Wikipedia:Peer review/Isaac Brock/archive1

Isaac Brock

Hi! I've done quite a bit of work on this article, mostly because I came here for info on one of Canada's most important historical figures. Finding the article lacking I completely overhauled it, and I'd like to get it up to feature article status BUT I need someone to check it for NPOV and objectivity, and whatever else it needs. Thanks! Scimitar 20:36, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the article looks great. Do you have anymore pictures that could be added to the article? I think that you need to expand the lead section to make it a more complete summary of the article. Make sure everything that you have used as a reference is listed as a reference, and where you have web link in text consider changing them to footnotes--nixie 12:31, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can get pictures online, but I'm not really sure about copyright procedure. Do we have a page on Wikipedia outlining what is generally fair game? Also, I read a lot about him growing up, but I'll go dig up the books and include them. I'll also go through and institute your other suggestions. Thanks! Scimitar 14:52, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I found the 'fair game' page. The lead has been expanded, I've changed weblinks to footnotes, the references are in process of being improved, and I'm just waiting for permission to use some images I found. Scimitar 16:19, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I just grabbed other Wikipedia images rather than importing new ones. If I get permission I will add those as well. What do you think? Scimitar 17:34, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably use subsections to make it easier to follow. I suggest making a section for his life and making "early years"..."death" subsections. Also, Image:Brock portrait by JCH Forster.jpg needs an image copyright tag (I added it, just for future reference and for pics that I missed). Broken Segue 03:48, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I wasn't very sure about the requirements for images, and I appreciate the help. I'll look at instituting your suggestions. Scimitar 13:55, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I haven't done exactly as you suggested, but I made "Military Service" a section, and "War of 1812" a section. I think this improves readability, and makes it an easier article to follow. Do you agree, or do you think it would be better to organize it differently? Scimitar 15:20, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Much nicer. The only other thing I can think of is a mention of where he was burried. Broken Segue 13:53, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's included as part of the text quoted from Brock's monument, but I'll state it seperately, as it's easy to miss. Thanks a lot for the input. --Scimitar 17:06, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work Scimitar, the visual appearance of the article has improved heaps, my last suggestion would be to run the whole article through a spell checker to make sure that the spelling is all good. --nixie 22:26, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I just spell-checked, and caught about a dozen minor errors I had missed. I'm going to leave this on peer review for a little longer, and then apply for feature-article status. --Scimitar 23:45, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good article, nice work. However, the use of the term "First Nations" to describe American Indians of Brock's era is jarring (to American ears) and certainly ahistorical. Although there's no official Wikipedia policy on this, my practice is to use the term "First Nations" only to describe present-day American Indians in Canada, and not to project the modern term backwards in time. (I do the same for the term "Native American", which likewise sounds jarring to many modern Canadians, and is not a historical term.) In my opinion, the best all-purpose term is "American Indian", which (not insignificantly) is still preferred by the people themselves, particularly in the U.S. Certainly Tecumseh should not be described as a "First Nation" chief, since (popular mythology aside) he was not a Canadian in any sense of the word.

You might briefly mention in the article how, after Brock's death, things went to hell on the Detroit/Amherstburg front under Henry Procter. --Kevin Myers 00:23, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Good points. I wasn't even thinking about terminology, it's just that in Canada, I'm so used to applying the term "First Nations". However, with Tecumseh, the coalition of tribes he led was largely Canadian natives, so perhaps it isn't entirely inappropriate. I wanted to use 'native' or 'natives', but I'm going to take a quick look around and see what terminology other War of 1812 articles use.

As for the war under Proctor, I thought about talking about it, but I wasn't really sure if it would be appropriate for this article, since Brock's immediate successor was Sheaffe. I could look at impact of Brock's death, I suppose, and put a brief write-up in there. Thanks for the comments, and I'll get back to you on what I change and what I find. --Scimitar 14:12, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

American Indian seems to be standard. I've applied it throughout the article. --Scimitar 17:57, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I've expanded on the impact on British leadership in the legacy section now. --Scimitar 19:12, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Attitudes section could probably use inline citations so the reader knows how we know that those where his attitudes. The lead could alse be expanded to two paragraphs, mentioning some more info on what he did in 1812, his death and legacy.--nixie 00:25, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You're right, of course. I'll take a look at doing that and then get back to you. --Scimitar 14:19, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Lead has been expanded, and I added inline citations, but they're pretty choppy (disruptive of flow). I'm considering changing it to a foot note on the heading, saying that all information can be found in such and such letters, from Tupper's book cited as a reference below. Which way do you think would be better? --Scimitar 17:57, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Duh! I switched the in-text references to footnotes. It should be better now. --Scimitar 18:17, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Great, I'm all out of suggestions now :) Good luck on FAC --nixie 13:10, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm going to nominate it today. --Scimitar 16:48, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)