Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Iron Confederacy

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by BlueMoonset (talk) 00:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Iron Confederacy

[edit]
(
)
  • ... that the Iron Confederacy was an aboriginal alliance with a power base across most of what is now Western Canada for most of the nineteenth century?

Created/expanded by Kevlar67 (talk). Self nom at 00:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Reviewer: Montanabw(talk) 23:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
  • : Sourcing issues, proposing Alt hook
  • OK: New enough
  • OK: Article is long enough
  • ?? Fixed Policy: Although not required for DYK, I am troubled with the wall of text with few if any subheadings
  • ?? Fixed Sourcing: "nineteenth century" is an over-generalization and not sourced properly, but while beginning date of 1735 is sourced, ending date of 1885 (proposed in Alt1) is not, and the entire second half of the article is yet to be sourced. See (D2)
  • ?? Fixed One footnote is still a bare url see (D3)
  • ?? Fixed WiseGeek may not pass WP:RS, and in the intro it has some blatent errors; the Assiniboine people do NOT live in Washington state! The info on them you cite in your article may be correct, but I think you will need a better source for it than WiseGeek.

HOOK:

  • OK Hook length good
  • ?? Content needs revision

Hook isn't quite accurate as to dates (appears to have formed in mid-18th century), and, of greater concern, the word "aboriginal" is viewed by some native people in the western USA with disfavor. (First nations in Canada, or "Native People" often preferred, but "indigenous" generally OK) I'm not all that attached to my Alt language, but you can see where I am going with this:

  • OK: QPQ, nominator is reviewing another article
  • OK: No images that need to be checked
  • If the reviewer could only use a single icon for the review summary, it would be appreciated. This is very confusing for a promoter to the prep areas to decipher. Since there are no timestamps for subsequent additions—and there really should be—it isn't clear that there have been some significant objections raised in the section before the hook that effectively cancel out the approval ticks in that section. Also, as ALT1 was created by reviewer Montanabw, an independent reviewer will be needed to approve ALT1 once the other issues are fixed. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I have done some copyedits - fixed links to disambigs and added headings. Generally it is an interesting and readable article, very suitable for DYK. ALT1 would be fine, although a bit long. I suggest ALT2 below. As for politically correct terminology, "Indian" or "Plains Indian" seem generally preferred in Canada and the USA. I made that change in one place. Before it can be approved though, the article needs citations to reliable sources so the content can be verified. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Aymatth2, this will not work; though "Indian" is acceptable to (and sometimes preferred by) SOME Native people, it is not to others ("native people" is one current trend) and some people will be quite offended. Further, because we have a Canadian angle, the term "First Nations" is preferred up there to "Native American." As a member of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, where this is endlessly debates, please believe me when I say putting the word "Indian" on the main page in a DYK will trigger a shitstorm. "Indigenous people" is clunky, but also won't upset those who care nearly as much as any other alternative. Montanabw(talk) 21:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, Bluemoon, I did the whole review at one time on one day, and signed it somewhere. I don't think proposing an Alt hook is going to disqualify me as a reviewer, and I have had DYK reviews where people outline each criteria like this, plus this IS how they review for GA, but if you want to continue the review and close it instead of me, fine. Kevlar made some good changes, but Kevlar, we still need something better than that WiseGeek cite for the beginning date and there is no citation at all for the end date, which is what I need if I was able to approve this hook. Montanabw(talk) 21:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • As to Plains Indians/First Nations/Aboriginal: I originally picked Aboriginal because I though the Metis would play a bigger role in the story, but the more research I did, it bcame clear that most sources just say "the Cree did such-and-such" which is problematic beacause a) "the Cree" were never under a centralized leadership, and b) there were others in the alliance besides the Cree. So I have no problem dropping "Aboriginal", but since they story takes place mostly in Canada, the prefered term is First Nations. As for the foundation date, I'm having a hard time coming up with sources, but I'm working on it. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 22:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Montanabw, proposing an ALT hook doesn't disqualify you as a reviewer, it just means that someone else has to review that particular hook after you've finished your own reviews. DYK rules are quite clear that people may not review their own hooks if they introduce new facts not found in previously approved hooks. As for the multiple icons, although GA does so, DYK usage was not designed this way—I think LauraHale is the only one who favors multiple icons, and it's confusing when she does. The icons came into use under DYK to summarize the entire review. Your version was especially confusing, because the DYK software goes by the final listed icon when generating its dated list of how many hooks and how many approvals there are for each date: your disapproval was counted as an approval. That's why I added the icon in my comment, so this ceased showing up as approved. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Note Montanabw has mentioned it above, but wiseGEEK ref. really needs to be taken out of the mix. WG is basically wikipedia with ads. This is basic info that could be sourced elsewhere. There are still a couple CN tags, but I see kevlar is still adding content. On a positive note, lots of good content here on a woefully undercovered topic. The Interior (Talk) 22:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
I have no problem with someone else approving which hook we use. Basically, I'd also be OK with "First Nations" if we are mostly talking Canada, though there are Cree in the USA. "Indians" won't work, nor is "aboriginal" ideal ... the Metis are not "aboriginal" either, they are people of mixed race... "Native American" is also problematic because the term is not used much in Canada. I proposed the "indigenous people' wording, even though clunky, because it crosses the border... heh. As for approving the article, I just need RS sourcing for the material in the hook, the rest of the article can be developed as time permits, I don't ask for B-class sourcing on a DYK... Montanabw(talk) 00:05, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I've made major changes to the article now, I hope this helps. Back to terminology, since the Metis aren't the main issue here I won't belabour the point, but under Canadian law they are "aboriginal" (it's in the consitution). Again, First Nations or "First Nations / Native Americans" would be better (I've added much about Cree in Montana). --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 01:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
WiseGeek is gone, and major, major additions have using academic source (which BTW, pushes the date back before 1692). --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 21:20, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, "aboriginal" is one of those words like "Indian;" sometimes OK in some circles, sometimes not. Your article pointed me to some other articles that need serious work, so many articles, so little time... sigh. I'll review the rest of the stuff, sorry for the delay. Montanabw(talk) 21:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi Kevlar, I'm now satisfied with the sourcing, though now it looks like what we need now is a brand new hook, as both the 1735 and the "nineteenth century" start dates are now problematic, plus the "aboriginal" term... Maybe something about their greatest strength. The paragraph "from around 1800 to 1850 the Iron Confederacy was at its apogee..." suggests new wording, and it's sourced. You can also take your pick from Alt1 and Alt2 to put your own stamp back on the hook. Montanabw(talk) 21:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
This is my new proposal, and it is much better sourced than the original tag. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 23:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
:Passed Character count of text as it appears is OK. I do worry that someone is going to fret over the word "Indian" but it IS a legal term in the USA, the Canadians DO prefer "first nations" over "native American" and we have a cross-border situation, and I guess if someone DOES get their unders in a bunch, the word "indigenous" probably can be popped in if needed. Montanabw(talk) 23:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Iron_Confederacy&oldid=1021880522"