Talk:Battle of St. Louis

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of St. Louis/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   Watch capitalization in your references and they also need place of publication.

   D'oh. Fixed. Magic♪piano 18:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Nicely done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Should be good to go now. Magic♪piano 18:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Regimiento Fijo de Luisiana

Louisiana Garrison Regiment. Regular Spaniard Army. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.8.98.118 (talk) 12:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Sioux did not participate

Wapasha and the Sioux never sided with Great Britain because they frequently sold weapons to the Ojibwa, Sauk, and Meskwaki (their enemies) and simultaneously encouraged them to raid Sioux villages. The French were far kindlier to the Sioux because of a long history of trade and commerce so it would make sense that the Sioux would favor siding with the French. When Ixkatapay, a Dakota brave, was discovered to be the murderer of an English trader, the British threatened Wapasha and his people if they granted him amnesty. When Wapasha went to a British fort in Quebec, he was treated quite poorly by British soldiers. According to eyewitness accounts, when he was imprisoned as a surrogate for Ixkatapay, Wapasha's feathers were torn from his head and stomped on by a Redcoat guard. The only reason he was even released in the first place was because the English officers admired his willingness to sacrifice himself for his people. During the Revolution, the English sent the Dakotas enemies to drive them out but failed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.212.135 (talk) 01:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

You'll have to address what the sources cited in the article say. Your assertions carry no weight until you back them with sources. Magic♪piano 02:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ojibwe_people
  • "In 1745 they (the Ojibwe) adopted guns from the British to defeat and push the Dakota nation of the Sioux to the south."
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Fox_War
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8th_%28The_King%27s%29_Regiment_of_Foot#American_Revolutionary_War_.281768.E2.80.931785.29
• http://www.chacha.com/question/who-ended-the-war-between-the-ojibwe-and-sioux

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.212.135 (talk) 20:46, 22 July 2013

Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources, and neither is chacha.com. Even if they were, the content of these sources doesn't support your claims. Magic♪piano 01:16, 25 July 2013 (UTC)