Talk:Yaanga

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Yaanga/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ezlev (talk · contribs) 00:03, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this fascinating article! I've created two subsections below, one for {{GAProgress}} as an overview of the review's status and one for specific points to be raised and discussed. Any broader discussion can take place up here. Looking forward to working with you, Vizjim! ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 00:03, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Vizjim, the work you've done looks great! Is the article ready for me to take another look? ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 23:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Ezlev, thanks so much for your patience! I think I've dealt with the main points you raised now, so yes please take a look and advise.Vizjim (talk) 19:34, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, Vizjim, this is a Good Article! Congrats! ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 18:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Progress

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Notes

Well written

Prose: Well done overall!

• The third paragraph of the "Location" section needs to be shortened and clarified.
  • Done
• The article's conclusion is particularly well done – good job!

MOS: Needs some work to follow MOS:LEDE.

• Citations in the lede should be moved into the body where possible, as should content from the lede.
  • Done
• The lede should summarize the body of the article.
  • Done
• Other MOS criteria for GA are met.

Verifiable

Reference style: Good! Reliable sources: Sourcing looks good. No original research:

• The section beginning "The river continued to flow westward to Ballona Flats" and ending "north of present Boyle Heights" is unsourced.
  • Done

Free of copyvio:

• Earwig flags one WP:MIRROR, which isn't a problem.
• Some of the long quotes from this source need to be incorporated into the text.
  • Done

Broad

Addresses main aspects: Looks like it! Stays focused: It does!

Neutral

Seems to neutrally reflect the sources.

Stable

It is!

Illustrated

Yep!

Final points

This looks fantastic, Vizjim. A few final details:

• The sentence "More than one history of Los Angeles makes claims that in the westward shift of the river in the flood of 1815, the river destroyed both the Natives' village as well as the recently established second pueblo settlement, including the pueblo chapel." Is this actually sourced to the ayuntamiento records, or does it need a citation to a different source for support?
• I found a citation in Union Station (Los Angeles) for the Bernice Johnston quote and added it here, but it's incomplete – any chance you've got a link to the source, or more details about it?

Just let me know one way or the other about these two things, and we'll be good to go! ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 01:45, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Additional sources

User:Indigenous girl has come up with the following additional sources that could be incorporated in the article.

"Changing Interpretations of California's Mexican Past" by Louise Pubols. California History. Vol. 91, No. 1 (Spring 2014), pp. 16-22 [1]

"Urban informality in the Global North: a view from Los Angeles" by Nancy H. Kwak. Edição

v. 28 n. 47 (2021). DOI: https://doi.org/10.5007/2175-7976.2021.e76639 / https://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/esbocos/article/view/76639.

http://libraryarchives.metro.net/DPGTL/eirs/WilshireBRT/2010_draft_eir_ea_app_e_archaeo_tech_rpt.pdf - this link isn't opening for me but putting it here in case others can make it work.

"Re-Indigenizing Spaces: How Mapping Racial Violence Shows the Interconnections Between Settler Colonialism and Gentrification" by Lopez, Jocelyn [2] - this is an undergraduate honors thesis, so should be treated with caution, but it is peer-reveiwed and has useful sources.

I'll start work on the excellent suggestions from User:Ezlev later this week, but thought I'd leave this for now for anyone working on the page. Vizjim (talk) 07:42, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Requesting this remains open

I've done everything except the MOS:LEDE recommendation: would like another day to do that and add in new sources. Hope that's OK.Vizjim (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 03:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Los Angeles was built with the labor of Indigenous Yaangavit people whose village was destroyed to make space for it? Source: Estrada, William David (2009). The Los Angeles Plaza: Sacred and Contested Space. University of Texas Press. p. 40

Improved to Good Article status by Xicanx (talk). Nominated by Vizjim (talk) at 09:19, 31 January 2022 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith Interesting:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: Recent GA article is long enough and well sourced. There's only one minor sourcing issue in "Location", the end of the 3rd paragraph has to be cited. Hook is cited and interesting (AGF on offline encyclopedia). No copyvio on Earwig (excluding quotes). It looks like this is the nominator's first nom, so qpq isn't needed. Once the minor source issue is fixed, this one's good to go. (I fixed the formatting on the nomination, but in the future @Vizjim: the article has to be linked and bolded in the nomination). The sourcing issue has been fixed, so this nom's ready for promotion! BuySomeApples (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

OK, will bear that in mind in future. This is indeed my first GA nomination (twenty odd years of editing and never visited this part of WP before). Have fixed the referencing issue.Vizjim (talk) 09:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

• Thank you for fixing that @Vizjim: this nomination looks ready to go now. Hopefully it'll be the first of many from you BuySomeApples (talk) 05:50, 2 February 2022 (UTC)