Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Battle of Tippecanoe/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article review
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 1:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC) [1].

Battle of Tippecanoe

edit
Notified: User talk:Charles Edward, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indiana, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history, talk page 2020-11-30
Kevin1776 could you also notify the Indiana WikiProject ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done as requested. [2] Kevin1776 (talk) 18:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because of reasons detailed on the talk page, going back to 2011. Kevin1776 (talk) 16:58, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • There appear to be significant issues with text-source integrity per Kevin1776's past comments on the talk page and my spot checks of Langguth last month. Primary contributor has noted on article talk page that a lot of the stuff would be in Funk, which IMO may be the weakest of the primary sources, as that publisher seems to be pretty obscure. I also support one-week in each phase, as I have a feeling that this one will need very significant attention, potentially to the extent of a rewrite. Hog Farm Bacon 17:38, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC This probably needs a complete overhaul. Definitely a one-week FAR and FARC candidate. Hog Farm Bacon 23:34, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC Support one-week FAR/FARC. Femke Nijsse (talk) 14:24, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit

Issues listed include text-source integrity and reliable sourcing/comprehensiveness Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:19, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Victoriaearle I see you at work here ... are you thinking this may be salvageable? Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:36, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm tied up today but will post here when I get a chance later. Also, I'm thinking about this situation. Removing the star doesn't address source issues, but source issues might not be as bad as they initially appear because of ref bundling. Victoria (tk) 16:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm personally uncomfortable with keeping FA and removing the cite check tag unless source-text integrity checks are performed from several sources in conjunction and a source choice check is conducted as well. See Kevin's comments on the talk page about sources that should be used. Hog Farm Bacon 18:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't want me to work on this, that's fine. There's a lot of work to be done. But my sense is that it's work that's doable. I'm not fast and if there's a deadline, then I should bail out. I did have some comments to make re sourcing, pagination, ref bundling, checking refs during FAC, blah blah, but can easily let it go. Just let me know. Victoria (tk) 18:19, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'd like to see this worked on, as improvement is the goal, not removing the star. I just want to make sure that this gets a good source review, since it hasn't. I have a copy of Langguth, if you need scans from it I can wikimail some. Hog Farm Bacon 18:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure Sandy can vouch for me. I'm strict re source reviewing. So far I've spent less than an hour on this and won't know until really digging in whether it's salvageable. That's why I would have wanted to wait to post - when I know what's what. Victoria (tk) 18:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Thanks for giving this one a really thorough look! Hog Farm Bacon 19:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Victoriaearle you go, girl :) Just like old times at FAR, the good ones trying to save stars :) We can only try our best, and if we can, good, if we can't, we tried. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posting to the review section - pls move if in the wrong place. My initial assessment based on a small section is that everything in our article is verifiable, with caveats.
    This is an article from back in the day before verification/citation rules were fully implemented or executed. At that time it was common to read a source (book or whatever) or two or three and then write the article in summary style, with everything from all the sources melded together. References came at the bottom of the page if anyone wanted to verify. It made for much better writing, but now we have to cite each sentence.
    The problem with the that type of article is that it's difficult to tease apart which statement comes from which source. Eventually citations were added to some of these articles, and like this one not always perfectly accurately. I'm finding that page numbers & even sources don't match perfectly so it's a job to fix all of that. Spot-checks on articles like this are difficult for lots of reasons.
    I'm at the very beginning of this process, finding sources, screen printing what I can, and then matching as best I can. My sense at this early stage is that article is salvagable, but it will be a job to fix the citations. I think it's worth doing, but it'll take a long time so if time is an issue, then we should delist. Victoria (tk) 00:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Victoriaearle, I moved it down. The way these pages work, it may be lost if placed above, and we just continue from the FARC phase once it's opened. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:24, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I failed to respond. The Coords are amenable to keeping FARs open if there is steady improvement. It's really, almost, your call at this point, but they need an idea on your timing. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah look, we've left open FARCs for multiple months if folks are actively working on articles. I am pleasantly surprised. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:24, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks both. I kinda gulped, because I have to work slowly, so thanks Cas for eliminating pressure. It's picky work matching sentence-by-sentence to refs (plus the reading). It seems that one of the sources isn't available (Funk), so I may come to a screeching halt at that point. I'll keep updating with progress. Victoria (tk) 17:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've got an additional concern here - I fear the map of the battlefield may need to be replaced, and my faith in Funk's accuracy is declining. The map of the battlefield in the article includes a reference to a "Catholic Mission", the map licensing gives Funk as the source for the information. See Talk:Battle of Tippecanoe#Catholic Mission where the mention of the mission in the article was removed as very dubious, and the article creator stated that this could only be cited to Funk. Unless we can find another RS supporting the presence of a Catholic Mission at the site, that casts some doubt on Funk as a source in my mind. Hog Farm Bacon 01:22, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm finding other authors citing Funk so he probably isn't terribly awful. It's moot, though, because unless someone wants to spent $700, Funk isn't available. I've found lots of other sources, still need to read them, but intend to replace Funk. In other words those sections might be completely rewritten.
    As to accuracy: Native Americans are a marginalized people, so when writing about them all sources are suspect. From what I can tell all the sources in this article have accuracy issues. One tells us Tecumseh showed up in Vincennes in 1810 with 300 warriors and 80 canoes, another puts the canoes/warriors a year later, the most recently published book (2020) says 8 canoes, 30 warriors. One source says Harrison went to Kentucky to recruit militia, another to take his wife and children to safety, another something entire different. Oddly all are in agreement that Tecumseh traveled to recruit the southern tribes after the 1811 meeting. Which those tribes are and where they lived is not mentioned in any source, so it's a mystery.
    In other words, there's lots of reading to do, lots of thinking to do, etc. Right now I'm simply working my through to get a sense of the lay of the land. As for the map, I'd intended to remove it. There's a good historical one there which should suffice. And maybe another exists in another source. All that said,     if you think this article is beyond saving, let me know now before I invest much more time and start the real heavy lifting. Thanks. Victoria (tk) 01:59, 10 January 2021 (UTC) Adding, as it happens there's a map here, page 8. Does that work? Victoria (tk) 02:08, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That map should work. The book was published in 1900, so it's PD, so it could be included. It also doesn't include the disputed Catholic Mission, which is also a plus. Hog Farm Bacon 02:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course. I wouldn't post something that's not PD. I do need an honest answer to my question in the above post though. The question at the bottom. Victoria (tk) 02:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I honestly do not know. The only source used I have is Langguth, and it only devotes a chapter to this. What I know is that it's beyond my ability. I'm an ACW buff, and only know a little bit of War of 1812, so I can't give an expert opinion on comprehensiveness or accuracy. I just don't know if this is fixable or not, but I fear it's gonna require a lot of rewriting. Kevin1776 might have a better idea. Hog Farm Bacon 02:45, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm capable of rewriting and often that's what's required at FAR instead of simply delisting. Anyway, I was excited about it - important Native American, important battle, nice little article. But if you don't think it can be done I'll let it go. Not worth pushing a stone uphill so to speak. Victoria (tk) 02:49, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope you continue your work to save it. I have a few sources at hand (Sudgen & Edmunds, others requestable thru local library), and can pitch in as time allows. You're right about the unreliability of sources -- basically anything written about Native Americans before circa 1980 should be considered dated and suspect, so even if I had the Funk book on hand I'd be reluctant to cite him for Native aspects of the battle. Kevin1776 (talk) 05:09, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm waiting for clarification re the process from @FAR coordinators: , posted here. Funk is a primary & there are plenty of others that are similar, but not usable. Jortner claims Cave's account is the best & it's being used, which is encouraging. I'm just not seeing that the issues in this article aren't fixable; it's a short article about essentially a skirmish and there are newer books. But if the process is to delist & then rewrite, then it's best the process is followed. I'm not that familiar with FAR processes. Thanks for the offer of books - if needed I'll let you know. Victoria (tk) 16:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are willing and able to address the issues raised, that would be fantastic. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Tks, Nikki. Yes, I am. It's an interesting article. Victoria (tk) 00:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I'm basically finished. The sourcing has been fixed, a bunch of text that I couldn't verify had to be removed throughout so it's about 300-400 words shorter. I'm not sure this is FAC-worthy but if it goes back into the pile without a star it's correctly cited, which was my goal. Thanks for giving me time. Victoria (tk) 21:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Victoriaearle can the maintenance tag be removed from the article then? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:47, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I didn't want to do it myself. Victoria (tk) 21:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
P.s - does anyone know what's happened to the dashes script? I can't make it work. Then forgot about fixing them manually. Victoria (tk) 21:53, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not working for me either ... doing them manually ... very weird. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:00, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I left a note here for Ohconfucius about the glitching dash script. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Sandy. Let me know if you find out anything. I have to be out for a few more days, but will delve into it when I'm back. Victoria (tk) 21:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I got no response, but oddly, the script works on every other article ... weird. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the cleanup template with a link to this discussion, and made a couple tweaks involving transferring a footnote from a reference to a proper note and creating a section for notes. The biggest issue seems to have been addressed, and I plan on giving this another read through soon. If any smaller issues crop up, I'm willing to help work on them. Hog Farm Talk 23:14, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Victoria (tk) 02:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kevin1776 and Hog Farm:, I feel like this is in Keep territory, and I think it's fine for an FA; we have lesser articles passing FAC every day now. Unless you have something that needs to be reviewed, I am leaning Keep. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Battle_of_Tippecanoe/archive1&oldid=1001920971"