Talk:Battle of Bad Axe/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

GA review of this version: Pn = paragraph n • Sn = sentence n
 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * First day, P3, S5: Who is White Cloud? He's first mentioned here without any context. Was he a leader? Was he Sauk, Fox, or from another group?
 * Check. Should be clear now.--IvoShandor (talk) 06:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Second day, P2, S2: Closing in here is a little unclear. Maybe enclosing or encircling would work a little better.
 * Check. I went a bit of a different direction, I think it works though.--IvoShandor (talk) 06:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That works fine. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Second day, P2, S3: Unless the U.S./militia forces had aircraft capable of strafing, a different word needs to be used here.
 * They had A-10 Warthogs . . . I keed, I keed. I just thought the term applied to gunfire from boats or ships too, I changed it to "peppered".--IvoShandor (talk) 06:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Much better. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Prelude, P2, S3: the phrase though militarily devastating for the British Band needs a citation
 * I think the citation [1], which leads to this article covers that. I used the term devastating because I couldn't think of a less wordy way to summarize the following:
 * "The slaughter on the eastern bank of the river continued for eight hours. The soldiers shot at anyone--man, woman, or child--who ran for cover or tried to swim across the river. They shot women who were swimming with children on their backs; they shot wounded swimmers who were almost certain to drown anyway. Other women and children were killed as they tried to surrender. The soldiers scalped most of the dead bodies. From the backs of some of the dead, they cut long strips of flesh for razor strops. Of the roughly four hundred Native Americans at the battle, most were killed (though many of their bodies were never found), some escaped across the river, and a few were taken prisoner. Of the one-hundred-and-fifty or so who crossed the river on August 1 and 2, moreover, few survived for long. Sioux warriors, acting in support of the army, tracked down most of them within a few weeks. Sixty-eight scalps, many from women, and twenty-two Sauk and Fox prisoners were brought by the Sioux to Joseph M. Street, the federal agent for the Winnebagoes at Prairie du Chien in late August."
 * I think that anyone would characterize that as devastating. Thoughts?
 * Yeah, that's a good word, supported by the quote, IMO. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Second day, P1, S6: Needs a citation for the thoughts of the scouts
 * Done.--IvoShandor (talk) 07:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The link for this note goes to a bill authored by Abraham Lincoln entitled "Bill for an Act to Authorize Samuel Musick to Build a Toll Bridge across Salt Creek in Sangamon County", which does not seem to contain either the quote attributed to Wakefield, or any mention of the Black Hawk War at all.
 * Found the persistent link for that book.--IvoShandor (talk) 07:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment : I'd strongly recommend reworking the citations into separate "Notes" and "References" section, with all works used listed in the "References" section.
 * I normally don't do this at this level, only for FAC, which I almost never nominate anything for. If it's a huge problem I can do it, but it's time consuming and may be among the last things I address.--IvoShandor (talk) 07:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't affect the GA status; it was just a suggestion. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * I'm not sure that article benefits from having all of the content in the aftermath section. A great deal of it seems to be more relevant for other articles than this one.
 * The article should certainly address the fact that this was the last battle of the Black Hawk War, but the 'world tour' (if you will) of Black Hawk does not seem directly related to this action.
 * Similarly, the discussions of Black Hawk's eponyms seem much better suited to Black Hawk (chief) than here, where little relevance to this action is demonstrated
 * Should be taken care of, I moved some text to the main Black Hawk War article, the rest I just cut because it was relevant to the Black Hawk article and that article already covered it well enough.--IvoShandor (talk) 07:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A lot better. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * I'm concerned with the use of flee and fled in relation to all of the British Band movements, especially those mentioned in the "Background" and "Prelude" sections. Because of the connotation of "running away" that flee carries, might some of these be better characterized as retreats, a more strategic action?
 * I made a comment concerning this below, any input would be helpful.--IvoShandor (talk) 07:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No change needed. The reason for your word choice is sound. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm equally concerned by the repeated use of warrior in relation to the native combatants. I'm not familiar with Sauk and Fox gender roles, but I'm guessing that a more neutral men would be accurate.
 * Well, "brave" is actually the term Black Hawk used. "Men" is just too vague because there were both combatants (warriors or braves) and non-combatants (women, children and even elderly men). Thoughts?--IvoShandor (talk) 07:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If that's the term they use, then that's not a problem with me. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Does Black Hawk's autobiography cover the events of the first day, apart from terming it a massacre (as cited in this note)? It would be nice to have his perspective on the events
 * Comment below, thoughts appreciated. He was only there for the first day, and I don't want to give one person too much weight but can definitely add some more.--IvoShandor (talk) 07:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If it was a conscious decision to not give undue weight, that's fine by me. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * 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:
 * Pass/Fail:

I'm placing on hold for seven days to allow the above issues to be addressed. — Bellhalla (talk) 06:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The majority of this shouldn't take long. The stuff you pointed is all pretty simple, I guess the reason I didn't include much from Black Hawk was to avoid bias, but I can add some more stuff from him. There were a number of his band that were not happy he left them on the second day. The reason I chose "flee" was because of the large number of civilians with the band and the fact that by this point all they were trying to do is get back across the river. Perhaps I should be more clear, and word choice isn't a big deal to me, I let people change the title back and forth, as I don't really have much of an opinion. It was bloody, that's good enough for me.


 * Thanks for the thorough review though, just thought I should clarify a few things. I should also mention that I am in the process of moving and it may take me a few days to get to all of this, as I am quite tired. :-)--IvoShandor (talk) 06:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am working on some stuff now, because I have some time. So the above about not getting to it may be a lie. Proceed with caution.--IvoShandor (talk) 06:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, not a knock on you, but I absolutely hate this format for a GA review. It's confusing and hard to format. Just throwin' that out there, maybe someone who can do something about it will here me screaming inside my head as I try to make comments.--IvoShandor (talk) 06:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's actually frustrated me so much that I am not going to comment on the items here, and I'll just fix them. If there's an issue I will add it to the bottom of the page here.--IvoShandor (talk) 06:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, with all of the "#", ':', and "*" symbols it does get a little messy... But everything looks good, so I'm passing now. Good luck with your unpacking. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)