Talk:Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Eddie891 (talk · contribs) 20:08, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:08, 19 May 2018 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * Perhaps link, in "depending on the interpretation of article XVI" to "depending on the interpretation of article XVI
 * ✅  G M G  talk  15:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "and who were to be delivered to the government." Is this only the tribe members, or white settlers as well? If it is the former, please clarify
 * Done? Maybe? The issue there is that tribe members were no longer to be subject any type of an internal tribal justice system. As far as who actually does the cuffing and booking, in detail the government agreed to apprehend white criminals once the tribes convinced the Indian Commissioner they ought to, and the tribes agreed to "deliver up the wrongdoer to the United States" for any of their members who committed crimes. The context of all that was that whites were basically barred from the reservation (article II), and moreover, the US government in effect agreed to use military force against whites to enforce that. Although it took less than a decade for Grant to get a bit of indigestion and decide he didn't much like keeping his army around to police white settlers. But because of article I, it was the government's job exclusively, with no mechanism for the tribes to do anything about it if the government just figured meh with the whole thing. So, you know, no way does that scenario inevitably lead to open warfare.
 * But yeah, whites "can't" go on the reservation, so the tribes have to be the cops on the beat, meaning they literally swore in a whole mess of special police whose only job was to catch other tribe members and deliver them to the local fort, which...is a strange arrangement for a criminal justice system really, and in case you were wondering whether it eventually gets less complicated and overall more equitable with time...not really.  G M G  talk  15:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps add a see also in the background section (or main article)
 * ✅  G M G  talk  15:25, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Link Indian Peace Commission in lede.
 * This was intentional actually, because I haven't written it yet, and it's currently a pretty bad redirect in this context. It made sense when Medicine Lodge Treaty was the only substantial 1868 article we had, but it doesn't any more and I figured it would be confusing to readers.
 * The Commission was basically the government concocted cultural genocide dream team, with bona fide "make-Georgia-howl" war hero Sherman at the head, in an effort to solve the "Indian problem" (obviously no ominous similarities to Nazi Germany in that formulation). They negotiated a whole mess of treaties in 1868 designed to civilize the west, eliminate communal land ownership, confine the tribes to reservations, and turn the natives into whites English-speaking Christian farmers. They failed mostly, ended up inadvertently recognizing the tribes as basically sovereign nations, got half-way distracted with Johnson's impeachment, and reported back to Congress saying essentially "screw this noise, don't make any more damned treaties". Although in his defense, Sherman hadn't actually met any problem thus far that couldn't be solved with unprecedented death, he was more than willing to wipe Southern and mostly white cities off the map, and didn't really understand in anything other than a logistical sense, why the natives should be treated any differently, engaged, as many of them were, in open war against the federal government. Congress mostly agreed and basically just started unilaterally annexing land in the 1870s because bigger-army-diplomacy.
 * As good a story as all that is, Medicine Lodge doesn't really give any more of that context than this article does. But unfortunately, like the 1877 articles, this is a whole interconnected narrative that has to be laid out as a foundation before the main article for the peace commission comes together. Currently working on Treaty of Bosque Redondo, and maybe one or two more articles and I'll have enough to make the main.  G M G  talk  14:28, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I started it, but I'll probably need a couple more days to get it to a point where it's not obviously incomplete.  G M G  talk  23:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Although there's still more big-picture work to do, the basic narrative is done.  G M G  talk  17:42, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "30 student who could be made to attend" perhaps you mean "30 students who could be made to attend"?
 * ✅  G M G  talk  15:07, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Formalize whether or not the articles are written out (i.e. "Article 10" and later "Article eleven"
 * Should be consistent now with spelling out 10.  G M G  talk  15:07, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "their newly establish territory." perhaps you mean "their newly established' territory."?
 * ✅  G M G  talk  15:07, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "had illegally taken the land." clarify what land, exactly, was taken.
 * ✅  G M G  talk  15:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)


 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * Nit picky, but several sources are too old for ISBN's, so need |orig-year=
 * I'd also like to see every source that can have one have an ISBN or OCLC.
 * To find all such things, consider adding User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck <--that script.
 * First, copy/paste importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js'); to Special:MyPage/common.js.
 * On the same page and below that script add importScript('User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck.js');. Save that page.
 * Finally go to to Special:MyPage/common.css and add .citation-comment {display: inline !important;} /* show all Citation Style 1 error messages */.
 * Done to the extent possible. Still a couple works that are too old for ISBNs and are obviously reprints, but no database I found seems to care about the republication date, and neither does the book itself. So that's just kindof floating out there with nothing much to be done about it. AFAIK everything else without a unique identifier just doesn't have one. So for example, I don't think there are major reliability issues with the Nebraska State Historical Society publication, but nobody seems to keep entries for it anywhere. G M G  talk  14:25, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Done to the extent possible. Still a couple works that are too old for ISBNs and are obviously reprints, but no database I found seems to care about the republication date, and neither does the book itself. So that's just kindof floating out there with nothing much to be done about it. AFAIK everything else without a unique identifier just doesn't have one. So for example, I don't think there are major reliability issues with the Nebraska State Historical Society publication, but nobody seems to keep entries for it anywhere. G M G  talk  14:25, 11 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Chiefs and Headmen is unsourced.
 * ✅  G M G  talk  14:25, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail: