Talk:Laura Bergt/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Passed. simongraham (talk) 16:09, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 18:01, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like an interesting article on a crucial person in the history of indigenous rights and worthy of being a Good Article. I will start my review shortly. simongraham (talk) 18:01, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for picking her up. I was very surprised she didn't already have an article and appreciate your review. SusunW (talk) 15:54, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

This is a stable and well-written article. 98.8% of authorship is by SusunW. It is currently assessed as a B class article.

The text is clear and concise.
It is written in a summary style, consistent with relevant Manuals of Style
The article is of appropriate length, 2,483 words of readable prose.
The lead is of appropriate length at 381 words.
There is no evidence of edit wars and the discussion points in the Talk page seem resolved.
Text seems to be neutral and shows a balanced perspective.
Earwig's Copyvio Detector identifies a 23.7% chance of copyright violation, which is therefore given as unlikely. The highest hit was to McClanahan, 2006, which is referenced. The overlap seems to be mainly the titles of legislation.
In the lead, the verb "serve" is used three times in "In 1972, she was appointed by President Richard Nixon to serve on a national policy advisory committee of indigenous leaders, and in 1975 served on the 15-member National Health Advisory Committee. She also served as commissioner of the Indian Arts and Crafts Board from 1976 to 1978 and was a member of President Gerald Ford's United States Bicentennial Council." Can that be reworded?

Done SusunW (talk) 15:54, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, the word "Native" is repeated in the lead, e.g. "In 1968, Bergt testified before the United States House of Representatives on the importance of settling Native claims to provide adequate funding for development of programs to address Native issues and protect indigenous hunting and fishing rights." Consider rewording.

We aren't talking about just anyone who is an Alaskan, we are talking about a specific group of people who descend from that place before colonization. They have specific needs and specific problems that are different because they were colonized, their cultures were suppressed, they were made wards of the government and then neglected by policy. Official policy of the United States between the 1940-1960 period was tribal termination (remember Alaska became a state in 1959) and the goal was to eliminate Indigenous identity and governance by promoting assimilation. While Aboriginal and First Nations are also synonyms, they are not typically used for Native Americans/Alaskans in the United States, thus, I am pretty much limited to Native and Indigenous. (There are Native people who do not find the words American Indian or Eskimo to be offensive, but for the most part these terms should be avoided).[1],[2] Bergt herself used Eskimo, but it was a different time, and official names may also use that term, thus if it is a proper name or quote, I have used it, sparingly. I have substituted tribal in a few appropriate places, but for the most part Native Alaskans were prohibited from organizing into community/tribal governments before the passage of the Native Claims Settlement Act. SusunW (talk) 15:54, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My view is from the perspective of readability, and avoiding close repeating a word. I feel that your reasoning is sound and trumps a mechanistic view of what makes a sentence easier to read. simongraham (talk) 02:54, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is also the case in the body. Consider replacing an instance of "Native" in various sentences where it is repeated, e.g. "She was reappointed as chair in 1967 and simultaneously appointed by Governor Walter Hickel to serve on the Native Claims Task Force and the special task force on Native housing issues." And "The settlement was critical, as Natives were asking for monetary amounts to be used for capital development, creation of Native villages, and protection of indigenous hunting and fishing rights on federal lands."

See above SusunW (talk) 15:54, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As above. For example, would this rephrasing be acceptable: "The settlement was critical, as the Natives were asking for monetary amounts to be used for capital development, the creation of villages of their own, and protection of their hunting and fishing rights on federal lands." simongraham (talk) 02:54, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's excellent, thank you. Again the reason review is so important. We writers get tunnel vision at times and cannot see other ways to phrase things. I've given it a go again throughout. Perhaps it is better? Please feel free to either give me additional suggestions or just make changes, where it is too repetitive. I have noted and hopefully corrected the redundancy of appointed as well, so selected, chosen, named were introduced in this round. SusunW (talk) 14:41, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome. That looks outstanding to me. simongraham (talk) 16:06, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Throughout the lead and body, the term "Native" is often capitalised where it does not seem a proper noun, e.g. "At these events, she made public appearances at civic and fraternal gatherings, broadcast on television and radio, demonstrated Native sporting and skill events, and modeled Native fashion and arts and crafts." And I suggest removing this as per MOS:CAPS.

My personal opinion, backed by experts, is that MOS:CAPS is negated by Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America:Style Guides. SusunW (talk) 15:54, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I note the principle and that you have capitalised Indigenous in line with MOS. Your extrapolation to include Native as well seems reasonable and consistent with the US Government's view that "You should capitalize Native when using it as a synonym for American Indian and Alaska Native.”[[3]]. simongraham (talk) 02:54, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest adding "the" before "government" in "Negotiations between the NCIO and government produced seven bills by October to modify the role of government with regard to Native people."

Done SusunW (talk) 15:54, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest using a bracketing comma before "in" in "and in 1967,"

Done SusunW (talk) 15:54, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest removing repeat of "claims" from "In 1968, she was part of the first delegation to appear before the United States House's Subcommittee on Indian Affairs regarding settlement between the Indian Claims Commission and Native claims."

Difficult these are two sides of the issue. The ICC was the federal government and claims is part of its name. Native claims were their grievances. Possibly demands? They were negotiable to a certain extent, but on some issues the question was not what but how much, if that makes sense? I've used demands and if you think that works, then Done. SusunW (talk) 15:54, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is fair. simongraham (talk) 02:54, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest removing the repeated "government" from "Negotiations between the NCIO and government produced seven bills by October to modify the role of government with regard to Native people."

I've changed it to say "to modify federal and state roles with regard to Native people." If that works, then Done SusunW (talk) 15:54, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent idea. I feel this reads more easily. simongraham (talk) 02:54, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest removing repeat of "land" from "The claims resulted from disputes over land ownership and equitable settlement being paid by the state and federal governments for taking traditional Native land."

Deleted first land. SusunW (talk) 15:54, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ideal. simongraham (talk) 02:54, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence "Another allowed federal lending to Native authorities, while others allowed Natives to manage federal programs and services, such as health, welfare and education projects, which impacted Native people; to transfer their civil service status if they changed from federal to tribal programs; or to control livestock which trespassed on their lands." seems more complex than necessary. Is it possible to simplify it?

I've broken it up. See what you think. SusunW (talk) 15:54, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I think this reads well. simongraham (talk) 02:54, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Consider rephrasing "children with disabilities" as it is repeated twice in close proximity. "In 1972…"

Done SusunW (talk) 15:54, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest adding a comma before "and" in "The Bergts divorced in 1977 and the following year on September 23, she married a Hawaiian attorney, William Crockett."

Done SusunW (talk) 15:54, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Consider adding comma after "cremated" in "Her remains were cremated and a service was held on March 25 at the Holy Family Cathedral in Anchorage."

Done SusunW (talk) 15:54, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see no other obvious spelling or grammar errors.
Citations seem to be thorough.
References appear to be from reputable sources.
All accessible sources seem live.
Spot checks confirm Berry 1975, Bowkett 1972, Fairbanks Daily News-Miner 1967a and Peroff, 2006 are relevant.
The images seem appropriate and relevant.
The images have appropriate licensing and public domain tags.

@SusunW: Another excellent article. Please see my comments above, which are mainly suggestions, and ping me when you would like me to look again. simongraham (talk) 18:23, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

simongraham, thank you for your thoughtful review. I appreciate that you always review with improvement in mind. I think that I have addressed most of your concerns, but in some cases, I am unsure of how to address situations differently and have explained why I opted for the position I did. For the record, I did ask a couple of Native people who are editors to review the article. Please feel free to ping me if we need to discuss anything further. SusunW (talk) 15:58, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SusunW: Thank you. That looks excellent. I think all your suggestions seem reasonable, although I would prefer a few more pronouns or grammatical changes to avoid the close repeats of Native. Do you want to take a look and see if there are any instances you would like to take a second look at? simongraham (talk) 02:54, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

simongraham I've commented above and given it a shot. I cannot stress enough how important I think the collaborative process is for improving articles. I truly appreciate your guidance and attention to detail. Let me know if you think it is sufficient now. Please feel free to make other suggestions and ping me, if you think further attention is needed. I'd rather we take our time to ensure the text solid and clear. Thank you so much. SusunW (talk) 14:41, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SusunW: Thank you for being so collaborative. It is a refreshing change! I think these changes definitely meet the GA criteria. I will complete my assessment now.

Assessment[edit]

The six good article criteria:

It is reasonable well written.
the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;

it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

all inline citations are from reliable sources;

it contains no original research;

it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism;

it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.
It is broad in its coverage
it addresses the main aspects of the topic.

it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
It has a neutral point of view.
it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.
It is stable.
it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

It has been a privilege to undertake this review, SusunW. I believe that this article meets the criteria to be a Good Article.

Pass simongraham (talk) 16:07, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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