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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:05, 4 April 2009 [1].

Nominator(s): Charles Edward (Talk) 17:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After several weeks of editing and research, a GA review and an A class review, I believe this article is now worthy of Featured status. I appreciate any feedback. Thanks! Charles Edward (Talk) 17:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - This is looking really good. The prose is generally clear and engaging. I did a small bit of tweaking, but overall I found little to fault. Nice work! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Technical Review

• Disambiguation and external links check out with the links checker tool.
• Ref formatting (WP:REFTOOLS script)

• Some refs use more than 1 page to source, so instead of p. 6-7, it should be pp. 6-7
• The following refs (code pasted below) are duplicated and appear in the ref section more than once, a WP:REFNAME should be used instead

• Funk, p. 30
• Langguth, p. 169--Best, ₮RUCӨ 15:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I have corrected these items. Charles Edward (Talk) 15:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Image review File:Battle of tippecanoe, battlefield map.jpg - The image description page needs to include a source for this map per WP:IUP Awadewit (talk) 18:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The source is: Funk, Arville L (©1969, revised 1983). A Sketchbook of Indiana History. Rochester, Indiana: Christian Book Press, pages 27 & 28. It was on the page already, just in the incorrect spot. I have moved it. Charles Edward (Talk) 19:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• All images have adequte descriptions and verifiable licenses. Awadewit (talk) 00:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning towards support - In general, I found this a well-written article. I checked my university library, which has an extensive collection of Indiana-related material, and I found a few scattered books on Tippecanoe, but none that looked particularly promising for this article - many were simply spiffy guidebooks. I was really surprised at the dearth of material on this battle.

• Is it possible to replace instances of "Indian" with the specific tribe name? If not, should not "Indian" be replaced with "Native American"? I noticed that the term is occasionally used in the article.
  • Done. For the most part, it was actually a group of tribes, the primary leaders though were mostly Shawnee. Charles Edward (Talk) 18:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Sometimes Tenskwatawa is referred to as the "Prophet" and sometimes as "Tenskwatawa" - could this be standardized to avoid confusion? I would suggest using "Tenskwatawa", as that is his name.
  • Done, Tenskwatawa means something like "Open-Door", it was a title or name he took on himself. The Americans labeled him "the Prophet" because of his religious teachings. Charles Edward (Talk) 18:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Why did people in 1811 believe that the Indians were being supported by the British? Were they? The article does not seem to indicate that. This is the point that confused me the most in reading the article.
  • They were in fact encouraging the tribes the make trouble, and did supply them firearms - but the tribes were very reluctant to accept their help at first, and most of the tribal leaders shunned them. Tecumseh's group being the primary exception. The situation is explained in more detail in the article Tecumseh's War. The papers had been carrying anti-British propaganda for nearly a year, and the War Hawks had been pushing for war before the battle occurred. This situation was really already a powderkeg with Britain, and although their role here was minor, it just a straw that broke the camel's back. Charles Edward (Talk) 18:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could this be explained in the "Background" section? Awadewit (talk) 18:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. Charles Edward (Talk) 02:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is very helpful. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 18:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to supporting this article soon. Awadewit (talk) 18:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are right about lack of sources. I was unable to find anything written within the last 75 years that was dedicated to the battle. Most of the sourcing came from the three books you see in the article, each of them with a few pages worth of information on the battle. Langguth puts in in context with the larger war of 1812, Owens puts it in context of Harrison's life, and Funk is written from the perspective of the American soldiers and gives the best step by step description of the battle. Charles Edward (Talk) 18:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to full support. Awadewit (talk) 18:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional Support - with comments. This an engaging and generally well-written article, but it does seem a little under-referenced. I appreciate that reliable sources may be few and far between, but could more use be made of the ones listed? There are many occasions, such as "they discovered and scalped the bodies of 36 warriors" which cry out for a citation. I spotted few problems with the prose; redundancy "in order to", "so it could qualify" (for it to qualify), "while about 126 were less seriously hurt" (and about 126..), "in an 1816 conversion with Lewis Cass, the Governor of Michigan" (does this mean "conversation"?. Graham Colm ^Talk 15:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I have addressed the specific concerns you have listed, and would be glad to expand referencing wherever you believe it may be lacking. The info in the paragraphs are all from the citations listed at the end of each paragraph, I have tried to place them also at positions required by guidelines. To move them to specific statements would take me a few minutes to look at which book the info was from, but for the most parts the paragraphs are a blending of all three sources. Charles Edward (Talk) 17:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.