User talk:Garrison Morgan/Red Sticks

The content you have about the battle is laid out well. The organization of the content is chronological which helps it make sense. You do a good job of providing numbers and names to make the information more tangible and it makes it easier to find more details. It would bring more life to the content if you provide more information about the Red Sticks, giving their narrative some attention in prep for the battle. Furthermore, giving some context to the vocabulary that may be unfamiliar to readers. Some of the notable people you mention at the end are great, maybe offer more detail into their involvement. Alexfaith (talk) 21:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

DEAR GARRISON: (THIS IS ANNE HYDE) GOOD START ON THIS AND I CAN SEE THAT YOU HAVE ADDED SOME IMPORTANT SECTIONS TO THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE. THE SECTIONS YOU'VE COMPLETED LOOK GOOD AND YOU'VE FIGURED OUT THE WIKIPEDIA FORMATTING. THE OPENING SECTION DOES THE JOB IT SHOULD. YOUR WRITING IS STRAIGHTFORWARD AND CLEAR BUT YOU HAVE SENTENCES THAT ARE CLAIMS THAT YOU CAN'T PROVE WITHOUT A CITATION. ALSO THINK ABOUT DETAILS AND BACKGROUND AN ENCYCLOPEDIA AUDIENCE NEEDS, SO ECHOING WHAT ALEX SAID ABOVE YOU PROBABLY HAVE TO EXPLAIN SOME BASICS ABOUT THE CREEKS AND THAT WAR IN GENERAL. YOU CAN USE LINKS TO GIVE PEOPLE SOME BACKGROUND.

THE NEXT STEP IS TO FINISH UP THE SECTIONS YOU HAVE LAID OUT HERE, BUT THE BIGGEST ISSUE IS FINDING MORE AND BETTER SOURCES. YOU DEPEND ON A COUPLE OF SOURCES ARTICLES SO YOU NEED TO SPEND SOME TIME FINDING AND ADDING TO YOUR REFERENCES AND CITATIONS. LOOK ON THE OU LIBRARY WEBSITE AND PLAY AROUND WITH SOME SEARCH TERMS, BEYOND CREEK OR HORSEHOE. THERE IS A LOT OF GOOD RECENT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ONLINE, ESPECIALLY MORE RECENT ARTICLES. THERE ARE SOME ONLINE ENCYCLOPEDIAS, REALLY SPECIFIC ONES LIKE THE Salomon, Frank, and Schwartz, Stuart B. The Cambridge History of the Native Peoples of the Americas. Cambridge University Press, 1999 - we have online access to this from OU. IT WILL GIVE YOU ACCURATE, BASIC INFORMATION ABOUT THE CREEKS AND THAT BATTLE.

GOOD START AND JUST KEEP GOING. THE PLAN YOU LAY OUT ABOUT WHAT ELSE YOU'RE GOING TO COVER MAKES SENSE TO ME. (I'M PUTTING A CHECKLIST OF THINGS TO THINK THROUGH FOR YOUR FINAL VERSION JUST BELOW MY NAME. . . )

ANNE HYDE

LEAD: Does your lead summarize the entire article by briefly covering all important aspects of the topic? Does it work as an outline for the whole article?

First sentence: does it serve as a definition of the article topic, with the topic itself — be it a person, place, thing, idea or concept — in bold, and a brief description that puts it into context.

(Example: Anna Anderson (c. 16 December 1896 – 12 February 1984) was the best known of several impostors who claimed to be Grand Duchess Anastasia of Russia.)

BODY: Fact-based, not persuasive writing. The article is a description of the information you can find about a topic, based on good sources.

Did you write in your own words? Check that the article doesn’t contain excessive quotations, or copy any sources, even if you’ve given them credit.

Does the article let the reader decide for themselves? Avoid persuasive language? Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral?

Did you proofread? Basic grammar and spelling are correct? Complete sentences? Remove first-person (“I/we”) or second-person (“you”) writing.

Formal tone and simple language? No technical language or jargon? Check that you’ve explained acronyms and jargon in simple English the first time you use them.

Is your formatting consistent with the rest of Wikipedia? No bullet-pointed lists or too many headings in your article.

SOURCES: Is every claim cited to a reliable source?

Are there unsourced statements? Are there enough sources

Are the sources reliable and authoritative. Does each source have citations – footnotes, bibliography, etc.

Good sources include textbooks or academic journals. Don’t cite blog posts.

WHAT ABOUT IMAGES, LINKS? Afh1858 (talk) 17:01, 11 April 2020 (UTC)