Talk:Battle of St. Louis

	Battle of St. Louis 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 Date Process Result October 31, 2010 Good article nominee Listed

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: British / European / Spanish / Early Modern This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles Associated task forces: /  British military history task force European military history task force Spanish military history task force Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800) Missouri Mid‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Missouri, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Missouri. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MissouriWikipedia:WikiProject MissouriTemplate:WikiProject MissouriMissouri articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. St. Louis Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject St. Louis (History), a project to build and improve articles related to St. Louis and the surrounding metropolitan area. We invite you to join the project and contribute to the discussion.St. LouisWikipedia:WikiProject St. LouisTemplate:WikiProject St. LouisSt. Louis articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This review is

transcluded from Talk:Battle of St. Louis/GA1

. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B.

   lists

   :

   Watch capitalization in your references and they also need place of publication.

   D'oh. Fixed. Magic♪piano 18:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A.

   References to sources

   :

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it
   neutral
   ?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have

   fair use rationales

   :

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with

   suitable captions

   :

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Nicely done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should be good to go now. Magic♪piano 18:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Louisiana Garrison Regiment. Regular Spaniard Army. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.8.98.118 (talk) 12:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wapasha and the Sioux never sided with Great Britain because they frequently sold weapons to the Ojibwa, Sauk, and Meskwaki (their enemies) and simultaneously encouraged them to raid Sioux villages. The French were far kindlier to the Sioux because of a long history of trade and commerce so it would make sense that the Sioux would favor siding with the French. When Ixkatapay, a Dakota brave, was discovered to be the murderer of an English trader, the British threatened Wapasha and his people if they granted him amnesty. When Wapasha went to a British fort in Quebec, he was treated quite poorly by British soldiers. According to eyewitness accounts, when he was imprisoned as a surrogate for Ixkatapay, Wapasha's feathers were torn from his head and stomped on by a Redcoat guard. The only reason he was even released in the first place was because the English officers admired his willingness to sacrifice himself for his people. During the Revolution, the English sent the Dakotas enemies to drive them out but failed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.212.135 (talk) 01:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to address what the sources cited in the article say. Your assertions carry no weight until you back them with sources. Magic♪piano 02:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ojibwe_people
  • "In 1745 they (the Ojibwe) adopted guns from the British to defeat and push the Dakota nation of the Sioux to the south."
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Fox_War
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8th_%28The_King%27s%29_Regiment_of_Foot#American_Revolutionary_War_.281768.E2.80.931785.29
• http://www.chacha.com/question/who-ended-the-war-between-the-ojibwe-and-sioux

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.212.135 (talk) 20:46, 22 July 2013

Wikipedia articles are not

reliable sources, and neither is chacha.com. Even if they were, the content of these sources doesn't support your claims. Magic♪piano 01:16, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply

]