish and Yuman, but since only one person is involved, his thought processes cannot be known.
• 'In the opinion of Fulsom Charles Scrivner, author of Mohave People (1970), whereas Cairook helped lead the attack on the Rose-Baley Party, "it appears that Irataba stayed clear of the fracas", arguing that "if Irataba had taken an active part he would have offered himself as prisoner", as did Cairook.' Presumably because of previous editing, "arguing . . . " does not appear to have a valid implied subject. I presume it is meant to refer to Scrivner, but that would require something like "Scrivener stated ..." I think it would be better to express it differently..
• It is not clear to me why "quahote" is not capitalized. If it is part of a proper name shouldn't it be capitalized (or perhaps preceded by a hyphen)?
• Changing the order of "relations between the Mohave and American settlers" to "relations between American settlers and the Mohave" would prevent a temporary misreading (with both proper names modifying "settlers"). Since the Mohave are also American, would "European American settlers" be better? Or should the adjective be removed completely ("relations between settlers and the Mohave"? I'm not sure about American sensibilities here.
• "Upon arriving in New York, Harper's Weekly described Irataba as ..." reads at first as if the magazine arrived in New York.
• "Irataba ordered to his people" sounds incorrect to me (possibly American English?).

--Boson (talk) 00:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these comments, Boson. I'll do my best to resolve them starting first thing tomorrow. Rationalobserver (talk) 00:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these, Boson! I've fixed all your above concerns except one: the reason why I didn't capitalize "quahote" or "tav" is because Sherer doesn't. Presumably, the second word is not really a proper name like it would be in the west; e.g., "tav" means good or beautiful, so it's more of an adjective than a proper name; I assume similar reasons for not capitalizing "quahote", but I do not have a translation of that name to hand. Rationalobserver (talk) 15:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very nice looking article, I'm just reading through now, but it looks in fine shape. Apologies if any comments are already covered above. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The article makes reference to a drawing of Irataba by Balduin Möllhausen. Is this available anywhere? I had a quick look on archive.org but couldn't find it. Since it would be out of copyright, it would be interesting to see it in the article.

I believe it's this image: File:Chief Irataba of the Mojave Nation, February 1864, artist's impression.jpg, which is in the article, but I'm unable to confirm that at this time. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did wonder - and it seemed likely. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, it is this one[6], with Kairook - Möllhausen spelled the bname Ireteba, that is why it doesnt come up on searches for Irataba. It would be good to have a depiction of him before he took up the habit of using European clothes. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well found! Simon Burchell (talk) 20:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work, Maunus! Is that PD? Rationalobserver (talk) 21:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know how the NY publiclibrary licenses their collections, but it should be eligible for fair use if it is not PD which it probably is. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think this was first published in Ives's 1861 report, which would make it PD. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

this page says it was published in 1857, at any rate, it is definitely PD. Simon Burchell (talk) 21:48, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanls, Maunus and Simon! Wow's this look? Rationalobserver (talk) 21:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would right align it, remove the one with the two men by the river or move it to another section and then make it a bit bigger.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since the image is PD, I think we can use a cropped version - I'll upload one tomorrow. Simon Burchell (talk) 00:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've switched it for a cropped version. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But Irataba is looking right, and Whipple is looking left, and the images should stagger. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've also been going back and forth with different people about image sizes and mark-up, and I admit that I have no clue what's actually right – or FAC compliant. So all I'm confident to do is put it in thumb, but I think making it bigger will invite complaints. You can see it full-sized if you click on it. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the image of Cairook should be included as well. He was an important figure in Irataba's life, more so than some of the other Anglo-Americans whose portraits are in the article. And it is really remarkable that a drawing of him exists. So maybe consider if you could crop it to include both, or include the full drawing.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've started Cairook, where I've included his image, but I suppose I could swap out File:Mohave Indians.jpg for File:Cairook.jpg, but it's nice to have an actual picture of Mohave near the river. I also wonder if it's better to have Irataba and Cairook together than two separate, but I suppose the topic is Irataba, not Cairook, so we probably don't need it here. I'm not sure what to do, but I was hoping to close this PR this week and re-nom at FAC. What do you think, Simon? Rationalobserver (talk) 16:47, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would say, since it is an individual biography, use the picture of the subject alone, unless the subject is shaking hands with someone important to the article, or in a tight group. Also, if you are planning on taking this to FAC, you had best find a way to lay out the images so that no text is squeezed between two images (as has happened with my addition of the cropped picture) - there are ways around this, such as using the multiple image template. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Simon. I've moved a few images around, so I don't think any text is currently being squeezed by images, but if I'm wrong please let me know which ones are causing an issue. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is PD-Old, published in the US before 1923. Simon Burchell (talk) 21:45, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Contact with Americans" section header. What? This section header surely needs to be renamed. As far as I can see, both sides could be counted as "Americans". Looking at the article history, this looks like it has already been renamed from "Contact with European Americans", the change is not an improvement, in my opinion. Perhaps "Contact with settlers", or something? Simon Burchell (talk) 09:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about "Contact with explorers and settlers"? Rationalobserver (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Much better. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• In the same section, the Sitgreaves Expedition is linked, is Whipple's expedition also worthy of an article? If it is, then redlink it. maybe someone will come along and write it... Simon Burchell (talk) 10:03, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It looks like "Tolkepaya tribe" should also be redlinked/linked somehow. I realise it redirects at the moment, is there any likelihood they would ever get their own article? Simon Burchell (talk) 10:08, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redlinked "Tolkepaya band", as the tribe is Yavapai. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redlink the first instance of Mohave Canyon. It appears on the Colarado River system navbox, so presumably is notable. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:31, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I linked Hualapai. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Rationalobserver (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Much of the Irataba#Rose-Baley Party skirmish and aftermath section seems out-of-scope for the article, and should be spun off somewhere else, if it isn't already. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about this one. There is a spin-off article (Rose-Baley Party), but the details are summarized pretty tightly, and the episode is one of the most important of Irataba's life. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the whole first two paragraphs gives way too much detail for an article about Irataba, considering that he didn't take part, and could be concisely summarised along the following lines:

In 1858, the first emigrant train to venture onto Beale's Wagon Road was harassed by Mohave warriors, who drove away and slaughtered many of the party's cattle. On August 30, three hundred Mohave warriors attacked the emigrants and eight members of the party – including five children – were killed, and thirteen were wounded. The emigrants killed seventeen Mohave warriors.[41] With the wounded in one wagon, the children in another, and the healthy adults on foot, the party began the journey back to Albuquerque, 500 miles (800 km) away. According to Kroeber, "the event sealed the fate of the Mohave as an independent people.

I think you're right. How about this ([7])? Rationalobserver (talk) 21:45, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that - I know how painful it is to cut interesting information... Hopefully the whole lot is in the Rose-Baley article, if not, you should put it in. Simon Burchell (talk) 00:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Anecdotes on Iritaba's bearing and character are sprinkled throughout the article — it would be nice to have a short section near the beginning to summarise his appearance/personality. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the last paragraph in "Early life and background" does this pretty well. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, although it appears a little buried there - how about a subheading for that para? If I were coming to the article to learn something about his physical characteristics/character, it wouldn't leap out at me. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:36, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is this better ([8])? Rationalobserver (talk) 21:45, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That should do it, thanks. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• In Irataba#Waning influence and death, on the Mohave farm and granary on Cottonwood Island, it is not at all clear where "Cottonwood Island" is, and this could do with clarifying. Simon Burchell (talk) 11:01, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Overall a very interesting, weel-written article. Simon Burchell (talk) 11:08, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look, Simon Burchell! I appreciate your comments and suggestions. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding promptly to my comments, I believe I am done here. Well done on producing such a fine article. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 09:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Simon! I appreciate your taking the time to make these extremely helpful comments. Thanks also for cropping the Möllhausen rendering. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your work about Irataba... In fact, the most important general thoughts about American Indians are minorizing... They describe them as a wild, primitive, illiterate and even aggressive society. It was a good thing to valorize that the Indians were active and engaged. However, you did not include this in your work... It is more useful to talk about the circumstances of the birth of Irataba in the first part in the work... It is very useful to say whether Indians were misconsidered or not and how the situation of Indians had deeply influencing him. Furthermore, you did not talk about the debates that were supported by Irataba and about his convictions and beliefs. In fact, you just mentioned that he was a person that helped Explorers to discover America until the important Mohave War. You had better to consider this and give more interests to the Social and Cultural Part of the personality of Irataba. Moreover, you did not mention whether he had some influencing familial relationships... You did not mention his parents and you never said whether he was married once or not... You should mention whether he was passioned by someone or something. In another side, you did not mention some quotes or manners of Irataba. So, try to work on this in order to better efficiently the work. You probably think that these details are not very important. However, in order to get the FA Status, you should include all important information about Irataba and particularly social ones. Yours Sincerely,

--Csisc (talk) 11:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. While I agree that it would be good to include these types of things, none of the specific "deficiencies" you mentioned above are verifiable. At least not as far as my research revealed. We looked at every available source, and these are the things that we cannot write about because we cannot source any of it to reliable sources. This article is about as comprehensive as it can be given the relative lack of details regarding these points. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Catch the Stage to Phoenix of Leland Hanchett and the French Wikipedia work about Irataba can give you more information about Irataba. You can also involve scientific papers studying Irataba as reliable references.--Csisc (talk) 12:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've been watching here, on and off, and think the page needs a little more balance. I spent a lot of time thinking about whether to comment, but in light of the above, have decided to add a few comments below (in no particular order and not comprehensive).

• "Irataba was the hereditary chief of the Huttoh Pah group of Mohave, who lived near the east bank of the Colorado River.[3]" >> This needs a bit of clarification in terms of the system of tribal government and chieftainships. Sherer explains that Sickahoot abdicated as head chief in 1861 and says, (page 5), "Yara tav's election to the head chieftainship as hochoch interrupted but did not change the line of succession away from the hereditary line of great chieftains". My sense is that it's slightly complicated and so needs some more explanation and would be better set in context.

If you've read the source then you realize that it is complicated, but to explain it here would be to go way off topic. I.e., this article is about Irataba, not Mohave government, which is too complicated to get into in great detail here. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:15, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "they also caught fish; hunted game such as rabbits and beaver with bows and arrows, traps…" >> this source has very good background about the tribe, how they lived and specifically about the warrior society (kwanamis). If Irataba was kwanami then should be developed and context added. "According to anthropologist Lorraine M. Sherer, Irataba was what the Mohave called, kwanami, which means brave or fearless.[14]" >> this also needs context and explanation about what kwanami means. Here on page 30 in her long note Sherer says brave, but kwanamis were also warrior caste, etc. which needs explanation and development.

I've added some clarification to this point ([9]). Rationalobserver (talk) 20:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "In the opinion of anthropologist Kenneth M. Stewart, the Mohave were fierce warriors in general who were frequently the aggressor, particularly against the Chemehuevi, Paiute, and Maricopa peoples. Although they did not plunder their enemy's possessions, they took prisoners and scalps.[15]" >> again, to the concept of a warrior caste or society, the kwanami, there's quite a lot more in this source. It also explains the significance of dreaming (Irataba had dreams) and its relationship to being kwanami, the importance and function of kwanimis (warriors), their clothing and weapons, some of which should be added.

I've restored this bit about dreaming and will add a little more. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some stuff that I think resolves this particular concern ([10]). Rationalobserver (talk) 19:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Higher status Mohave would cover their body in goose fat to help alleviate the summer heat.[7]" > > this NYT piece is from a gossip column and isn't a great source insofar as factual information. Do we know whether geese thrive in the Mohave desert?

The Colorado River brings in all kinds of birds to the region, but per your concern with the source I've removed it. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "They were captured and enslaved and sold to Irataba and the Mohave in return for two horses and three blankets. Although Olive was forcibly tattooed on the chin during her time with the tribe, the Mohave treated Oatman and her sister well, and she remarked of the experience, "To the honor of those savages, let it be said they never offered the least unchaste abuse to me."[21]" >> this source on Jstor has some good information and explains that Sharer's account was written as a sensationalist piece. Probably better to use the more recent scholarly account which suggests that she might not have been enslaved.

To be honest, I didn't add anything about Oatman because of concerns that the original story was not reliable. All the Oatman material was added by Dr. Blofeld. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I added all of that. If another source can't be found then it can always be removed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the Stratton source for Putzi ([11]). Thanks for providing that source. Rationalobserver (talk)

• "up the Colorado River" >> needs clarification regarding east/west direction. This source on Jstor is a good summary of the Whipple expedition. Note the date - Whipple expedition was in 1853-1854

Good catch. Fixed. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Played a game" >> why no mention of trading for food? There was quite a lot of trading involved, the expedition was low on supplies - this can be spun out more given better context. Very nice image here of the Whipple party trading with the Mohave tribe.

I had some detail about that in the article that someone eels removed for brevity. I'll re-add it. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added that picture pre your awesome suggestion ([12]). Thanks! Rationalobserver (talk) 22:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Restored ([13]). Rationalobserver (talk) 18:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• This source has information about Irataba with Moss and Irataba's later years.

I don't see anything here that's not already included. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also doesnt look like a reliable source to me.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:06, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Images are available at the Huntington Library: [14]

Victoria (tk) 17:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which specific images do you suggest we include, because we are currently brimming with them? Rationalobserver (talk) 23:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Victoriaearle, I believe I've addressed all of these above concerns with this series of edits: ([15]). Would you mind stopping back in to take another look? Rationalobserver (talk) 20:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to try to approach this in broad brush strokes and then let you take it from there. Also, I'm pinging Maunus because, although familiar with the geographical area and the subject, I'm not an anthropologist and he might have an easier time parsing what I'm trying to articulate. On a most basic level I think this is a very good article about a Native American chief and as an FA would set a standard. In that sense it's quite important. Equally it's probably the best biography of Irataba on the web and so I think it has to be written with some care.

• Re - leadership, chiefs. What you've added is good, but we lead off with "Irataba was the hereditary chief of the Huttoh Pah group of Mohave." My suggestion is to use the information from Sherer, p. 2, [16], to explain the two types of chief and then elsewhere in the article explain that Irataba was head chief only from 1861 to 1866, (Sherer 10-11 [17]) and explain how Irataba was chosen because Homoseh Quahote (we might need a decent English translation of his name), basically abdicated (Sherer p. 5 [18]).

I couldn't find any translations of Homoseh Quahote, but then we also don't have a translation for Cairook either. I disagree about explaining the different kinds of chiefs here, as it would be off-topic, but since you seem to know what you want added I encourage you to go ahead and add some more. Rationalobserver (talk) 15:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RE: chiefs and chieftains, the article currently states: "According to ethnographer George Devereux, white officials 'tended to act on the assumption that Indian chiefs exercised absolute authority'; he describes Mohave government as 'one of the least understood segments of Mohave culture',". So, I am more than reluctant to attempt an explanation that has largely eluded anthropologists, because 1) we will almost certainly get it wrong if we do, and 2) even if we get it right, it's off-topic for an article about Irataba. Does our article on Abraham Lincoln explain the process of becoming a US president, or does it summarize that he was elected and leave the detail at that level? I think the easiest way forward here is for you to add the material you think is needed, versus you and I going back and forth over this point, because I don't really agree with you, but might change my mind once you add some material. If you look at the early stages of this PR, you'll see that there was some concern about focus. Now the article is focused, but I fear that too much backgrounb details about Mohave leadership will once again distract from the focus. Rationalobserver (talk) 15:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Re - kwanami - it seems important from the point of view of how one becomes chief that a certain path is followed, in this case becoming kwanami. As an unfamiliar cultural concept, and because almost certainly defines the man, imo it needs better explanation. Much is available on pages 234 onward about kwanami in this piece Kenneth Stewart wrote, [19].
• Re - dreaming. Again, this is a cultural difference that needs to some explaining. I think Kroeber does it best in this piece on page 280, [20], where he writes "it is dreams that are the cause of everything that happens." Once one understands that, then one understands why the repeated encounters with whites (and I think we should use the term "white"), and eventually the reason for the trip to the east.

I've added the above quote from Kroeber ([21]). Rationalobserver (talk) 16:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Re - Olive Oatman. It should stay in but it not be presented in such a way that she was a "captive" for five years. Personally I'd keep the mention of the tattoo because it's an indication that she acculturated, mentioned in Putzi. Whipple mentions that only married women were tattooed, fwiw.

I think that to assert that Oatman wasn't actually a captive is WP:OR, or it's unverifiable. By all reliable accounts, she was a captive who was essentially "owned". I'm not supportive of re-casting this until I see a reliable source that suggests her stay with the Natives was voluntary. Rationalobserver (talk) 15:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The tattoo is strictly about Olive Oatman, so it has nothing to do with Irataba, unless she was married to him, which she wasn't. But if I was going to give the meaning of it I would find a better expert than Whipple, who was a soldier, not an anthropologist. As I said below, the meaning of the tattoo is disputed anyway, so not only is it off-topic it's a rabbit hole to boot! Rationalobserver (talk) 19:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Re - tribal rift. I think that needs more explanation. It's important to explain that the US gov't wanted to move the Mohave away from the valley where it was easier to grow crops to the desert, that as a result the tribe split, half following Irataba, the other half following Homoseh Quahote (the chief who abdicated? but then didn't?).

the US gov't wanted to move the Mohave away from the valley where it was easier to grow crops to the desert Is this in Sherer, because I don't remember her ascribing this motivation to the US Government? Rationalobserver (talk) 16:28, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This really seems like too much detail about something that is little understood. Plus, it's really a topic for Mohave people. Rationalobserver (talk) 15:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with RO, in fact one of the biggest problems I had when I started on this was the unfocused bloat about the general tribe. This is a biography.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Re images - i just thought it interesting that the Huntington has images of the fort, steamboats, a Mohave chief in warpaint, etc.

We are pretty stuffed with images as is, so if you think one should be included, please be more specific. Rationalobserver (talk) 15:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I'll stop here, but the point I'm trying to make is that we should approach this from the point of view of Irataba in Mohave society at a time when whites were encroaching in the area, with emphasis on Mohave culture which made him the man he was, whilst simultaneously avoiding describing him a a noble savage. This may not make sense and if not, that's fine. But it's how I'd approach the article, fwiw. Victoria (tk) 00:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for these wonderful suggestions, Victoria. I won't be able to start working on these until tomorrow, but I'm very excited by the coming improvements. Rationalobserver (talk) 00:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Victoriaearle, after re-reading your recent batch of comments, I really think that the best way forward here is for you to add what you think is needed, and let subsequent discussion and editing determine an appropriate level of detail. I strongly disagree with trying to explain the difference between hereditary chiefs, elected chiefs, chieftains and great chieftains, in an article about one particular chief, but maybe this wouldn't be as difficult as I think. Anyway, I don't think it's a good idea to push for me to add this stuff, because I don't share your concerns or vision enough to agree with you. Having said that, I wouldn't be too surprised if after you add some stuff I see what you were saying and change very little of what you add. Does this sound acceptable? Rationalobserver (talk) 15:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I think I do understand most of what Victoria means, and like her I do think that it is good to provide background about the people, their cultural and social organization, and the political situation in which the encounters between Mohave and Whites took place. However, from the comments above some other editors clearly disagree that this kind of social context belongs in a biography in a major way. I think the dreaming part is important because it provides some clear context for understanding his actions. Also some detail about what the titles and leadership positions in Mohave society actually meant also would make sense, because otherwise we dont know what this particular chiefs title actually means. With Olive the I am not sure we can depict her as anything other than a captive, because that seems to be what the sources do, following her own (probably distorted testimony). The tattoo needs to be mentioned, since it is rather important in the coverage of her life and salient in the picture of her. But we might remove the word "forcible" unless there is a very good reason to keep it? Also mentioning that it was something reserved for married women might provide an interesting perspective. The trick with this kind of article is that the sources are always inflected through Anglo minds - the indigenous perspective is rarely found in them and consequently we cant do it justice. I am not entirely sure on how to be more clear about the political situation of encroaching whites, maybe Victoria has some concrete ideas here. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:06, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open to people adding what they think is needed, but the distinctions regarding hereditary chiefs, elected chiefs, chieftains and great chieftains is far too nuanced to do it here, assuming we could explain it accurately. Maunus, I don't see the word "forcible" currently in the article, can you point it out? Rationalobserver (talk) 16:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the exact meaning of Olive's tattoo is disputed; she claimed it marked her as a slave, but others say it was a sign of marriage, or a symbol of her belonging to the Mohave. As I said, if others want to add more detail in this regard, I think they should do so, but it would be much easier to look at specific additions and go from there, because At this point I don't see the benefit to adding more detail that does not specifically pertain to Irataba. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think we alreayd have more than enough background filling on this. If we start going into a detail of detail on distinctions it's going to affect the general readability and concision of people looking for info about Irataba. It's already padded enough as it is.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the thing to do when we know there are conflicting views on a detail like this is to decide if it is important, in which case we include it or if it isnt in which case we simply omit mention of it. So, we probably should simply mention that she was tattooed without discussing why that was.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Btw. I think the way you integrated the dream part was really good.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:42, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll repeat this here: According to ethnographer George Devereux, Mohave government is "one of the least understood segments of Mohave culture", which I take as a good sign that we shouldn't try to crack the enigma in this article, which is not about Mohave government; it's about one chief. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:37, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is wrong, it is about a person who is called a chief in English, but whose actual title was something else which does not mean the same as chief. Then in order for the reader to know what Irataba was, we need them to know what the role of a person with his title was in Mohave society as well as possible., I.e. this is crucial for the reader to actually understand the subject of the biography.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I just noticed the ping and am about to go offline so haven't read through the comments. If I can, will revisit later today or tonight. Victoria (tk) 16:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since who've mentioned the Huntington Library a couple of times, I want to make sure that images there can be freely uploaded to Wikicommons. Per their website, "The nature of certain collections often makes it difficult to determine the copyright status of an item" and "The responsibility for determining whether any such intangible rights exist, for obtaining all necessary permissions, and for guarding against the infringement of those rights that may be held elsewhere, remains with the requester."([22] and [23]) We hope, can you clarify this point? Are the images at the Huntington Digital Library suitable for uploading to Wikicommons, because I'm confident that all the pictures currently used are PD, and I'd like to keep it that way. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maunus makes a good point in that the sources are inflected through Anglo minds, and we have to keep in mind that here too, on WP, to some extent the writing and reviewing is as well. No offense to anyone, but it's best to try to avoid a European white male point of view. The article would benefit greatly from a "Historiography" section. Furthermore, FA criteria, re context, literature survey, etc, need to be kept in mind. Insofar as specifics, if we mention he's kwanami then the context in this source seems important; if we mention hereditary chief, then the context in Sherer's "Great Chieftains of the Mohave Indians" is important. If we mention a rift developed between Homoseh quahote (Seck-a-hoot), we should explain why. If we know a person has a chin tattoo but the sources don't agree on its significance then we should explain why, and so on. Anyway, those are my concerns and thanks for responding. I'll unwatch now. Victoria (tk) 19:29, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Thanks for your comments. FTR, the Huntington Library is not a suitable source for images for Wikipedia articles ([24]). Rationalobserver (talk) 19:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that untill some non-white women write something about Irataba we are stuck with the white male perspective. There is nothing we can do about that under current policy. I also dont think we can do a historiography section without engaging in OR. Someone certainly should write an essay or research article critically examining how Irataba has been represented by historians, but it seems no one has. I do agree with the need to explain as well as possible the mohave concepts expressed by the tattoo, the names, titles etc. But again we are limited by the sources.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:34, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We could probably explain that little is known about him until contact with whites and he shows up in the Ives expedition report (which only mentions him by name once), and that aside from Kroeber and apparently Sherer's work in terms of Mohave culture, we don't know a lot more. That's what I meant by a histiography section. Nonetheless, there's plenty in sources for context. For example, there's quite a lot in terms of how the location for the reservation was chosen, Irataba's involvement with that decision, and why that decision caused a rift. Victoria (tk) 19:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that does make sense though again I am a little unclear on how we could provide analytical metacommentary on the sources without doing OR? We could state that there are few sources about Mohave culture and that what we know comes from anthropologists working in the 20th century. Probably not enough for a section, but perhaps a paragraph would do? The question of the reservation does seem important, also in terms of its significance for later Mohave people.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria, since neither Maunus or I think we could write a histiography without engaging in OR, are you willing to write one? Why is this not enough about the split? "After its completion, Irataba and several hundred of his most ardent supporters moved to the Colorado River Valley, where in 1865 the Colorado River Indian Reservation was established.[48] This marked the beginning of a rift between two rival factions of Mohave, the other led by an influential sub-chief named Homoseh quahote, known by the whites as Seck-a-hoot.[49]" Rationalobserver (talk) 19:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maunus, what do you think of this addition: ([25]). Do you think the leadership system is now adequately explained, or do we need more detail? Rationalobserver (talk) 19:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, sounds like a clan system. She doesnt use the word clan? I think the interesting part is if we know anything about the kind of authority and responsibility the chief and subchief positions implied. Does Shere give the Mohave terms for "chief" and "subchief" btw?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article is on JSTOR, why don't you read it, because I can't do all this myself, and this pile of options that only I am acting on is getting old. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have other stuff I am working on Rationalobserver. You are the one who asked for comments, you are not required to act on them. No need to stress out. There is no deadline.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Sherer does use the word clan in her 1965 book, and probably there is some useful info in the "Bitterness Road" book as well. Both of those are at my university library, so I will take a look at them next week one day when I have time.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely a clan system. You should take a look at The Clan System of the Fort Mojave Indians: A Contemporary Survey. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm closing this peer review now, I think we've had more than enough input here. Thankyou everybody, most helpful. I invite anybody who still has concerns to assist with editing the article before this heads to FAC, Rational has already put extraordinary effort into this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]