Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:09, 23 February 2015

Rose–Baley Party has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: February 16, 2015. (Reviewed version).

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

United States: Old West Unassessed Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject American Old West.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 23:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Taking this review as requested - should have this to you within a day or two ☯ Jaguar ☯ 23:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry this one is taking so long - I have limited internet access. I'll complete this by tomorrow morning! ☯ Jaguar ☯ 21:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

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

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

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

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

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Initial comments

• I could find no issues with the lead - it summarises the article well and complies per WP:LEAD
• "and Beale named the location where they crossed the river, en route to California" - why is 'en route' italicized here?

I thought it should be as a foreign phrase, but it's probably so common this isn't necessary, so I removed them. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• Should the image in the Formation section be at the top instead of the middle? I'm not sure as I think it would depend on the monitor resolution...

I agree; done. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• "which, although 8,000 to 9,000 feet in elevation" - all measurements should be converted to their mertric equivalent using the conversion template ({{convert|8000|ft}})

Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• "carved their names into stone – a tradition dating back to 1605" - this part needs a citation, as 1605 is very specific!

Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• "reported that they had found water seventeen miles" - this would probably read better as reported that they had found water 17 miles (27 km) (using the conversion template)
• "Several white men were felled by arrows and clubs as the women frantically fled with their young ones" - little informal, children?

I agree; done. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Jaguar, I've addressed your above concerns with this series of edits. Please let me know if there is anything more I need to do regarding the GAN. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

References

• According to the toolserver these references are missing access dates. But other than the references pass the GA criteria

Are access dates required for google book links? Rationalobserver (talk) 17:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

On hold

This is an excellent article and it is also very well written, hence the short review again! Sorry for the wait too, it never takes me this long to review articles but it's only due to me having internet issues. I'll leave this on hold for you, so once the minor issues are out of the way then this article should have no problem passing the GAN! ☯ Jaguar ☯ 17:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Close - promoted

Thank you for your improvements once again! Don't worry about those access dates for Google books, as they're usually inplaced when references are first formatted - but it's not a worry for this GAN. I feel that some reviewers are too pushy for that, but nevertheless this is an excellent article and meets the criteria as it is. Well done! ☯ Jaguar ☯ 22:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Jaguar! It was really nice of you to take the time to review this article and Irataba. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing concerns

I'm about to tag this article for close paraphrasing/copyvio. The source is online here and in the first 10-11 pages I found the instances below. Pinging Moonriddengirl for advice about how to proceed. Victoria (tk) 17:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• page ix

Source: "The Mojave Road was an extension of Beale's Wagon Road from the Colorado River to San Bernandino and Los Angeles". (p. ix)

Article: "The Mojave Road stretches from where Beale's Wagon Road meets the Colorado River to San Bernardino and Los Angeles, California."

The source material is not creative enough; i.e.; there aren't any other ways to say this road ran from here to there. Per WP:NONENGPLAG "phrases that are the simplest and most obvious way to present information; sentences such as "John Smith was born on 2 February 1900" lack sufficient creativity to require attribution". Rationalobserver (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm also not sure there is a clear way to express this that is substantially different I, JethroBT 23:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• page 2

Source: "L. J. Rose was born in Rottenburg, Germany, on May 1, 1827. When he was eight years old, he immigrated to the United States" (p.2)

Article: Rose was born in Rottenburg, Germany in 1827; he immigrated to the United States when he was eight years old.

Again, this is basic information that is not creative. Per WP:NONENGPLAG "phrases that are the simplest and most obvious way to present information; sentences such as "John Smith was born on 2 February 1900" lack sufficient creativity to require attribution". Rationalobserver (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Something like At the age of eight, he immigrated to the United States might work, but I overall agree that this also falls under WP:NONENGPLAG. I, JethroBT 23:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• page 3

Source: "After selling most of his property and settling his debts, Rose had a net worth of more than $30,000, a small fortune in those days." (p. 3)

Article: "Rose sold most of his property and settled his debts, amassing what was then a small fortune of $30,000. "

I agree that this is too close, but it's just a listing of facts that lack creativity. Rose sold most of his property and settled his debts is the simplest way to convey those basic facts. I've now paraphrased this. It was a simple fix. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

To finance the venture, Rose sold the majority of his assets, and after paying-off his debts was left with $30,000, then a considerable amount of money. is the current version, and I think it is an improvement. Paraphrasing aside, I think getting rid of terms like "small fortune" is good since it comes off as somewhat idiomatic. I, JethroBT 23:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Source: "He was able to put together one of the best equipped wagon outfits ever to travel the western plains. He purchased a herd of 200 of the best cattle on the market, mostly thoroughbred Red Durhams. He knew he could sell these animals in California for a hefty profit. For driving the loose stock, and for scouting and hunting, he purchased twenty of the finest horses that he could find in Iowa and Missouri, including a Morgan stallion, Black Morrill, valued at $2,500 and two matching Morgan fillies at $350 each (p.3 )

Article: "This enabled him to finance one of the best equipped wagon trains of the era, including an animal stock that featured two Morgan fillies, valued at $350 each, and a Morgan stallion named Black Morrill, valued at $2,500. He also purchased twenty of Iowa and Missouri's finest trotting horses and two hundred head of thoroughbred red Durham cattle, which he planned to resell in California for profit. "

Ditto. "small fortune" is a common term, i.e.: "use of common expressions and idioms". Rationalobserver (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

This has been re-worked. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

This is currently, These funds enabled him to finance an especially well-equipped wagon train that included an animal stock featuring two Morgan fillies and a Morgan stallion named Black Morrill; their combined value exceeded $3,000. He also purchased twenty trotting horses and two hundred head of thoroughbred red Durham cattle, which he planned to resell in California for profit. To complete the train, Rose acquired four large covered wagons and six oxen to pull them. I'm satisfied this description is sufficiently different than the source text. I, JethroBT 23:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• page 4

Source: "Rose purchased four large prairie schooner-type wagons, each with high sideboards and covered by a heavy painted canvas … Three yokes of oxen were required to pull these stout but ponderous vehicles … Three of these prairie schooners were used for carrying equipment and supplies, while the fourth was used by the Alpha Brown family … For transporting his own family, and his inlaws, Rose purchased an old ambulance, pulled by two mules". (p. 4)

Article: "To complete the train, Rose acquired four large prairie schooner covered wagons and three yoke of oxen to pull the massive vehicles. Three of the schooners carried equipment and supplies, and the fourth was used by Alpha Brown and his family. Rose's family traveled in a small wagon known as an ambulance, which was pulled by two mules."

This one is a little close, but again, it's relying very basic and non-creative information. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I've reworked it some, it's farther from the source now. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Current phrasing is, To complete the train, Rose acquired four large covered wagons and six oxen to pull them. Three were loaded with supplies, and the fourth was used by Alpha Brown and his family. Rose's family traveled in a small wagon known as an ambulance, which was pulled by a yoke of mules. I think this is sufficient rephrasing from the source. I, JethroBT 23:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• page 5

Source: "The Rose company left Van Buren County, Iowa, in early April of 1858. They set their course for Westport (present-day Kansas City, Missouri) where they crossed the Missouri River by steamboat" (p. 5)

Article: "The Rose company left Iowa in early April; their first significant destination was Kansas City, Missouri, then named Westport, where they crossed the Missouri River on a steamboat"

Same. There is no way to paraphrase this without losing meaning. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

How would you paraphrase this? Rationalobserver (talk) 22:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

How about this: which they reached via steamboat across the Missouri River. I, JethroBT 23:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• page 8, 10, 11

Source: "During the spring of 1858 four families from Missouri were also making preparation to emigrate to California. These were the two Baley and the two Hedgpeth famiies" (p. 8) "Another factor that may have encouraged these families to leave Missouri in 1858 was the unsettling times that existed on the Kansas-Missouri border as result of the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska act of 1854. This legislation admitted Nebraska into the Union as a free territory, but provided for the people of Kansas Territory to decide for themselves whether they wanted to be organized as a free or as a slave territory. (p. 10) The result was what might have been expected-open warfare between pro-slavery and anti-slavery forces … The Territory became known as "Bleeding Kansas" so great was the violence. Soon the conflict began to spill over the border into the western counties of Missouri, including Nodaway" (p. 11)

Article: "In April 1858, four families from northwestern Missouri – two Baleys and two Hedgpeths – left for California. Several factors influenced their decision to leave the Midwest, including the Kansas–Nebraska Act, which granted Nebraska admittance into the Union as a free territory and Kansas the right to determine whether they would be free or slave-holding. The resulting tensions between pro-slavery and anti-slavery groups drove conflict near the Missouri border, with Kansas earning the unofficial nickname, "Bleeding Kansas". The ensuing violence spilled over into Missouri's western counties, including Nodaway."

I agree that the last sentence is too close, but you've locked down the page now, so these simple fixes will have to wait. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Currently this is, Two Baley and two Hedgpeth families from northwestern Missouri also left for California in early 1858. They were political and economic reasons for them to leave the Midwest, including the Kansas–Nebraska Act, which granted Nebraska admittance into the Union as a free territory and Kansas the right to determine whether they would be free or slave-holding. The resulting tensions between pro-slavery and anti-slavery groups drove conflict near the Missouri state line, with Kansas earning the unofficial nickname, "Bleeding Kansas". The ensuing violence affected Missouri's western counties, including Nodaway, where the Baleys and Hedgpeths lived.

I would suggest the following to rephrase the description of the Kansas-Nebraska Act: Political and economic factors prompted two Baley and two Hegpeth families to leave from northwestern Missouri for California in early 1858. One major factor was the enactment of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which admitted Nebraska into the Union as a free territory and granted Kansas the right to decide on the legality of slavery within the state. I, JethroBT 23:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• These threads are relevant: , , and . Rationalobserver (talk) 20:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Much of the bold text is non-creative common knowledge and or terminology. Like, "Beale's Wagon Road from the Colorado River to San Bernandino and Los Angeles", "L. J. Rose was born in Rottenburg, Germany, on May 1, 1827", "Morgan stallion, Black Morrill, valued at $2,500", "thoroughbred red Durham cattle", "Rose acquired four large prairie schooner covered wagons", "where they crossed the Missouri River by steamboat", "the Kansas–Nebraska Act", "pro-slavery and anti-slavery groups". A goof 50% of the supposed close paraphrasing is comprised of generic common terms. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Copyright clerk comment

Rationalobserver, you can work on a re-write of the affected section on a temporary page by clicking on this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Rose-Baley_Party/Temp&action=edit&preload=Template:Copyvio/preload

Having said that, while there is possibly some over-close paraphrasing in that section which could be improved, it does not remotely rise to the level of a copyright violation. And in several cases listed above, I would dispute that the paraphrasing is overly close. Blanking it with the copyright violation template was excessive in my view. At most {{Close paraphrasing}} should have been added to the section so that the material could be re-worked where necessary. Clerks who aren't admins, e.g. me, can only remove the blanking template after it has been in place for five days. If an admin doesn't deal with this first, I'll revisit the article and the temp page in five days and deal with it myself. Voceditenore (talk) 18:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I didn't realize we had a close paraphrasing template; that would have been helpful to know about. Do we advertise these things? At any rate, I had no idea that template was quite so draconian or that it would "blank" as you say, but once I hit save I couldn't go back. I don't object to having an uninvolved admin remove. Re the close paraphrasing, I've re-formatted the above, and keep in mind that's only a single section of the article using a single source. Today I went through about half of the next section with the same results - all from the same source - so I don't fully agree with your assessment. I'll post the rest when things calm down a bit. Victoria (tk) 03:56, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Adding: to put into perspective, the article is in excess of 4000 words and it appears to use seven sources. But Zappia is only used in a note, Kroeger's FN52 (a) fails verification, Bonsai is used in a very long quote, Woodward used for a single short sentence, and Ricky used for a single sentence. All the rest comes from a single source and so far all the material checked from the single source bears a close relationship to the text. The sourcing in its entirety needs to be taken into consideration. Victoria (tk) 04:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Victoriaearle, you are once again mistaken. Kroeber & Kroeber, page 53 states: "One of the chiefs, upon hearing that California was the promised land, seemed to not believe that the whites did mean to move on." Which does indeed support the preceding prose: "The emigrants sensed that the chief who granted them passage was hiding something". I think you are not the best judge of this article, and I am respectfully requesting that you un-watch this page and leave me to improve it with the help of others. The close paraphrases will be ironed out in due time, but there are no pressing issues here that require such intensive supervision, especially not from you considering our recent history. Is that acceptable? Rationalobserver (talk) 17:19, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I oversimplified for the sake of brevity. Let me explain. First, Kroeber is a reprint, but the g-book version doesn't show (at least to me) a copyright page. He died in 1960 and the bulk of his work about California native tribes was written in the mid-1920s so somehow the book's publication history has to be pinned down. Beyond that, we can't know who said what or who thought what in the mid-1850s so it can't be in Misplaced Pages's voice. A better practice is to attribute - and this is why the dates are important- something along the lines of in 19xx anthropologist Kroeber wrote blah blah, and put the "blah blah" in quotations. Then you're pinning directly to the source. The same holds true of the Baley source. I could have missed it, but how do we know what Udell said? When I was reading the book, I noted a lot of quotes from him. Did he leave a journal that one of the Baley descendent used? If so, that would be interesting to add and by doing so it builds distance directly from WP's voice - in other words assert that such and such Baley says or writes that Udell said blah blah, or "blah blah". Having to attribute in this manner doesn't always make for the best or smoothest writing style but it's the best way to really understand our referencing requirements on GA and particularly FA articles. To be honest, I don't think your GA reviewer did you a favor, but that's often typical when the Wikicup is in full swing. Anyway I hope this make sense and clarifies my earlier comment. I'll cross post your page too, since you asked there for me to step away. Victoria (tk) 18:59, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

All I ask is that you give me some space, as you are the absolutely wrong person to try to force mentor me, especially at this time. I'll go through the article top to bottom looking for close paraphrasing and missing attribution before bringing it to peer review, but I'd strongly prefer that you left me alone. Had you used the ctrl+f function for "journal", you would see that the article states: "Udell, a 62-year-old Baptist minister who had left his home in Missouri with his wife, Emily, kept a daily journal of the party's travels, recording the locations of their campsites and their estimated distance from Missouri, the weather and road conditions, and the availability of grass, water, and wood." I'll study up on Misplaced Pages attribution expectations and seek guidance from other, such as Moonriddengirl, who has advised me in the past. But please don't continue to confront my work after what you put me through this week. Okay? Rationalobserver (talk) 19:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Victoria, the template {{Close paraphrasing}} is featured rather prominently at Misplaced Pages:Close paraphrasing in the section on addressing concerns. It's very useful for situations like this. I want to stress that deciding when paraphrasing is too close is a judgment call and not a cut and dried science. People will differ in their judgement. Problems can definitely result where an article is largely based on a single source. Special care has to be taken. However, in this case there are virtually no other comprehensive secondary sources about the party apart from that by Charles W. Baley. The Michno source is based on his book, for example. The road West: saga of the 35th Parallel (University of New Mexico Press, 1980) looks like it may have some useful material, although it's only in snippet view on Google Books. Thus, the number of available sources is somewhat restricted. There is also the problem that a historical narrative will inevitably follow a fixed sequence of events, with fixed participants (who have rather fixed key characteristics), leaving little wiggle room.

Having said all that, I think one of the issues here is that the narrative in the WP article is too detailed and often ascribes emotions/thoughts/reactions/motivations to the participants. It is also rather heavy on adjectives. In this sense, it follows the style, if not exact wording or sentence structure, of the Baley source and ends up having a similar "feel". But Baley was writing a chronicle and rather in the style of a "ripping yarn" based on John Udell's diaries and interviews with descendants of the party. An encyclopedia article should be more pared down, dry, and boring (for want of a better word)—especially since Baley's book is online for readers who want a detailed blow-by-blow account.

Another source that could be useful for improving the article and is online in full view is John Udell Journal, kept during a trip across the plains, containing account of the massacre of a portion of his party by the Mojave Indians in 1859. Although arguably this is approaching a primary source, it also has an introduction written in 1945. There is also some material at this database of newspaper articles related to the history of Solano County, California.

I'm going to recommend replacing the CopyVio blanking template with {{Close paraphrasing}} so that the article can be improved in situ, possibly using some of the sources I've mentioned without the complication of a temp page and history merge. Does this sound like a plan? Voceditenore (talk) 19:14, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

PS. I also agree very much with Victoria that in-text attribution would help create more of an encyclopedic distance as well as help the article comply with proper attribution. It might even be useful to go into more detail about Baley's book itself: how it was written, on what it was based, etc. There's a detailed review of it in The Journal of Arizona History, available on JSTOR here. Voceditenore (talk) 19:25, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice and the links to sources. I'll certainly heed your comments. Are you willing to stick around and monitor my progress here over the next month or so? Rationalobserver (talk) 19:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

@Victoriaearle: what do you mean the GA reviewer didn't do any favours? I took this GAN along with Irataba as requested and as a GA reviewer I take a conventional approach on prose first and everything else after. The article was well written and comprehensive; I think those are the two main qualities a reader is looking for. I would like to make it clear that reviewing this has nothing to do with the WikiCup, but with that being said, I never take the WikiCup seriously! I don't want to get involved with the dispute here or over at the SPI, but I am puzzled why I didn't do Rationalobserver any favours? Don't worry, this isn't any kind of retaliation, I'm just curious... ☯ Jaguar ☯ 22:13, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Jaguar, by not doing any favours, I think she means that you didn't provide useful feedback about the quality of the sources, the lack of appropriate citations, and the quality of the prose. This led Rationalobserver to think that her article was ready for FAC when it wasn't, triggering all kinds of concerns.

Did you apply each of the six criteria in WP:GACR? The thing is, an article based almost entirely on a single source really can't be neutral or avoid original research (Criteria 2 and 4), because the editor is relying on that one point of view and source for facts and tone. And it requires weaving and composing an article from this one source, in this case Charles Baley, so as to avoid plagiarism. If he is a professional historian, his work will be cited in other sources such as textbooks, journal articles etc., where there may be contrasting points of view. Also the citations are misleading (Criteria 2). For example, there is extensive information that is "according to Udell's journal", but it all comes from Bailey as the citations indicate. A reader may not realise this, if they don't look at the footnotes and readers mostly don't. As Voceditenore says above, this article "ends up having a similar feel" to Baley, who wrote rather in the style of a "ripping yarn", heavy on adjectives and details.

As for Kroeber, he was a cultural anthropologist, not a historian, and studied Native American's in California and elsewhere, primarily looking at cultural artefacts. Kroeber is not a source for American history. According to the google link provided in the references, this was written in 1903.

Further, the "Notes" section gives really detailed info, unnecessary in my opinion, and although they give the appearance of scholarship, are also from Baley. EChastain (talk) 00:30, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The Kroeber & Kroeber book was first published in 1973. I'm curious, EChastain, did you used to have another account or did you edit as an IP? Rationalobserver (talk) 00:50, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, EChastain. I've had a look through the article and can still confirm the prose itself is looking good, if not better from the GAN. Regarding the incorrect picture, which image did you mean? If it's the lead image, one can argue that it's representitive of the Old West era, even if the dates do not match whatever is in the article, it is still portraying the 'theme' of this article. I've reviewed a few articles in a similar situation, for example a picture of a 'community' denotes a picture of people working together. I always apply each of the six criteria in every GAN, as I put a template above every review. A transition from Start, C, or B class to GA is a 'stepping stone' for FA, so naturally there are always problems in a GA that FA reviewers notice. RO can always submit this for a peer review, but given the amount of comments here it seems that it doesn't need one. I'm always happy to help out if needed. Regards ☯ Jaguar ☯ 17:25, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• Hi folks. I was asked by Rationalobserver to evaluate the concerns with phrasing here. I've removed the prior copyright violation tag and replaced it with one about close paraphrasing, which the concerns here seem to be more consistent with. The initial tag is generally used when content requires immediate blanking, because it is blatant and wholesale copy-and-pasting from a copyrighted source. That does not appear to be the case here. I agree with Voceditenore's assessment that the article can be improved through discussion here; a separate draft is not necessary to address these concerns. I do not have time at this moment to evaluate the actual concerns with prose, but I will start to do that later today and tomorrow. I, JethroBT 19:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments by EChastain

A few more tips that are meant to be helpful, if you choose to accept them:

The book may have been published in 1973, but Kroeber died in 1960. According to the Google link you provided in the article: "In 1903, a noted anthropologist, Alfred Kroeber, collaborated with his son . . ."

I have a print copy in front of me, and it was first published in 1973. Yes A.L. died before that, but that's why the book has two authors, A.L., and his son C.B., who put the work together for publishing after his father's death. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:03, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Kroeber was of the school of cultural anthropologists that sympathised overly with their subjects, contrary to methods of postmodern cultural anthropology, so his statement can be seen as biased and in no way factual.

Disaster at the Colorado: Beale's Wagon Road and the First Emigrant Party, the source for this article, was written by Charles Baley whose great grandparents and their children, as well as his great-great uncle and his wife and children, were in the party. Baley had heard tales from his father and his relatives, according to the first page of his preface to the book. So maybe the article would benefit from refocusing. It could be about the book and how he wrote it, begining with his interest in his family's genealogy, if you can find reviews of the book. In any event, you'll need more sources, as it's hard to justify a whole article based on a single source that has no index.

I suggest that you remove the Category:Trains that puts the article in with various types of trains. (If you look in the category you'll see what I mean.)

Also, according to the GA criteria, "mages must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic." The lede image captioned "European American homesteaders, c. 1866" has nothing to do with the lede sentence about an event that took place nearly 20 years before and in a different area of the country: "The Rose-Baley Party was the first European American emigrant wagon train to traverse the 35th parallel route known as Beale's Wagon Road, established by Edward Fitzgerald Beale, from Zuni Pueblo, New Mexico to the Colorado River near present-day Needles, California." (The image description: "The Covered Wagon of the Great Western Migration. 1886 in Loup Valley, Nebr." A family poses with the wagon in which they live and travel daily during their pursuit of a homestead.")

The image of Edward Fitzgerald Beale is almost certainly the wrong man, per the link to the name. "Edward Fitzgerald Beale (February 4, 1822 – April 22, 1893) was a national figure in 19th century America. He was naval officer, military general, explorer, frontiersman, Indian affairs superintendent, California rancher, diplomat, and friend of Kit Carson, Buffalo Bill Cody and Ulysses S. Grant.

The GA reviewer didn't notice these problems, but at FAC they certainly will. I didn't check the other images.

Good luck with your endeavours! EChastain (talk) 05:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I asked at the Commons and they updated the file description of File:Homesteader NE 1866.png to 1866, since the image is of people on the Oregon Trail. EChastain (talk) 18:28, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Voceditenore

I'll check in later after RationalObserver is finished re-working the article to see if it's appropriate to remove the {{Close paraphrasing}}. Just a couple of further points here as I don't want to get involved in the detailed discussions about the article content.

1. The image of Edward Fitzgerald Beale is the right man. EChastain, did you read the entire article which discusses his trail explorations? There are multiple reliable sources attesting to the fact that "Beale's Crossing" is named after him.
2. While further sources would definitely improve the article, there is nothing wrong with using the Baley book as a principal source for an article about this subject. It's published by Utah State University Press and has reviews in several journals as well as being used as a source in several later books. I've linked to one of the reviews in my previous comment from The Journal of Arizona History which described it in 2004 as the first (and only) "comprehensive account of the Rose-Baley incident". However, the suggestion that this article should be refocused on his book instead of the incident itself strikes me as very inappropriate. Incidentally, Baley's book certainly does have an index—6 pages long to be precise. I repeat, it's fine to use this book as a principal source.
3. EChastain's assessment of Kroeber and the source used is generally correct, especially re the date it was first published. It could still be used as a source for some things, properly attributed as his assessment, especially for how the Mojave Indians viewed the incident and its consequences for them. However, I find it not suitable as a citation for "The emigrants sensed that the chief who granted them passage was hiding something, but they continued to labor nonetheless."

Voceditenore (talk) 08:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC) Updated by Voceditenore (talk) 16:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Voceditenore, I've already re-worked much of the article, adding in-text attribution and swapping in several cites to Udell's journal. Can you please take another look and tell me if I am making progress? Rationalobserver (talk) 16:05, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Replies by EChastain

Voceditenore, I did read the whole article Edward Fitzgerald Beale and I don't doubt the wagon trail was named after him. But I'm confused about his importance to this article and whether it warrants the large image of him. His involvement was not direct, and I was confused by it at first, thinking it was of Baley or someone actually in the party. Beale's only mentioned a few times and isn't fundamental to the story line, other than the trail was named after him.. Per the Beale article, "He surveyed and built a wagon road that many settlers used to move to the West, and which became part of Route 66 and the route for the Transcontinental railroad." "In 1857, President James Buchanan appointed Beale to survey and build a 1,000-mile (1,600 km) wagon road from Fort Defiance, New Mexico to the Colorado River, on the border between Arizona and California. The survey also incorporated an experiment for the Army using camels" from the United States Camel Corps." Per Beale's Cut, Beale "had an important passage named after him due to his widening of a cut used by the Butterfield Overland Mail, a stagecoach that operated mail between St. Louis, Missouri and San Francisco. In 1862, he dispatched a crew of Chinese workers to widen an 1858 cut, which also reduced the climb by 50 feet (15 m)."

According to Paths of Empire: The Story of the Old Trails Along the Santa Fe under "Beale and His Camels": "Busy with Indian affairs during 1854-55 and 1856, General Beale was called upon in 1857 to make a Wagon Road Survey from Fort Defiance, Arizona to California. It was this survey which marked out for the first time a practicable highway along the 35th parallel that has been used from that day to this. (For more than half a century the Santa Fe Railway has rolled its trains along this one-time Wagon Road.)" ... "And to prove that the route was as good in winter as in summer, Beale retraced it in 1858, going from the Colorado to Zuni in twenty-four days during January and February. It was on the westbound 1857 trek that Beale took the famous United States Camel Corps."

I can't tell if his role is correctly represented in the Rose-Baley Party. Shouldn't the info about Beale come from other sources than what Baley writes about Beale? Frankly, I'm confused and others can better sort it out. EChastain (talk) 19:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

EChastain, you said "The image of Edward Fitzgerald Beale is almost certainly the wrong man". It was not the wrong man nor was it the wrong image. Beale's Cut refers to the road through the mountains near Los Angeles. It is not the same place as Beale's Crossing which is on the Colorado River between Arizona and California and where the Rose-Baley massacre took place. Whether a separate section on Beale in this article as currently written and sourced is appropriate is an entirely separate matter. However, Beale's Crossing and his new route are rather central to the story here. Beale was pushing for this new route to be used (via somewhat idealized descriptions of its benefits) with the goal of constructing a permanent wagon road. The Rose-Baley party decided to go for it, despite strenuous objections by John Udell who considered that travelling a virtually untried route with large numbers of women and children in the party was foolhardy in the extreme. Interestingly, when Udell and his wife finally made it to California in 1859, they travelled from Albuquerque to the Colorado River with Beale's road construction party. Sometime in the future, I feel the article would be improved by an Aftermath section. What happened to to the survivors, for example and how the establishment of Fort Mojave was pretty much spurred by the massacre. Voceditenore (talk) 09:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Voceditenore, I've already tried to address your comments above about the wrong man (19:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)) when you mentioned my mistake the first time but didn't express myself clearly. I wasn't confusing Beale's Cut with Beale's crossing. Admittedly as a new reader of the article, I was confused by the large image of Beale when the Rose-Baley Party was the subject; at the time there was almost no explanation of Beale and all of it was via Baley's book. (That may have changed now; I haven't looked at newer versions.)

Once I looked into the subject as I described above, one that I knew nothing about originally, I saw (what I think) is the larger picture. I tried to give some info re Beale in some large quotes from a source, hoping some references to it could be incorporated into the article with more sources pertaining to Beale directly rather than relying on Baley's info alone. My links to other wiki articles, like Beale's Cut were part of this effort to help expand the subject and show that the Rose-Baley Party's experience is part of it. I thought it was clear that I wasn't confusing it with Beale's Crossing but giving glimpses into the overall subject that includes the role of Beale and probably others. I was thinking that Rose-Baley Party is one of a group of articles that could relate to each other more than is the case now to expand on the subject of the development of southern routes, since so much focus has been on the Oregon Trail.

I'd link permission to suggest some other images (or art work) from the Commons for the lede image showing an actual wagon train with a caption that could drive home Baley's comment, with a link to the Oregon Trail, that the Rose-Baley Party (and probably others) have been overlooked while the Oregon Trail has received much attention. I'm trying to be constructive. (My first posts, written late at night when I should have been in bed, were faulty for which I apologise and will be more careful.) EChastain (talk) 14:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Voceditenore I only objected when Baley's book was essentially the sole source. EChastain (talk) 18:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments by others

I would like to see a followup section as well. In fact, that was my only complaint when I first read the article. Gandydancer (talk) 12:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I fully intend to add an aftermath section that deals with their depravation lawsuit against the US government, but last week's drama has put all that on hold. I'll get to it after we resolve the issues at hand. Rationalobserver (talk) 15:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages good articles
• History good articles
• Misplaced Pages articles that use American English
• Unassessed United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• Unassessed United States articles of Low-importance
• Unassessed American Old West articles
• Unknown-importance American Old West articles
• WikiProject American Old West articles
• WikiProject United States articles