Talk:Apple River Fort

Closing

I added a bit about the closing. I don't think it's appropriate Wikiquette but I can get away with it. I just wanted to say this is an absolute travesty, this, and the other closings. The whole region suffers because of our arrogant governor. Pft!

To the woman who operated the site, whom I had the pleasure to meet on my visit in late April, (and I don't know if you read this site--I know you hate it! haha) but thank you, and I am so sorry. Hopefully someone in our government has brains and this nonsense will be over before you know it. --IvoShandor (talk) 15:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Apple River Fort/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi, I will be reviewing this article for GA. So far, it looks good. I will be adding comments as needed. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow that was fast. I will look forward to your review. :-)--IvoShandor (talk) 04:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and thanks for the date assist, I can't keep up with the ever changing MOS.--IvoShandor (talk) 13:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• Dates need to be consistently formatted in US date, since this is a US article. (I notice some British date formatting.) With a US date, a comma is needed between the month, day, and the year, i.e. September 22, 1845.

• I think I got all of these. --IvoShandor (talk) 18:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• Also, when you say "militia's defeat", I wonder if it would be helpful to say Illinois militia's defeat, since I gather that is what you mean from the linked article.

• Done.--IvoShandor (talk) 18:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• "The fort was attacked by Black Hawk on 24 June 1832 as part of the war, which was essentially a land dispute between the United States and the Sauk and Fox people." - should be "as part of the war that was essentially...". Also, who were the Sauk and Fox people?

I think I addressed your question in the new background section. Fixed grammatical error.--IvoShandor (talk) 18:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• "Though the Apple River Fort site is located in Elizabeth,..." - I assume you mean that because the fort was located in the metropolitan area of Elizabeth?. Otherwise, why would a location in Elizabeth be particularly threatening to its existent?

I have to read a bit more but I am pretty sure that the site's archaeological value makes it vulnerable to looters, even in a small place like Elizabeth. I'm pretty sure one of my sources talks about this but I'll have to get back to you. --IvoShandor (talk) 18:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I have just dropped this language. --IvoShandor (talk) 18:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• I have added a few commas here and there for dates or dependent clauses.
• Shingle needs disambiguation.

• Done. --IvoShandor (talk) 18:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• The source http://www.illinoishistory.gov/hs/apple_river.htm (and perhaps some others) contains some background on the war, why the Indians were upset, how the miners moved in and began selling their land despite the treaty etc. I think it would help the article to include some of this background, in your own words, to explain why the war was fought besides just the traditional "Indians against white man."

I have added a background section, let me know if it needs more information.--IvoShandor (talk) 18:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• I haven't be able to access http://gis.hpa.state.il.us/hargis/PDFs/201095.pdf, but I assume that is server problems on there side.
• All in all, the article is good and, after fixing the few problems above, should have no problem reaching GA status. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I will get on these asap. The HAARGIS site has been acting up lately, not sure what the deal is. The other stuff should be no problem to address though. --IvoShandor (talk) 18:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I have attempted to address everything. I even added a helpful map to the new background section.--IvoShandor (talk) 19:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• Well done! —Mattisse (Talk) 20:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Apple River Fort. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090815021319/http://lincoln.lib.niu.edu/blackhawk/page2c.html to http://lincoln.lib.niu.edu/blackhawk/page2c.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090408080239/http://www.dnr.state.il.us/pubaffairs/2009/February/Parks_reopen.htm to http://dnr.state.il.us/pubaffairs/2009/February/Parks_reopen.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060910151315/http://www.lib.niu.edu/ipo/2001/ilfa0105.html to http://www.lib.niu.edu/ipo/2001/ilfa0105.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:16, 8 July 2017 (UTC)