Wikipedia:Featured article review/History of the Yosemite area/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Dana boomer 16:20, 12 August 2010 [1].

History of the Yosemite area[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

History of the Yosemite area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Notified: User talk:mav, nominator and main contributor Wikipedia talk:WikiProject California, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America

I am nominating this featured article for review because it currently significantly lacks inline citations and some of the images lack sources. [Article was promoted about 5 years ago and has had no reviews since.] Mav has started is planning to add inline citations but we agreed it should be brought here in any case, to give it proper scrutiny. Mav was aiming to work on it this weekend. Tom B (talk) 03:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images where sources need to be stated:

File:Miwok-Paiute ceremony in 1872 at current site of Yosemite Lodge.jpeg
File:Captain John Paiute.jpg
checkYFile:Yosemite Falls by Thomas Ayres.jpg
File:Painting of Wawona Hotel by Thomas Hill.jpeg
  • Thomas Hill died in 1908 but I could not find source to confirm this is a painting by him. Image removed. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 23:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
File:Frederick Law Olmstead.jpeg
checkYFile:Josiah whitney.jpg
File:Mother Curry in front of Camp Curry.jpeg
File:Dairy herd grazing in Yosemite Valley in 1918.jpeg
File:Fallen Monarch and F Troop of US Cavalry.jpeg
File:Hetch Hetchy Valley.jpg

Alt text added to all article images by mav, the only dead external link has been fixed and the only ambiguous link has been disambiguated. Tom B (talk) 14:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still have all the major sources used to write this article. Citing shouldn't be an issue. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 22:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments by Binksternet. I know this article is about all of Yosemite, but its treatment of Hetch Hetchy is scant. Binksternet (talk) 19:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • One initial impression is that the fight over Hetch Hetchy Valley is devoid of actors who first pushed for its use as a reservoir—there is only the Muir/Pinchot argument mentioned. How about SF Mayor (later Senator) James D. Phelan who used USGS surveyor Joseph B. Lippincott as his flunky, to establish rights to the river's water? Phelan filed for the water rights in his own name, not the city's. UC Berkeley professor Gray Brechin writes briefly of it here. Pinchot's involvement is not explained in the article; one would expect him to be on Muir's side from his avowed love of conservation, but he was instead aligned with Secretary of the Interior James R. Garfield and President Roosevelt, who backed Phelan's suggestion that the Hetch Hetchy Valley could be used for the betterment of the greater SF Bay Area, while preserving the Yosemite Valley from the same fate—the one sacrificed for the other.
      Other info used to expand that section. I'll try to add your suggested points later. But the detail should be in the Hetch Hetchy article. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 01:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      I think this is largely resolved now; any more detail is more appropriate for the Hetch Hetchy article. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 22:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Phelan and Lippincott now mentioned. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 02:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Plans are being studied for the removal of the dam, and alteration of the Hetch Hetchy water system to compensate for the resulting water loss." This sentence needs a cite, and a statement of which group is involved, and a dash of salt, as the chance of the dam actually being removed is exceedingly slim.
      Could not verify so sentence was removed. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 01:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The lead says the Sierra Club was involved in trying to save Hetch Hetchy, but the article section only mentions Muir.
      Sierra Club added with a cite. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 01:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Author Robert W. Righter argues that the battle over Hetch Hetchy catalyzed the whole notion of modern environmentalism, in his 2006 book The Battle over Hetch Hetchy: America's Most Controversial Dam and the Birth of Modern Environmentalism.
      Article now mentions importance of the fight to save Hetch Hetchy. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 02:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article does not mention Lake Eleanor in Yosemite, once included in SF City Engineer Carl E. Grunsky's proposal for two dams: one at Hetch Hetchy and one at Lake Eleanor. Later, he calculated the lake to be large enough to supply San Francisco's water needs for a century, without touching Hetch Hetchy. Grunsky and Phelan instead focused on damming Hetch Hetchy. SF owned the rights to all of Lake Eleanor's water, but abandoned them by not acting. Righter, 2006, p. 79.
      Article now mentions Lake Elanor. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 02:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The most intense personal battle of wills was between Muir and Phelan. Righter, 2006, p. 50.
      I think that is more appropriate for the Hetch Hetchy article. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 22:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hetch Hetchy water is so pure that it is exempt from filtration requirements.[2] San Franciscans, in general, appreciate the superb water they get. San Francisco's Anchor Brewing acknowledges the source of "fabulous water" that goes in their beers.[3]
      That is more appropriate for the Hetch Hetchy article. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 01:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No mention of how profitable the park concession has been. In 1988, concessioners pulled in $500M but paid the US $12.5M for the franchise.[4]
      Info added. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 02:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No mention of the history of the Yosemite Park & Curry Company, how it became a subsidiary of MCA along with Universal Pictures and Motown. Nothing about how Japanese conglomerate Matsushita bought MCA for $1.6B in 1990, and what effect that had on park operations. In 1992–1993, the concession changed back into US hands with a winning bid from Delaware North Companies. Delaware North Companies Parks and Resorts,[5] or DNC Parks and Resorts at Yosemite, Inc., is still the main concessioner, who employs some 1,800 people during summer peak season.[6]
      Info on Yosemite National Park Company and YP&CC (including the MCA purchase) added to the Curry Company info already in the article.--mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs)
      DNC mentioned. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 22:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No tracking of how many visitors per year at various points in the park's history.
      Info added. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 01:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the human impact section, there are no general statistics describing an overview of the reduction of animal and plant species over time, and in the same vein, no overview of the introduction of non-native species such as Yellow Star-Thistle.[7] Did any animal and plant populations suffer a dramatic decrease? An increase? All we have examples of are grizzlies and bighorns. How about fish? The Great Grey Owl, Pacific Fisher, Mount Lyell shrew and Yosemite Toad are endangered. The Peregrine Falcon is a success story.
      Peregrine Falcon, Great Grey Owl, Yellow Star-Thistle (and other invasive plants) mentioned. Decrease of native plant and animals mentioned. An article on the management of Yosemite's resources would contain detail on these topics. Still looking to add a bit more to this article though. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 20:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Diseases? When did White pine blister rust come to the sugar pines?
      Rust mentioned along with when it entered California. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 14:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No mention of fishing or hunting, skiing or boating. No mountain biking in the backcountry or regular bicycles in the valley; no white water rafting or rock-climbing. Since this is a history article, describing the introduction or cessation of various major recreational activities seems appropriate. When was the Badger Pass ski resort built? When did cross-country skiing treks start? When was the first golf course laid? The second? When did one of them disappear?
      Impact of fishing, hunting, skiing and golf added. Opening of Badger Pass, first golf course and closing of second added. Climbing and possibly other activities to be added but, with the exception of climbing, it may be difficult to put other activities in a historical perspective. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs)
      Mention of climbing and Camp 4 added. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs)
    • What years did the Cadillac dealership operate?
      That is more appropriate for the Yosemite Valley article. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 01:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • How much poaching historically; how much today?
      Poaching mentioned. I could not find any RS that specifically answers your question though... Any pointers? --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs)
    • How could they possibly cancel Firefall, an admittedly popular spectacle?
      Reason added. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 01:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • When did lumbering begin in the park? 1905? In the 1920s, the National Forest Service tried to take/seize/transfer 30,000 acres of Yosemite National Park lands, rich in sugar pine trees and including two important sequoia groves.[8] The article hints that lumbering petered out in the 1940s. However, some kinds of logging continue: as late as 2004 an injunction was made to stop logging in Yosemite Valley.[9]
      I looked but could not find a RS saying when logging began or ended in Yosemite. What we have are indications that logging started some time before Muir arrived and was banned outright in designated wilderness areas. I assume there has been some selected logging permitted outside the wilderness areas but can't confirm that. Any suggestions? --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 18:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I looked through the two relevant books I have, and came up empty on the extent and time frame of timber usage and logging. Binksternet (talk) 23:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The boundaries of Yosemite have changed over time. How, why and when?
      More info added about that. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 01:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Linda Greene's 1987 History should be used much more heavily as a very high quality reference.[10](PDF) or [11](HTML)
      Many cites from that work now added. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 22:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • In 2002, plans were thwarted that would have put an airliner-capable airport near Yosemite, to serve the area. Are there other significant plans that did not happen?
    • How much pavement has covered Yosemite over time? How many parking spaces?
      Mention of acreage under parking lots added. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 01:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • When was the jail built?
      Greene 1987, p. 561 gives a date of between 1880 and 1890 but also says that the jail has not historical significance. So it will not be mentioned in the article. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 22:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the suggestions! I'll address each point once I'm done citing the article in its current form. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 22:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the above is being addressed as I go through the sources I used to write this article. Still working. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 23:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some updates made above. Still working on addressing remaining issues. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 01:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Smashing work!! It gladdens the heart to see the article given new life. Binksternet (talk) 23:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks :) Science is more of a strong point for me than history; it is often hard for me to figure out what is important to mention. Your pointers have helped a lot. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 15:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was bold and went into the article to some proofing-type editing. On the whole I believe the article is comprehensive. I had printed the article on April 29 so I could read a paper copy and REALLY like the subsectioning and rearranging of the Human Impact section. Good job!! Bettymnz4 (talk) 17:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the kind words and edits! :) --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs)

FARC commentary[edit]

Featured article criteria of concern brought up in the FAR section include referencing, images and comprehensiveness. This has been at FAR for a month, so moving it here to give it a bit of a push. Dana boomer (talk) 22:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold - I'm still working. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 11:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep holding Lots more material added and article is getting a bit long. Longer sections will need to be reorganized and possibly condensed once the expansions are done. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 21:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please ping me when you're farther along and I'll have a look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll take another stab hopefully before the weekend if I'm not too tired after work. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 02:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Still needs quite a bit of referencing work and improvements, there are wholly uncited sections/paragraphs, etc etc. Hopefully this will soon be addressed and up to FA standards. -- Cirt (talk) 16:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    All paragraphs are cited now. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 22:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update - All paragraphs now cited at least once, all image concerns addressed, comprehensiveness concerns acted on or explained why they are not appropriate, article re-organizized, and citing done as far as I can see. I'm now happy with the article. Anything else needed? --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 22:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working in bits and pieces as I have time. Dates in citations are all messed up-- some are ISO, some are month day, year and some are day month year. Most of the image captions are incorrectly punctuated (WP:MOS#Captions). Also, logical punctuation, WP:PUNC. More recent history is a bad section heading, per WP:MOSDATE#Precise language. Ellipses have spaces, WP:MOS#Ellipses. I'll keep chipping away. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's some text in "Recreational activities" that doesn't seem related to History, and seems to belong in the main article, if anywhere. I'll work more on the text after the issues above are cleaned up-- pls ping me again if I forget! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed all of the minor MOS issues, save for the "more recent history" heading, which Mav will need to fix. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"More recent history" changed to "Mid 20th century and later." --mav (reviews needed) 19:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Stricken my above comment, nice work on the referencing improvements. -- Cirt (talk) 14:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. This is a considerable piece of work, and the citation issue has largely been addressed, but not quite. For instance, every direct quotation has to be cited, but this one from the More recent history section isn't: "Back then little regard was given to historic preservation, the thought being that the 'highest use' was preserving and restoring natural scenery." I'll leave you to ponder on what Tony1 might say about "the thought being", but I don't think he'd be eulogising over it.
    Rewritten to "Little regard was given to historic preservation; the highest use was thought to be the preservation and restoration of natural scenery." All quotes now cited. --mav (reviews needed) 19:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A few other points:

    • Some of the capitalisation doesn't seem consistent. For instance, throughout the article we see "Valley" and "valley", when apparently referring to the same thing, as in "... saw the major features of the Valley laid out before them (they named the overlook Mt. Beatitude). Attached to Savage's unit was Dr Lafayette Bunnell, the company physician who later wrote about his awestruck impressions of the valley". In addition, if it's going to be "Valley", then I don't see why it's not also "Park" when referring to the national park, rather than "park".
      Changed "the Valley" to "Yosemite Valley" in many places and simply de-capped Valley in others. A few "Grove"s fixed as well. --mav (reviews needed) 19:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Since then, 89% of the park has been set aside ...". The MoS suggests this and other similar occurences in the article ought to be written "89 percent".
      Fixed throughout article. --mav (reviews needed) 19:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The writing is still unclear and awkward in a few places. For instance, in the lead: "Access to the park by tourists improved in the early years of the park ...". Access by tourists improved? Shouldn't this be for tourists?
      Rewritten to "Conditions in Yosemite Valley were made more hospitable to humans and access to the park area were improved in the late 19th century." --mav (reviews needed) 19:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus Fatuorum 19:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments and edits - I'll address each point this weekend. --mav (reviews needed) 00:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Each point addressed and Malleus Fatuorum's edits used as a guide to find and fix similar issues. --mav (reviews needed) 02:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Demote. Poorly written. There's an awkwardness about the whole thing. Here are examples from the top. It needed a good, thorough treatment by copy-editors and others at the start of this process. Put it out to pasture and re-nominate, I think.

  • The opening sentence is faulty; this is not a good sign: "The known history of the Yosemite area started with Ahwahnechee and Paiute peoples who inhabited the ...". "the" after "with"; a comma before "who".
    Rewritten to "For over 3,000 years Sierra Miwok, Mono, Paiute, and other Native American groups have lived in the central Sierra Nevada region of California that now includes Yosemite National Park." --mav (reviews needed) 18:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second sentence: comma after "time" ... or ... I'm unsure what the intended meaning is. Um ... "When the first ... area in [when?]".
    Rewritten to "When European Americans first visited the Yosemite area, a band of Miwok-speaking Native Americans called the Ahwahnechee lived in Yosemite Valley." --mav (reviews needed) 18:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Were ceded to CF by whom or what? Oregon?
    Federal government added. --mav (reviews needed) 18:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jurisdiction was under? This is odd. "The park was first under the control of ...". But when? Forty years or four months before "1917"?
    Rewritten to "The U.S. 4th Cavalry Regiment had jurisdiction over the national park from 1891 to 1914, followed by a brief period of civilian stewardship." --mav (reviews needed) 18:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Euro-American" is unfamiliar: does it mean "European"?
    Changed to "European American" --mav (reviews needed) 18:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "California" not linked and then linked. First time (if at all, for such a well-known entity—isn't there a better link, to a section in or daughter article to the "California" article?).
    I hate the practice of linking to subsections. Link removed. --mav (reviews needed) 18:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where there's an "of" to the right put a "the" to the left: "The development and use of".
    Each instance of "of the" checked to see if that sentence was missing another "the" and fixed as needed. --mav (reviews needed) 20:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stubby sentence boundaries, for example: "James Savage was running a mining operation and trading camp on the Merced River 10 miles (16 km) west of Yosemite Valley by 1850.[12] He ran a similar camp near Mariposa."
    Mention of second camp deleted b/c it did not have a cite. First sentence changed to "James Savage ran a mining operation and trading camp on the Merced River 10 miles (16 km) west of Yosemite Valley." --mav (reviews needed) 18:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On Thursday, March 27, of that year"—bumpety-bump.
    Day of the week is not important so removed. Actual year added. --mav (reviews needed) 18:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tony (talk) 12:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • You, at least eventually, have indicated on each of my other FACs/FARs you have commented on that you were OK with the prose. So I don't see why I won't be able to copyedit this article to your liking. Will conduct a big copyedit session on Saturday. --mav (reviews needed) 00:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Specific points addressed above. I'll make sure to keep those in mind as I complete my copyedit to fix similar issues. --mav (reviews needed) 18:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update 2 Another big copyedit done. Prose is hopefully up to FA standard now. If not, please tell me what still needs to be fixed and I'll fix it. --mav (reviews needed) 23:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold since significant work is being done on the article and issues are being addressed.
Here are some things to look at after a quick look at some isolated parts:
"Administrators in the National Park Service felt that a single concessionaire in each national park would be more financially sound." Then later in the section it talks of concessionaires plural. Policy changed in the intervening time I presume but since the point was raised by the article it makes sense for it to be discussed more satisfactorily.
  • Changed to "Administrators in the National Park Service felt that limiting the number of concessionaires in each national park would be more financially sound." --mav (reviews needed) 17:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Expansion of recreational activities has also impacted the park environment." I'm not a fan of the verb impact and the form impacted in particular. I associate it with dentists giving bad news.
  • Changed to "Expansion of recreational activities has affected the park environment." --mav (reviews needed) 17:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Feeding and viewing of American black bears was encouraged by park concessionaires." When? Even today? Also discussion of brown and black bears might be better combined in the same paragraph. The intervening paragraph about other animals seems awkward.
  • When that was stopped is answered later in that paragraph. But I removed the sentence since it was redundant. Black bear para moved to be below brown bear para. Too much info for a single paragraph. --mav (reviews needed) 17:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Wildlife section doesn't seem to give an overall sense of the state of wildlife health and seems more like a patchwork of isolated facts. It's unclear if native wildlife diversity is going down, stabilizing, or rebounding. Are conservation efforts having any noticeable effect?
  • I'll see if I can find a RS to add a sentence about that, but this is a history article, not an article on wildlife management. --mav (reviews needed) 17:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked but could not find any comprehensive statement from a RS on the health of the Yosemite ecosystem or the overall effect that changes in policy have brought. All I can find are more examples of success stories and changes in policy whose aim is to advance preservation efforts. --mav (reviews needed) 16:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I may have changed some of these myself but I don't know if you'd prefer more control and to do it yourself during this review. If you don't mind my making my own edits, note that here and I'll make more proactive edits in the future if I see any quickly fixable items. Lambanog (talk) 13:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to copyedit all you like. :) I can't edit much at all during the week (brain is too tired after work to think much). But I will address each of your points this weekend. --mav (reviews needed) 01:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep referencing and other issues have now been sorted Tom B (talk) 00:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. I've had a look through this article again since I made my initial comments, and I agree with Tony1 that it remains awkwardly written. There's absolutely no doubt in my mind that if this was presented at FAC today then it would fail. I appreciate the work that's been done on this during the review, but there's a great deal more still to be done. Malleus Fatuorum 01:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Any specific examples? I addressed each point raised by you and Tony and used those as a guide to find and fix similar issues. Do I need to revisit those? I've never had a FAR or FAC fail due to prose issues. But I'd like to improve my writing as needed. --mav (reviews needed) 21:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I reviewed each of your edits to the article and conducted another copyedit to catch issues similar to those you fixed and others I found. --mav (reviews needed) 02:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revisited to spot-check.

  • "Galen Clark was appointed by the commission as the grant's first guardian but neither Clark nor the commissioners had the authority to evict homesteaders. Josiah Whitney, the first director of the California Geological Survey, lamented that Yosemite Valley may meet the same fate as Niagara Falls at the time; become a tourist trap where proprietary interests place tolls on every bridge, path, trail, and viewpoint." Desperately needs a comma before "but". Do you mean "may have met", or perhaps "would meet"? I can't get a handle on the temporal meaning. The semicolon—I can't work out the relationship between the before and after.
  • Revised to "The commission appointed Galen Clark as the grant's first guardian, but neither Clark nor the commissioners had the authority to evict homesteaders. Josiah Whitney, the first director of the California Geological Survey, lamented that Yosemite Valley would meet the same fate as Niagara Falls. At that time, Niagara Falls was a tourist trap that had tolls on every bridge, path, trail, and viewpoint." I think I get your point and will look for and fix other examples of missing commas and time inconsistency. --mav (reviews needed) 12:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "appropriated $60,000 to compensate the settlers.[38] Hutchings received $24,000 in compensation for his loss.[38]". A clearer relationship between the sentences would result from "appropriated $60,000 to compensate the settlers, of which Hutchings received $24,000.[38]" And the 38,38 consecutive ref tags are not desirable if one can avoid it.
    Done. I was trying to break-up a long sentence before but I'll look for and fix other similar issues. --mav (reviews needed) 13:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Access to the park and conditions in Yosemite Valley improved for tourists under Clark's on and off stewardship through 1896. Life on the valley floor was plagued by mosquitoes and the diseases they carry. So in 1878 Clark used dynamite to breach a recessional moraine in the valley that impounded a swamp behind it.[18] Tourism significantly increased after a Sacramento to Stockton extension of the First Transcontinental Railroad was completed in 1869 and the Central Pacific Railroad reached Merced in 1872."—"under Clark's on and off stewardship"—not compulsory, but I'd be inclined to hyphenate "on-and-off". But more serious is my inability to piece together the meaning of those four sentences. Perhaps it's my problem, not that of the prose, but ... (1) something good arose from his on-and-off stewardship? OK, but it's not straightforward. (2) "impounded" is hard to get ... do you mean "that had been trapping the waters that formed the swamp", or something like that? (3) So was it the dissipation of the swamp, the mosquitos and the disease that led to the increase in tourism, or was it the completion of the railroad. Or both. My head is spinning. (4) 1896 then we fling back in time, confusingly.
  • Revised to: "Conditions in Yosemite Valley and access to the park improved under Clark's on-and-off stewardship through 1896. In 1878, Clark used dynamite to breach a recessional moraine in the valley to drain a swamp behind it.[18] Tourism significantly increased after a Sacramento to Stockton extension of the First Transcontinental Railroad was completed in 1869 and the Central Pacific Railroad reached Merced in 1872." I'll try to find other cases of confusing prose and fix that as well. --mav (reviews needed) 13:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's the first three paras in my spot-check. I'm sorry, I feel like a heel, but I really think this prose is not of FA standard. And it's been here for two and half months? Tony (talk) 14:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll fix each of those examples and look for and fix similar issues. --mav (reviews needed) 12:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similar issues found and fixed. Lots of commas added to distinguish independent clauses joined by conjunctions, dates, and quotes. I think fixing these commas significantly addresses the "awkward prose" concern. --mav (reviews needed) 16:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold - Still working on fixing remaining prose issues. Big yard project this past weekend took up all my free time, and energy. :) --mav (reviews needed) 00:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looks very good to me. I like how much it has improved. —hike395 (talk) 10:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update 3 I have commented on and tried to address all above concerns. I think the main current objection, to "awkward prose," mostly stems from missing commas. Many commas have been added and several extensive copyedits conducted. These copyedits not only attempted to address specific examples brought up, but tried to find and fix similar issues that were not mentioned.
At this point, I could really use the help of an experienced copyeditor again to check the prose, since I've read and edited the prose so many times that is becoming difficult to find additional things to fix. I want to improve my writing, so specific examples from the article along with what rule of grammar is being violated will be most helpful. Direct edits are also welcome; I will make sure to study them to learn. It is hard to find sentences that are hard to understand when you already have memorized the meaning behind those sentences. --mav (reviews needed) 16:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. A lot of recent work has gone into this, and I think the improvements have really helped the article. I do not think, however, that the prose can be whipped and smoothed into shape such that the article tells the reader a compelling story about how the Yosemite area took shape. As it stands, the article is a patchwork quilt of themes; all of them important, but none following a sort of journey that takes the reader from place to place, event to event, carrying him along with eagerness to read the next sentence. I am proud of the article—it delivers the right amount of information—but I cannot see approving it for FA. Binksternet (talk) 03:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please be more specific. What type of "themes" are you talking about? If they are content themes, then it would seem that removing some themes and concentrating on others will lead to comprehensiveness issues. If the "themes" you mention are organizational, then I see at least one valid point concerning the ==Human impact== section, which does not follow a semi-chronological order. Everything above that section *does* follow a semi-chronological order, which seems to me to be a good way to organize a history article. I've long wanted to move that section to its own article and merge much of the historical info into the rest of this article. I will try to address your concerns either way. Just please be more specific to make your declaration actionable. --mav (reviews needed) 23:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did another copyedit, this time from the end of the article to the start of it, to force myself to look at the text with a more fresh eye. Some more issues were fixed as a result. --mav (reviews needed) 02:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article gives a nice historical overview of the Yosemite area. Hyphenation does not always comply with MOS:HYPHEN. I will go into the article and make the corrections with detailed notes in the comment area. Bettymnz4 (talk · contribs)
Keep Seems that I haven't expressed an opinion yet, so here it is: Issues brought up during the FAR, lack of citations, content and image problems, have been addressed. Issues with prose brought up during FARC have been addressed by several extensive copyedits. I took care to look for and fix other issues similar to the specific examples brought up. Whether or not these efforts are adequate remain to be seen, but I will continue to address specific and actionable issues. --mav (reviews needed) 02:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have completed an additional round of copy editing (Sorry about the commas, Mav; they didn't work). Good luck with the review. :-)) --Diannaa TALK 00:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Mav, it would probably benefit you to ping the users above who have voted to delist and work closely with them until you at least get their delists stricken, if not an outright support. An article is not going to be kept here with three outstanding delists, especially from such experienced FA-writers as Malleus and Tony. Dana boomer (talk) 01:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taking this one at a time. Tony pinged. --mav (reviews needed) 17:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Still waiting for Tony... --mav (reviews needed) 13:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While we wait for Tony, I pinged Lambanog. --mav (reviews needed) 03:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No need to ping me. My delist vote stands, I'm sorry to say. I have hunted for actionable advice, but I didn't find enough to make me think it could be fixed. I think the qualities of this article are such that it will never be able to smoothly tell the tale of the history of the area. I think that with the varied sources and the many topics covered, it will always be jumpy and patchwork in its prose. I fully support it as a GA article, but not FA. Binksternet (talk) 06:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait a minute. The use of many different sources and covering many different aspects of a topic are exactly what is called for in the FA criteria. If you can't be more specific on how that harms the flow of the prose, then I think your delist declaration is not actionable. --mav (reviews needed) 11:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update 4 - All specific and actionable concerns have been (hopefully adequately) addressed and used as examples to fix similar issues that were not specifically mentioned. Other copyeditors have also helped. We are just waiting for those people who mentioned those issues to either strike their delist or hold declarations or provide more actionable and specific items that need to be fixed. --mav (reviews needed) 14:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - Frankly, terrible sourcing.
    • File:Cross-country-skiing-2-6.jpg - Needs a verifiable source per WP:IUP.
      • But the file is PD-Self and uploaded by the copyright owner. --mav (reviews needed) 23:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • We can't rely on the copyright tag. Did the uploader take the picture him/herself, upload it for a friend, find it on a website? There needs to be an explicit assertion of authorship. Эlcobbola talk 14:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Stephen Mather and WB Lewis in Yosemite in 1925.jpg - Albright died in 1987. Copyvio?
      • Albright was an employee of the NPS at the time; changed tag to PD-NPS. --mav (reviews needed) 23:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Does the source indicate that this was taken in performance of his official duties? Эlcobbola talk 14:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've never seen any government photo make such a claim. Albright would visit national parks as part of his official duties. Given the subject of the photo, reviewing a road route, I doubt that he was on a social call when he took this photo. But I commented out the image pending confirmation of PD status. --mav (reviews needed) 01:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Fallen Monarch and F Troop of US Cavalry.jpeg - If the author is unspecified, what is the basis for claiming government authorship?
      • Scanned from an NPS guidebook, which itself is PD (and the image is not listed as being under a separate copyright in that book; the book says that the default is that the image is part of the park's collection). It is also a photo of a U.S. military unit so this might be PD-USMil, but since we don't know, the generic PD-USGov seems appropriate. --mav (reviews needed) 23:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The US government is not precluded from holding copyrights, so being in the collection in and of itself isn't sufficient. When was the guidebook first published? It may be PD if it was published before a certain date without notice or if the notice wasn't renewed. Эlcobbola talk 14:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:John Muir Cane.JPG - Source says taken in 1907. Creation is not the same as publication. What is the basis for claiming pre-1.1.1923 publication?
      • I can't find the original publication, so commented image out. --mav (reviews needed) 23:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Pillsbury photo of Yosemite Valley.jpg - Arthur Clarence Pillsbury died in 1946. Why is it being claimed he's been dead more than 70 years? PD-US would be appropiate for 1922 publication.
    • File:Lafayette Bunnell 1880.jpg - In the US, author lifetime is only relevant for non-published works. This is a published work. Why is a PMA tag being used?
    • File:Yosemite Valley from Inspiration Point in Yosemite NP.JPG - Needs a verifable source.
    • File:Miwok-Paiute ceremony in 1872 at current site of Yosemite Lodge.jpeg - Why is PMA +70 being used when the author is unknown? Эlcobbola talk 12:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Scanned from PD NPS booklet and not listed at end as having restricted copyright. Changed to PD-USGov. --mav (reviews needed) 23:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Is there a general authorship disclaimer? Appearance in a government work does not necessarily mean a work isn't copyrighted or of government authorship. Эlcobbola talk 14:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus pinged while we wait for Tony and Lambanog. --mav (reviews needed) 19:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting for Malleus, Tony and Lambanog. --mav (reviews needed) 01:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments. While this has undoubtedly been improved during the months it's been here I still think that it's awkwardly written and doesn't meet the prose requirements for an FA. Sure, most of the sentences are technically correct now from a grammatical perspective, but there's no cohesion between them. The whole article reads like an almost random collection of loosely related facts with no thought given to creating any kind of narrative flow. An example:

Scotland-born naturalist John Muir first came to California in March 1868 and immediately set out for the Yosemite area. Muir studied the area's plants, rocks, and animals in mid-1869 while employed by rancher Pat Delaney to accompany his sheep and sheepherder. Muir operated Hutchings' sawmill after working for Delaney. Articles written by Muir helped to popularize the area and increase scientific interest in it. Muir was one of the first to theorize that the major landforms in Yosemite Valley were created by large alpine glaciers. This view contradicted established scientists such as Josiah Whitney who regarded Muir as an amateur (see geology of the Yosemite area). Muir also wrote scientific papers on the area's biology.

He came to California? That implies the article was written in California. Why is it relevant to the history of the Yosemite area that Muir operated Hutching's sawmill after working for Delaney? Does it matter to this article where he was born? We're not told where many other of the characters described here were born. If I want to know any of Muir's personal details I can click on his link. Paring this down to its essentials and combining what are clearly two related and too small paragraphs we might get something like this:

Immediately following his arrival in California in March 1868, naturalist John Muir set out for the Yosemite area, where he found work tending to the sheep owned by a local rancher, Pat Delaney. Muir's employment provided him with the opportunity to study the area's plants, rocks, and animals; the articles and scientific papers he wrote describing his observations helped to popularize the area and to increase scientific interest in it. Muir was one of the first to suggest that Yosemite Valley's major landforms were created by large alpine glaciers, contradicting the view of established scientists such as Josiah Whitney, who regarded Muir as an amateur.

I'm not suggesting that's perfect, and I'm sure it could be improved, but I am suggesting that there's a sense of narrative flow in it that's missing from the original. There are also still some straightforward discrepancies that I wouldn't expect to be seeing after all these months. For instance why is it "central Sierra Miwoks" but "Southern Sierra Miwoks"? Surely both should be capitalised, or not? Perhaps strangest of all, after having read this article several times I still have no clear idea of what is meant by "Yosemite area". Is it the Yosemite Valley, a part of the valley, the area around the valley, or something else?

Copyediting, in my opinion anyway, isn't just about checking the spelling and grammar, it's about checking the overall quality of the writing as well. I'm afraid that this article still needs a lot of work. Malleus Fatuorum 12:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking another look and suggesting changes. I get your point and will edit the article accordingly. --mav (reviews needed) 13:51, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow - thanks for all the edits! I'll let you finish and will make sure to use those as examples as well. --mav (reviews needed) 16:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just be popping in and out from time to time, so feel to press on. I just wanted to offer a few more examples of the kind of thing I'm talking about, and how I'd go about trying to get a better narrative flow. One thing that I think really does need to be clarified right at the start of the lead is where exactly this Yosemite area actually is. Is it the area now covered by the park, for instance? Despite my comments above, I'd really prefer to see this article improved to the point where I could in all conscience at least strike my oppose, especially after all the hard work you've put into trying to save it. Who knows, keep at it and I might be persuaded. Malleus Fatuorum 17:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Process started. More work this weekend. Thank you again for all the edits! --mav (reviews needed) 21:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Edit pass done, using your edits as a guide. What else is needed? --mav (reviews needed) 21:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment File:Dairy herd grazing in Yosemite Valley in 1918.jpeg has questionable licensing. It's sourced to a 1989 publication, yet claims to have been published before 1923. I've no doubt that the source indeed dates the photo to 1918, but it's atypical that a listed date would be publication. I suspect, rather, that the 1918 is the date of creation, which is irrelevant to the determination of PD status of published works. As I can't review the source, however, I don't know for certain that this is so (i.e. won't vote delist), but it is something that ought to be confirmed by the uploader. Эlcobbola talk 17:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Source is not clear so I removed the photo. Thanks for striking resolved issues. --mav (reviews needed) 21:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I suggest we keep this FA status for now, there is no additional comments about it. --JJ98 (talk) 18:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article has been steadily and significantly improved since the Review was started. All significant issues have now been addressed. Jayjg (talk) 05:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update 5 Malleus Fatuorum graciously completed a copyedit to fix many flow-related issues throughout the article. I used that as an example to look for an fix similar issues. What else still needs to be fixed? --mav (reviews needed) 22:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Mav has done some good work during this review, sufficient to persuade my to strike my delist vote. Malleus Fatuorum 23:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/History_of_the_Yosemite_area/archive1&oldid=1138477122"