Talk:Battle of Apple River Fort

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleBattle of Apple River Fort has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 22, 2007Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 10, 2007.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that at the 1832 Battle of Apple River Fort, a group of about 25 militia fought off Chief Black Hawk's warriors with the assistance of the nearby settlement's women?

The name of the article[edit]

Shouldn't the name be changed to Siege of Apple River Fort? --Thus Spake Anittas 12:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is a 45 minute gun battle a siege? IvoShandor 10:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does it matter what the duration of the conflict was? The fact is that one faction defended itself in a defensive structure and the other faction tried to besiege it. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck... --Thus Spake Anittas 11:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's the commonly used definition of seige, either way, source terminology is pretty much interchangeable. Many call it a battle, I have seen siege, usually in sources that also use battle. I don't think the name matters much, but I also don't think the use of Siege brings any special illumination to the topic, I really don't think many people would use the term siege to describe this event, maybe I am wrong. IvoShandor 21:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, the most commonly used term in older histories seems to be "Attack," (just perusing Google Books), I see "Siege" used in Thomas Ford's 1854 History of Illinois, and I see a smattering of "battle" uses and other "siege" uses. Not sure how to approach this, but it seems none of the sources really have any big differences through terminology. It seems all three are used interchangeably. Illinois' own Historic Preservation Agency ([1]) uses battle, many others do, I say we stick with battle to avoid introducing any confusion. I really think a common reader would see "siege" read the article, and say "siege my ass". But I am open to discussion on the matter. IvoShandor 21:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it should be "Battle", but have an alternate link of "Siege" or an also known as. Also going by the definition of Siege, I am not convinced that it was a "duck" as was previously stated. Going by the definition (which in latin means sitting), this battle only lasted 45 mins, so it really wasn't a siege at all the more I look at it. Since some texts refer to it as a siege though, I again say we should use it as an alternate name, just not the main name.--Kranar drogin 22:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will add the redirect and alternate title in the lead. Is this sufficient? Thoughts? IvoShandor 22:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit stuff[edit]

  • Where were the messengers heading to? (Probably Dixon, will confirm)
  • Treaties: Reworded, don't want too much detail in the battle article, brief synopsis of the war to that point in the background section.
    • It's fine now.
  • Ensuing events: the ensuing events were the prelude to the Stillman's Run battle. Reworded.
    • Better now.
  • Completed by May 22: this is from the source. The exact date of completion is unknown.
    • Just checking.
  • Date ambiguity: Reworded, the distinction that it occurred immediately preceding the Battle of Waddams Grove is important, I have tried to clarify this.
    • Better now.
  • This incident was one of several during the time period that led James W. Stephenson to clash with British Band warriors at Waddams Grove on June 18.[1]<!--COPYEDITOR'S NOTE: please clarify - he wasn't in charge any more, but was still there and led regular clashes against the British Band from Apple River?-->: I am not sure what you are asking here. Clack Stone was in charge of the militia at Apple River Fort. Stephenson wasn't stationed there. He was another militia member, known for his exploits at Waddams Grove, a battle that was directly preceded by the theft of horses from the stable at Apple River Fort. Please let me know how this can be clarfied.
    • For some reason I got it in my head that Stephenson had been in charge at Apple River Fort, then Stone took over. Me being stupid I'm afraid :(
  • Dixon's ride: Tried to clarify this. They were 900 feet away, he rode back, warned the settlers, and then rode on to Galena to report the attack. Or so the story goes. I am not sure how far the fort is from Galena, not too horribly far, either way, none of the sources mention this matter.
    • Fixing the distance makes this all make more sense now. I've also reworded it a bit. He was busy that day!
  • Interpretive center: an interpretive center is a term used by many museums in the United States to describe an area where artifacts, and other historical items are displayed and "interpreted" for the public. I agree that it is funny, but probably the best thing to use here, that is what they call it.
    • Fair enough, I was unfamiliar with the terminology.

I have addressed most of your comments to the best of my ability. If you can, please further clarify. I think there may be some outstanding issues here. Please do look it over again. IvoShandor 10:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm much happier with it now. Only thing left to clarify is where the messengers were going, and even that is just me being nit-picky. I've given it the stamp of approval now! Cricketgirl 11:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through it again, my only remaining question (apart from the messengers' destination, which I know you are working on) is in the Background section - I have changed "the Illinois Militia force's actions" to "the Illinois militia's actions", because I think that militia should be lower case and that "force" is redundant, but I'm not 100% sure, so I won't be at all offended if you change it back! Otherwise, all looks very good to me, especially all the extra stuff that's gone in today, and the rewording/clarification of the beginning of the Background section. Nice work! Cricketgirl 23:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Trask, Black Hawk: The Battle for the Heart of America], pp. 220-221.


GA on hold[edit]

I have now reviewed this article under the six Good article criteria, and have commented in detail on each criterion below:

1 Well written PASS

The article complies with the MoS and has a good standard of prose. It is recommended to use the templates on WP:CITET for references, but this is a preference rather than a GA criteria ;)

2 Factual accuracy PASS

The article makes good use of its sources, and citations are given for all major statements.

3 Coverage FAIL

The subject is comprehensively covered within the limitations of the sources, and remains focused throughout. However, there are a few minor points I feel need further clarification:

  • Why did Cpt Clack Stone take command of the settlement's militia?
  • Why were most of the garrison not present when the fort was attacked?
  • Is the group of men referred to at the start of the Battle section the same group that passed the wagon on the Galena trail? If so, four names are given (so "three or four" in the previous section can be changed to "four").
  • Where did Col Strode arrive from?
  • I'm not sure I follow the part re Elizabeth Armstrong/Mrs Graham. Are they two different people, or two conflicting identities for the same person?
  • What is an "Illinois FIRST grant"?

4 Neutrality PASS

The article is neutral in its tone, with no evidence of bias.

5 Stability PASS

From the article history there is no evidence of recent instability.

6 Images PASS

The image used is captioned and has a suitable license.

As a result of the above concerns I have placed the article on hold. This gives editors up to a week to address the issues raised (although in some circumstances the hold period can be briefly extended). To help with tracking, editors may like to strike through each comment as it is dealt with, or use the template {{done}} after each comment.

Feel free to contact me if you have any questions or are ready for a re-review. In any case I'll check back here in seven days (around 22nd October). All the best, EyeSereneTALK 11:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the questions are specifics that I don't have, I will look into it but I am guessing that this cannot make GA status, unless I find some source I am unaware of. I wrote "don't know" under the two specific comments that I am unsure I will be able to find, so you would know. I will make the other changes but unless a miracle happens I wouldn't expect to come across the required information for GA. IvoShandor 17:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the information isn't in your sources, that's my answer; I won't fail a GAN for not including information that doesn't exist! (BTW, this would include my Col Strode query too). The other points are more copyedit related as I think all they need is clarification. Regards, EyeSereneTALK 20:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I have addressed all but one of your points.
  • Found that Clack Stone took over command because Davidson was at the Plum River settlement by late May, helping to build fortifications there.
  • None of the sources I have consulted tell why the majority of the militia were not present, they all agree that they weren't there though, odd, perhaps a bit more digging will reveal the answer. I am in contact with the historian at the site, so she may have some leads.
  • Three or four changed to simply four.
  • Strode arrived from Galena, this has been clarified.
  • Have attempted to clarify the naming confusion, please take a look if you so desire.
  • An Illinois FIRST grant is just an all purpose grant program administrated by the state using state funds, I just reworded it to reflect that it was a grant from the state.
I think this should be ready to go. Thanks again for the thorough review. IvoShandor 07:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA pass[edit]

Thank you for the clarifiactions; I agree that this article now meets the GA criteria, and have listed it as such on the Good articles page. Congratulations, and thanks again for the work you've put in. EyeSereneTALK 09:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Apple River Fort. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:52, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Battle of Apple River Fort. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:49, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Apple_River_Fort&oldid=1205820946"