Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Crawford expedition

Crawford expedition[edit]

Winner of Danny's writing contest. 2nd and 3rd place winners were successfully nominated and promoted to feature article, so I don't see why this one shouldn't be. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, obviously. Can we treat this as a "speedy support", maybe? —Nightst a llion (?) 12:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Awesome. (Wikimachine 12:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Support. I wish all FAC noms were this good. Rlevse 14:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, obviously. I should point out, though, that the convention is to allow an article's main author(s) to nominate it; it's slightly disappointing that this precedent seems to have been ignored here, particularly as Kevin was planning to nominate it anyways. Kirill Lokshin 14:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Kirill. I have no problem with someone else nominating the article: I'm just happy people like it. (I move pretty slowly -- I promised someone that I would nominate Pontiac's Rebellion back in March, but as long as I know there's a book out there that I haven't yet read, I hold off, since I feel that I should consult all of the major secondary sources before I can really be finished with an article.) The only drawback in this case is that I didn't yet thank and respond to the peer review you and Balloonman provided for the Crawford article, so I'll say "thanks" right here and assure both of you that your comments were helpful and will result in improvements to the article. —Kevin 14:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, leaning to oppose. The article gives a pretty good overview and lots of battle details, but I feel a thorough copyedit is still needed. Just some things from a first reading:
- From the lead: Although the war ended shortly thereafter, Crawford's expedition was widely publicized... why "although"? What has the end of the war to do with the publication of the events of that expedition?
- From "Background":
  - End of 2nd paragraph: This was a difficult task because they were located... I stumbled over the word "task"—is trying to stay out of a war a "task"? How about "Despite the violence, many Ohio Indians still hoped to stay out of the war, which proved to be difficult as they were located directly between the British in Detroit and the Americans along the Ohio River."?
  - Start of 3rd para: I find "In February 1778 the Americans launched their first expedition into the Ohio Country in an attempt to neutralize British activity in the region." somewhat simpler.
  - 4th para: However, White Eyes, the Delaware leader who had negotiated the treaty, was murdered in 1778 by American militiamen. And...? What's the significance of this? Also, could we do without "however"?
  - 4th para, last sentence: Captain Pipe eventually abandoned the American alliance and moved west to the Sandusky River, where he began receiving support from the British in Detroit. Did he actively seek British support or did the British approach him? I stumbled over "he began receiving".
  - 5th para, 1st sentence: "both sides" is clear when one backtracks to the infobox, but from local context, I thought at the first moment the two sides were the Delaware Indians and the Americans.
  - 5th para: The Virginian George Rogers Clark responded by leading an expedition in August 1780 which destroyed two Shawnee towns along the Mad River, but doing little damage to the Indian war effort. Shouldn't that be "... Clark reponded by leading an expedition ... that destroyed ... but that did little damage..."?
  - 5th para, 2nd-but-last sentence: With most Delawares now pro-British Now? How about "With most Delawares pro-British by then"?
  - 6th para: In response, in September 1781, Wyandots and Delawares from Sandusky forcibly removed the Christian Delawares... "In response" to what? (That phrase is used quite often anyway, maybe you could use a synonym here or there, such as "retaliatory".) Weren't they trying to end the espionage? Then why not say so?
- From "Planning the expedition":
  - End of 3rd para (after the quote): scratch the "however", it's completely superfluous.
  - 4th para: It would be a low budget affair: ... Their only payment would be... I'm out on a limb here, but somehow I stumble over the use of tenses here. Shouldn't this be "It was to be ..."?
  - 5th para: Irvine did not believe he was authorized Or did he "believe he was not authorized"? I find the latter variant clearer.
- From "Organizing the expedition":
  - 1st para: ...that the volunteers were 480 in number, although additional men may have subsequently joined the group, bringing the total to more than 500. I find "were 480 in number" clumsy. How about "...that the volunteers numbered 480 men, but that more [men] might have subsequently..."? In fact, did he write that more might have joined? Reading the footnote, that appears to be Brown's conclusion. If so, why not say so? "... that the volunteers numbered 480 men. Later analysis by the historian Brown suggests that the actual number may have been as high as 580."
  - 2nd para: a Continental Army colonel who was not then on active duty. Is that the same as "a retired Continental Army colonel"? If so, I'd prefer the shorter version.
  - 2nd para, last sentence: the "squaw campaign" debacle. This is the first time that this campaign is termed a "debacle", the earlier account isn't that harsh. The slaughter was certainly morally questionable, but in what sense was it a "debacle"? Did the American troops suffer high losses? Why not just drop this word?
  - Is there another image of Crawford? In 1782, he was 50 years old, but the painting shows a much younger man.
- From "Journey to Sandusky":
  - 1st para: ...carrying 30 days of provisions. I think that's ok, but it still made be pause. Why not simply write "... carrying provisions for thirty days"?
  - 1st para: 175-mile journey On the map shown, it looks like a lot less than 3.5 times the scale shown...
  - 2nd para, last sentence: Some of the volunteers began to desert. But they didn't carry through? Maybe "Some of the volunteers deserted", or "First desertions from the volunteer troops occurred." or some such.
  - 3rd para: to form a single group Do you mean "single file"?
- From "British and Indian preparations":
  - 2nd para: Thus forewarned, officials of the British Indian Department in Detroit prepared for action. Again, I stumbled over the tense used. Shouldn't that be "had prepared for action"?
  - 3rd para: Unbeknownst to the Americans is used already four paragraphs earlier. How about just writing "Indian scouts had been watching for the expedition from the beginning." Maybe even replace "watching" by "looking out"?
  - 3rd para: were hidden nearby Where? In the nearby forests?
- From "June 4: Battle Island":
  - 1st para: intense fighting is used again in the 2nd para. Can we avoid this repetition?
  - 2nd para: Also arriving on the scene was Elliott, who coordinated the actions between the Delawares and Wyandots. Passive voice for something that is clearly an action... How about "Elliott also arrived on the scene and coordinated the actions of the Delawares and the Wyandots."?
- From "June 5: Reinforcements":
  - 2nd para: That afternoon, however, the Americans were dismayed when they noticed that there were about 100 British rangers in the battle. How about "That afternoon the Americans discovered to their dismay that about 100 British rangers were fighting alongside the Indians."
After that, I must admit that my attention to such details waned. Take all of the above with a grain of salt; my grammar isn't perfect either, and I may be wrong. (I'm not 100% sure on all the points mentioned, which is why I didn't make the changes myself.) But it appears to me that the article could profit from a thorough copyedit. Lupo 16:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all your comments. I've used many of your suggested wordings in a new copyedit. I think the map scale agrees almost exactly with the text, by the way, although you have to measure along the path rather than "as the crow flies". —Kevin 18:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You're welcome. However, the points I highlighted above were only examples. And there's more to come. I've re-read the second part of the article a few hours later. Here are the findings:
  - From "British and Indian preparations":
    1st para: The British and Indians, however, had learned... – I'd write "But the British and the Indians had learned..."
  - From "June 5: Reinforcements":
    Last para: to silently withdraw is a split infinitive. Split infinitives sometimes are needed to avoid ambiguities, but this one can simply be rewritten as "to withdraw silently".
  - From "June 6: Battle of the Olentangy":
    1st para, 1st sentence: ...had and made it back... Either there's a word missing here ("escaped"?), or the "and" must go.
    
    1st para, 2nd sentence: I would have written "Williamson had assumed command" or "Williamson assumed command" instead of Williamson was now in command.
    
    2nd para, 1st sentence: Typo: pursing should be "pursuing".
    
    2nd para, 2nd sentence: Williamson and Rose worked to keep the retreat orderly, hoping to prevent a rout, which would have made them easy targets. Well, did they manage to do so? If so, I'd write "Williamson and Rose managed to retreat orderly with their troops. They were able to prevent a rout, which would have made them easy targets."
    
    2nd para, 4th sentence: The retreat resumed the next day, and two Americans were captured and presumably killed, but the Indians and rangers finally abandoned the pursuit. – "but" requires a contrast, but I see none. Replace by "before" (and drop the comma).
  - From "Fates of the captives":
    2nd para, 2nd sentence: After the Gnadenhütten massacre, however, Ohio Indians had... There's another "however" that could go, and a missing "the": "After the Gnadenhütten massacre, the Ohio Indians had..."
    
    2nd para, 4th sentence: The exact number of Americans who were executed after the Sandusky expedition is not known, ... – "who were" is redundant: "The exact number of Americans executed after the Sandusky expedition is not known, ..." Although "not known" is fine, I wonder whether "unknown" might flow better.
    
    3rd para, 1st sentence: Prisoners were sometimes quickly executed, but some were tortured before being killed. "... sometimes ..., but some ..." makes me wonder which was the usual or the more frequent case. Do you have any information on that such that it could be rewritten as "... most ..., but some..." (or vice versa, as the case may be)?
    
    3rd para: I think the last two sentences are superfluous. This is maybe not the place to discuss this topic, and anyway, the cursory treatment it gets here raises more questions than it answers. (Were the British, in general, successful with their discouragement? If so, why? If not, why not? Did Indians converted to Christian faith abandon the practice of torture? ...)
  - From "Crawford's execution":
    1st para, 2nd sentence: On June 11, Captain Pipe painted the faces of the prisoners black, which was the sign that they were to be put to death. Instead of ", which was the sign" I'd suggest simply "as the sign". Also, why "put to death"? How about "killed"? ("put to death" is repeated in the last paragraph, too.)
    
    1st para, last sentence: After scalping the bodies, the boys... Shouldn't that be "After having scalped the bodies, the boys..."? Or even just "Having scalped the bodies, the boys..."; or even better "The boys scalped the bodies and slapped...".
    
    Last para, last sentences: He escaped along the way after striking his captor with a log. He traveled across country on foot, finally reaching Fort Pitt on July 4. First, there's again this "after" followed by the gerund. I think it should be "after having stricken", but that doesn't flow too well. Better rephrase entirely: "Along the way, he struck his guard with a log and managed to escape." The last sentence would flow better as "He travelled across the country on foot and reached Fort Pitt on July 4."
  - From "Final year of the war":
    2nd para, 3rd sentence: The reports turned out to be false, but Caldwell still managed to lead... Again I do not see a contrast that would justify the "but".
    
    2nd para, 5th sentence: Similarly, General Irvine had gotten permission... We've just learned that Caldwell was ordered to back down, so "similarly" doesn't quite fit, even if you write later that this was cancelled. (Why? By whom?)
    
    Last para, 3rd sentence: in treaty's terms. should be "in the terms of the treaty."
  - From "Impact of Crawford's death":
    Last para, 1st sentence: whites should probably be capitalized as "Whites".
- That's all I found on my first reading, but there may be more. As it stands, it's just not "compelling prose". It's a good article and beautifully referenced, too, but the text is not outstanding. I strongly suggest that you find someone to do a second and maybe even third pass over the text after these first issues have been resolved in order to polish the text and to make it really shine. Lupo 22:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for the suggestions, many of which have been adopted. —Kevin 08:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Yao Ziyuan 18:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - read about this in the Signpost - great job Kevin! Excellently sourced and illustrated. Although I expect to be whacked with a wet fish for asking this, are the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs sourced? CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 20:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Take this: :-) The lead is supposed to be a summary of the rest of the article and thus doesn't need its own references. The extended treatment below should have all the references needed. Lupo 23:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The lead is also supposed to be an introduction for people who don't want to go into the article indepth. There is something to say for avoiding repetition. - 131.211.210.14 08:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch! Looks good to me then, don't mind my reference paranoia. :-) CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 01:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great article! Kyriakos 20:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks like an astonishing amount of research went into this. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 21:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support an FA all the way †he Bread 23:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good article, featured quality, and terrfic amounts of information. Hello32020 02:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Outstanding effort. Outstanding page. ’Nuf said. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Captain Pipe probably needs a name fixing. --Brand спойт 14:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that's how his name usually appears: his entry in American National Biography, for example, is "Captain Pipe", and most other sources listed in the article do the same. (It's similar to the approach generally used for another famous native leader, Major Ridge.) There's less agreement about whether to index Captain Pipe in the C's or the P's: ANB puts him in the C's. Occasionally, an author will prefer to call Pipe by his Delaware name "Hopocan", perhaps thinking that they're avoiding an unflattering nickname bestowed by others, but "Hopocan" is simply Lenape for "Pipe". —Kevin 16:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Rudjek 23:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per Minh, the Bread, Hello, and TomStar. Impressive work, impressive article. —Cliff smith 03:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]