Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Crawford expedition

Crawford expedition

Howdy folks. This is an article I wrote for Danny's third contest. The contest's emphasis was on source citation, so this article has more notes than a Bach concerto. I'm almost finished with it, so some input would be most welcome. —Kevin 05:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

It's a very, very good article (but I think I've said this before!); the few quibbles I have are basically minor points of formatting:

• I'm not sure that splitting the references into separate article and book sections is a good idea, particularly as it separates some authors' works among the two sections.
• The dates in the headings might look neater parenthesized at the end, rather than preceding a colon at the beginning.
• The image sizes seem to bounce all over the place. Different widths for vertical and horizontal images are to be expected, but I'd try to reduce the widths used to two or three different values.

Other than that, looks great! Kirill Lokshin 17:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Balloonman

Since I'm askign for peer reive, I figure it's only fair that I review some of the articles here. So here are a few thoughts and questions, take them for what they are worth:

• Made some minor wordsmithing changes.
• "gathered a force at Sandusky." Because I went to college in Delaware OH, I know that Sandusky is a street, a city, and a river. Which one of these locations did they gather at? You've mentioned Sandusky River, but I think you are really refering to the city?
• Rout to me is synonymous with slaughter, so reading, "The retreat turned into a rout, but most of the Americans managed to find their way back to Pennsylvania" feels awkward.
• "lands previously lost to the Americans" Is Americans the proper term? Or should it be Colonials? Be wary of the PC police ;-)
• "However, White Eyes, the Delaware leader who had negotiated the treaty, was murdered in 1778 by American militiamen." I find myself asking why? Was the treaty unpopular with the Americans?
• "With most Delawares now pro-British, in April 1781 American Colonel Daniel Brodhead led an expedition into the Ohio Country and destroyed the Delaware town of Coshocton." This sentence is a little awkward. I'd break it up.
• Paragraphy dealing with Delaware Christians is a little awkward as well.
• "and William Crawford, a Continental Army colonel who was not then on active duty." Does the "then" refer to the time of the masacre or the time of the electing of officers?
• "acrimonious" might be a little too advanced for the average reader of wikipedia.
• First paragraph in "British and Indian preparations" could be rewritten. I'd rather hear about the captured american first before hearing that they knew the plans. EG: "Thanks to information obtained from a captured American soldier, on April 8, British agent Simon Girty relayed to his superiors at Detroit an accurate report of Crawford's mission. The British and Indians thus knew about the expedition even before Crawford's army had left Mingo Bottom."
• "After the Americans had driven Captain Pipe's Delawares out of the woods and onto to prairie, the Delawares were reinforced by Dunquat's Wyandots." Timing issue, were the Delawares reinforced before or after they were forced onto the prairie? I believe it was after, but it's not clear.
• "outflanked the American position on the right" I'd be interested in knowing the direction. If the Americans were heading West andthe battle was facing west, then the right would be northern flank??

Over all this is a very good article, just some minor quibbles that I think can be easily ironed out.Balloonman 07:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)