Talk:Porcupine (Cheyenne)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Maile66 (talk · contribs) 14:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Lead

• Image - Cheyenne Indian Man.jpg is licensed on Commons PD-US. Has caption, needs WP:ALT, per WP:CAP
• US - Not everybody knows what that means. Wikilink. You use this throughout the article, and it shouldn't be that way. If abbreviated, should be U.S. when referring to the government.
• Throughout, you use British spellings and British dates on this American subject.

Hancock's War

• Image - Winfield Scott Hancock cph.3b16766.jpg is licensed on Commons PD-US. Has caption, needs WP:ALT, per WP:CAP
• Is there a military conflict officially known as Hancock's War? If yes, needs a sourced explainer within the section. If not the official name of a conflict, no need to capitalize "war" in section header.
• The entire section, with the exception of the last sentence, is one offline source. Is it possible to find additional sourcing for this?
• A number of simultaneous military expeditions were launched in pursuit of this policy under the overall control of General Grant.

• Specific dates?
• The only time Grant is mentioned in the article. Give his full name and title. Wasn't Grant already President of the United States?
• What does "a number" mean? "Overall control" means what? The general time frame of this indicates it came under President Grant's administration. What was his policy on this? Was this approved by Grant, or was it some a rogue operation?

• demanded that Indian leaders meet him there.

• How so specifically?

• The idea was to intimidate the Indians with a show of force.

• Perhaps reword to get away from "the idea", which was in somebody's head.

• Hancock failed to bully them into submission

• "bully" is really POV. Exactly what did he do?

• Hancock ordered the camp at Pawnee Fork to be destroyed in retaliation and unnecessarily sparked an Indian war.

• What Indian war was this, did it have a name?

Train attack

• Image - Union Pacific Railroad on the 100th meridian (cropped).jpg is licensed on Commons PD-US. Has caption, needs WP:ALT, per WP:CAP
• Note 1 needs to be sourced.
• a band of Cheyenne led by Turkey Leg and Spotted Wolf

• Indicates these two were tribe hierarchy. Sourcing about that?

• Not necessary to wiki link "played dead" "scalped" "engineer" "fireman"
• They fired at it and even attempted to stop it by lassoing the engine.

• Source? Is it possible this could be an urban legend? This implies the Indians not having the sense of the size and power of the train they were looking at.

• Thompson was wounded but played dead, even as he was being scalped...Thompson, who came out of hiding carrying his own scalp

• These two statements defy plausibility. Is this urban legend? The brutality of a scalping would have been traumatic, causing unconsciousness, given the immediate loss of blood such a thing triggers. No need to "play dead". How did they stop the bleeding? He surely didn't "come out of hiding" afterwards and walked around carrying his own scalp. How did he get it back from the Indian who took it?

Escape from Oklahoma

• Image - Cheyenne-prisoners-Kansas.jpg is licensed on Commons PD-US. Has caption, needs WP:ALT, per WP:CAP
• FYI

• Oklahoma was not a state; not admitted to the Union until 1906. What is now the state of Oklahoma, was then divided into Indian Territory and Oklahoma Territory.
• The Medicine Lodge Treaty of 1876 was signed by Cheyenne and Arapaho, agreeing to live on the same reservation in the Oklahoma Territory.

• They were sent to Fort Leavenworth, Kansas at the beginning of 1879 to await trial. They were to be tried in Dodge City and were escorted there by lawman Bat Masterson.

• At that time, he was Sheriff Masterson of Ford County, Kansas, which is where Dodge City is.

• In Lawrence, Masterson found it necessary to hit the city marshal to keep order.

• What does that mean?

Ghost Dance apostle

• Image - Arapaho Ghost Dance, 1900 - NARA - 530915.jpg is licensed on Commons PD-US. Has caption, needs WP:ALT, per WP:CAP
• Note 4 needs to be sourced.
• Porcupine describes the visit to Wovoka as a fortuitous side benefit of the visit to the Arapahoes. He mentions only the Cheyenne delegation as if they came alone. However, James Mooney, an ethnologist tasked by the US government with investigating the Ghost Dance and who travelled far and wide to interview all the principals in the tribes concerned, including Wovoka himself, tells a different story.

• Odd wording in the present tense of "describes", "mentions" and "tells".

White reaction

• Image - Burial Party Wounded Knee.jpg is licensed on Commons PD-US. Has caption, needs WP:ALT, per WP:CAP
• "I hated to do this, but it seemed like it was the best way."

• Needs source, per WP:CITE

• Note 8 needs to be sourced.
• ("a visit" as Cheyenne tribal historian John Stands in Timber puts it)

• Needs source.

• a rump remains into the present day.

• What does that mean?

Political leader

• Porcupine was a chief of the Northern Cheyenne but never recognised as such by the US government, probably because of his connection to the Ghost Dance.

• "probably because of his connection to the Ghost Dance" is too indefinite for WP. It's either sourced as a definite, or not.
• Need clarification on "chief". Indian tribes had/have various bands within them. Each band also had chiefs of various responsibilities. Like a corporation. Maybe the government didn't recognize him to sign documents, or negotiate, or whatever. But if his band said he was a chief, he was a chief. Can you elaborate on what? War chief? Tribal chief?

• He was involved in four separate treaty councils with the US. He says that all four treaties had later been abrogated by the US.

• "He says.." Present tense?
• Can you name the four treaties and source them?

• The most troubling of these was the US reneging on the treaty agreement over the Black Hills after gold was discovered there. The dispute over the Black Hills was the cause of the 1876 war.

• Yes, but here you are referring to the Great Sioux War of 1876, as mentioned in the first sentence of the Escape from Oklahoma section. Not sure it belongs here, but was Porcupine part of those negotiations?

• Porcupine was the spokesman for a Cheyenne delegation to Washington during the presidency of Benjamin Harrison (1889–1893). The purpose was to seek reparations for treaty violations.

• Are you referring to Harrison's policy of Indian assimilation through the Dawes Act? Can you be more specific, and source it? How did the United States government give "reparations for treaty violations" in that place and time?

Character

• Do we know how he died, where he died, and where his remains are?

References

• Cannot check offline sourcing, so AGF on that.

Bibliography

• Everything here has something in the references pointing to it. No issues.

External links

• This section looks fine, no issues.

Summarization

• @Spinningspark: I think I've gone through it pretty thoroughly. For documentation purposes, please keep all comments about this review on this template. Please check off each item you take care of. Feel free to disagree with me. You are also entitled to a second opinion from an involved party. — Maile (talk) 20:36, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

• Before going through your detailed comments, I want to raise some general points. Many of your comments are outside the GA criteria and I don't intend to address them at all. One is ALT text and any other accessibility issues. ENGVAR is also not a GA criteria. As a matter of principle, I make no attempt to write articles in American English, even when they are on an American subject. It is always far better to let a native speaker do the translating rather than try to mangle it myself and get it wrong. You might also want to read my comments at the Wooden Leg article on a similar issue. A number of your comments are calling for expansion of the general material on Hancock's war. I don't intend to do this, the discussion of Hancock's war is only there because, much to my surprise, there was no pre-existing Wikipedia article. I have researched it and added material here insofar as it was needed to give background to Porcupine's own actions. Fleshing it out to a full description of the events would unbalance the article. SpinningSpark 13:18, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

• I respect your right to this. However, I don't feel comfortable passing this like that. I am going to ask for a second opinion on this nomination, with the intent of passing it to someone else to complete. Good luck with this. — Maile (talk) 13:25, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

• You do realise that you are not supposed to do that don't you? Pulling out and leaving someone else to complete I mean, asking for a second opinion is fine. SpinningSpark 23:30, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Second Opinion by Wugapodes

• WP:ALT is not a requirement of the GA criteria and so whether the images have them or not is immaterial to passing (though alt text is, in general, a good idea)
• MOS:U.S. is not part of the GA criteria, and regardless does not require one particular abbreviation over another as long as they are consistent within the article.
• MOS:TIES is not part of the GA criteria. Though per MOS:TIES, the article arguably should use American English.
• WP:V does not require claims have multiple sources (WP:Notability does not apply to content within an article), the fact that it is sourced means it is viable for inclusion even if the section is all from one source.
• Claims should be as specific as possible. If the sources don't give specific dates though, you can't be faulted for not having it. If the sources don't give specific information, we can only be as specific as they are. We can include speculation if it is verifiable and presented as such.

The rest of the issues raised in the review seem perfectly fine. I didn't do a full review so I'm assuming good faith and trusting Maile's abilities as a reviewer on those. Hope the rest of the review goes well for everyone, feel free to ask me questions here or on my talk page. Wugapodes (talk) 17:14, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

• Per WT:GA, I have asked a new reviewer to step in to finish this. Or, you can close this down and start a GA2. The article has not been edited since before I began this review, and I cannot pass it like that. I have reservations about the quality of the article, and I do not believe it is GA. My concerns are listed above, and I have not changed my mind. I'm not failing it...but I cannot pass it. I am no longer part of this review. — Maile (talk) 23:50, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

• P.S. Spinningspark If it will help you for me to fail this, so you can turn around and open a new nomination under GA2, I will do that upon your request. But you request it. I absolutely will not pass this. So, there are the options. Someone else takes this over. Or, upon your request, I can fail it so you can open a different one. — Maile (talk) 00:04, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not requesting that you fail this. The only reason I have not started working through your list of comments is I would first like to know what reviewer I am dealing with and on what basis. I asked you on your talk page if you are still the reviewer and if so, are you accepting the second opinion you asked for. You deleted my post without comment. I still do not have a reply now. SpinningSpark 01:35, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

• Just to make this clear, I will start addressing the points raised in detail once someone declares that they are acting as reviewer. SpinningSpark 14:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• Per @BlueMoonset:'s Comment here, I am more than willing to close out the GA to allow a new GA nomination to happen without my involvement. At this point, @Spinningspark: and I are not likely to agree on my review or the second opinion, so it really serves no purpose to keep the nomination open. I believe the second opinion was given in good faith, but the new (2015) editor did nothing but look up Wikipedia policies to link and at a little over 1,000 edits, the editor does not have enough experience to serve as a second opinion on a review. Anybody can search through Wikipedia to find policies to link for any situation. Spinningspark, say the word, and this nomination is closed for you to move forward on a new nomination. Unless you have a different idea, BlueMoonset, the only way I know to close out a nomination is to Fail it. — Maile (talk) 18:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, "failing" (not listing) or "passing" (listing) are the only ways to close a review once it has properly commenced. There should be no stigma involved (for all that "fail" can be a negative word), just a case where the nominator and reviewer have irreconcilable differences. Maile, if it "really serves no purpose to keep the nomination open", I'm not sure why you're putting it back on SpinningSpark to have to agree to close it; that doesn't seem fair. This is your decision, and you should be making it; it's what you signed up for when you started the review. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Very well. I have closed it out. Thanks for your advice. — Maile (talk) 18:53, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• @Maile66: I have reviewed 25 GA nominations, written two, have one at FAC, and made it to the 3rd round of the last GA cup. Curious that you only bring up my supposed lack of experience when a third opinion agrees with my assessment rather than a month ago when I offered it. If you have a problem with my opinion on things, then bring it up constructively, but don't claim I don't "have enough experience" when I've been involved in almost as many GAs as you have. Wugapodes (talk) 01:11, 15 December 2015 (UTC)