Talk:Attack at Ament's Cabin

Weapons
I noticed that the article alternates between use of 'rifle' and 'musket,' e.g. "the crack of a rifle outside... struck by two musket balls." 'Rifle' and 'musket' are not synonymous (they're different weapons), and judging by the time this occurred (and by the fact that Native Americans did not usually have the most advanced weaponry at their disposal), the participants would probably have been using muskets. That's just my guess though; I'm not certain. Any expertise on this would be helpful so that we can change the article to reflect it. Cheers, --MatthewLiberal 00:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I made the necessary changes, I probably wasn't paying enough attention when compiling source material. I just used weapons mostly. Thanks for pointing it out. IvoShandor 00:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

GA review (2007-11-15)

 * GA review (see here for criteria)

I am putting it on hold for a few things which were niggling my mind on reading this article. If these concerns are addressed within the grace period, I would be happy to state this as a GA-class article. Cheers! Jappalang 23:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Background: "John L. Ament and his brother Justin staked claim on adjacent claims Berlin and Dover Townships, in present day Bureau County, Illinois"
 * Is there another way to word the phrase "staked claim on adjacent claims"? It is repetitive (in the vein of "worked on my work", "load a load", etc). Perhaps "staked their claims on the adjacent Berlin and Dover Townships" if that is the meaning?
 * Attack: "Hodges' weapon came into contact with Girty's chest causing him, and his group, to retreat into the woods"
 * First off, how did Hodges' weapon come into contact with Girty's chest? Did Hodge throw his weapon, or did Girty rush up to the cabin and his chest touched the weapon, or did Hodge fired his weapon and it struck Girty? Be specific.
 * The provided source "Killing of Phillips" made the claim that it was the sight of bayoneted weapons which gave the Indians pause and made them run away (the Indians assumed that only soldiers would be wielding bayoneted weapons). This is contradictory to the Hodge/Girty claim.
 * "Meommuse" and "Bureau Creek" are non-existent wiki-links. I believe it would be better to de-link them or find an appropriate link to link them to.
 * What impact or relation does this incident truly have with the Black Hawk War? Was this attack planned as part of the strategy? Was it simply Meommuse's spiteful attack (if so why was Girty leading it instead)? What impact did this attack have on the Black Hawk War? Answering these would broaden the article, and link it closer to the parent topic of the Black Hawk War.
 * As the above concerns have not been addressed, the GAN is failed. This is an article with solid grounding, just needed an extra "oomph" to get that GA in my opinion. Jappalang (talk) 22:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * These are almost absurd reasons to fail an article for GA but I won't contest it I will outline my concerns with the review however.


 * Concerns about comprehensiveness, which is an FA requirement. Examples:
 * First off, how did Hodges' weapon come into contact with Girty's chest? Did Hodge throw his weapon, or did Girty rush up to the cabin and his chest touched the weapon, or did Hodge fired his weapon and it struck Girty? Be specific.
 * The provided source "Killing of Phillips" made the claim that it was the sight of bayoneted weapons which gave the Indians pause and made them run away (the Indians assumed that only soldiers would be wielding bayoneted weapons). This is contradictory to the Hodge/Girty claim.
 * This isn't contradictory, you are requesting a very detailed account concerning whose weapons were fixed with bayonets and whose were not, this information is highly unlikely to exist considering the obscurity of the event and the time period it occurred.


 * A couple of the things could have been easily fixed by anyone.
 * Such as the rewording to more formal language, from staked claims to claimed or something similar. Not enough of a reason to hold up GA.


 * Red links aren't part of the GA criteria, and both red links are likely notable enough for articles on Wikipedia.

The things I didn't note could have been addressed but I don't think those alone were enough for a failing review. If I cared about the arbitrary Wikipedia assessment process I would probably bring it up at GAR. I won't though, but I wanted you to know that I disagreed with this review. IvoShandor (talk) 08:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Attack at Ament's Cabin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090815021319/http://lincoln.lib.niu.edu:80/blackhawk/page2c.html to http://lincoln.lib.niu.edu/blackhawk/page2c.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)