# Talk:Battle of Ekiokpagha

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Ekiokpagha/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 20:52, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
I'll get to this shortly. Ealdgyth (talk) 20:52, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (inline citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

I randomly googled three phrases and only turned up Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation.
References:
What makes https://thewillnews.com/oba-of-benin-is-supreme-in-benin-appeal-court-declares/ a reliable source?
I don't see the Izu source used as a footnote? If its not used, it should be in a further reading section. Also, a masters thesis is usually not considered a reliable source.
Spotchecks:
"In recent times, particularly surrounding the 2016 coronation of Oba Ewuare II, the Battle of Ekiokpagha has become a focal point of controversy and debate. The Ogiamien family, led by Arisco Osemwengie, asserted their rightful claim to the Benin throne, challenging the authority and legitimacy of the Oba." is sourced to this source which supports some of it, but the source does not mention the battle so it doesn't support some of the first sentence.
"The conflict persisted until the reign of Oba Ewedo, who assumed the throne in 1255 AD." is sourced to this source (Curnow) p. 1 which does not mention the date of 1255 at all. In fact, the source doesn't mention 1255 at all.
"Oba Ewedo crafted a secret agreement with Chief Ubi, a trusted ally of Ogiamien" is sourced to Curnow p. 13, which supports the first part, but not the "a trusted ally of Ogiamien"
"Another enactment unfolds at Ekiokpagha, where a simulated conflict transpires between the Oba and Ogiamien, ultimately culminating in reconciliation" is sourced to Curnow p. 1 which does not support the information - that page doesn't mention Ekiokpagha at all
"This plan aimed to entice Ogiamien III into a carefully laid trap, culminating in a decisive battle to secure Oba Ewedo's authority" is sourced to Curnow p. 1 which does not support the information.
Okay, I got this far in spotchecking, and we seem to have some issues. I cannot find access online to any of the other sources to spot check them, so I'm not sure how big a problem we have. I can fail this nomination so that the nominator can do an indepth check of all the sourcing without time pressure. Or the nominator can scan some of the other sources and let me spot check other sources. But I'm concerned that there are issues with source-text integrity here.
I'm not putting this article on hold - just going to @Vanderwaalforces: to work on what to do next. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:36, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello @Ealdgyth Thank you so much for your feedback. I will comment based on them now.
References
TheWill is one of Nigeria's reliable sources, I am in Nigeria and can definitely identify RS and non-RS for Wikipedia because of my understanding.
 Done I will remove the Izu source and as we go, I will crosscheck where to use it on, because I remember getting information from there. Otherwise I can be gone for good.
Spotchecks
 Done I have added the correct page number.
 Done I have fixed this now, I must have mistaken Eweka for Curnow.
The "trusted ally" thingy is there because Curnow 2017 p. 13 says "Ẹwẹdo	accomplished his goal with Ubi’s cooperation, despite the appearance of continued antagonism." Please let me know if you still think it should be removed.
I don't see that "Ubi's cooperation" means "trusted ally", especially when combined with the later "appearance of continued antagonism". Ealdgyth (talk) 15:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 Done I have also fixed the page number for this feedback.
 Done I fixed this while fixing the second spotcheck.
Generally, I don't think there would be critical sourcing problems, there might just be minor corrections I need to make, nothing critical. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
I actually do have some serious concerns about the source-text integrity. I am not comfortable passing this article without some more investigation of the source-text integrity. As I can't access the sources directly, I need some way to verify that other statements don't have the issues I've seen above. Or I can fail the article and when the sourcing has been checked over by the nominator, they can renominate and I will let someone else review. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Your comments now seem like you picked an article you were never interested in reviewing all because of the good article review drive. Because I don’t get what serious source-text integrity you have concerns with, without even telling what exactly.
The Curnow and Osadolor sources are open access, and this article is mostly based on them. The other sources are only used a few times in the article and I am the creator/nominator of the article, so when you said “ sourcing has been checked over by the nominator” it leaves me confused, I created it and tried to make sure all sources and citations are correctly placed. Failing this nomination is only going to leave me wondering whether I am competent or not. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
There is no sign that Osadolor is open access - it has a link to World Cat but that just says that the one copy that World Cat tracks is held about 4000 miles away from where I am. As for the spot checks - I checked five statements against the sources I could access - three of those checks did not support the information at all and the other two had issues. Given that ratio, I think I'm okay with saying that we need to check more to make sure that the situation was just some issues with page numbers or if there is a deeper issue. I have no idea if it is or not until I check further. As for the statement about my motives for picking this article - I picked it because I enjoy learning more about things outside my editing interests - no other reason. I do not like failing GANs, I try hard to avoid it, but I'm also not going to overlook problems with the spot checks. I tend to do the spotchecks first in a review, so that if the prose has to be amended/changed, the new texts isn't having to be reviewed - the sourcing of an article is its foundation and there's no point in polishing the prose if the foundation hasn't been checked first. I'm happy to do further spot checks, but I do not have access to the other sources (including Osadolor since there is no sign of where to find it as an open access source in this article) so I cannot do that - yet. Ealdgyth (talk) 19:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
The Osadolor source can be assessed from here https://d-nb.info/964084686/34, also, I have now formatted the one on the article. So far, I have been able to address your concerns. For your spot checks, there's a way I am able get snippet view of texts in a page from google books. I usually do that as I am able to view the snippets from google on the books tab when I do an advanced search (with double quotes "" on the keywords I am looking for). This is just a tip.
The reason I quoted the text from the source in most of the citations is because of my previous encounter in my previous GAs, so that it would be an easy review for anyone who picks the article. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Further spotchecks:
"Immediate cessation of all hostilities stemming from the political crises that originated during the interregnum period was mandated" is sourced to this source p. 61 which supports the information
"A formal accord, recognised as the Treaty of Ekiokpagha, was solemnly ratified by both Ogiamien III and Oba Ewedo." is sourced to this source p. 61 which supports the information
I'm still not seeing where "Another enactment unfolds at Ekiokpagha, where a simulated conflict transpires between the Oba and Ogiamien, ultimately culminating in reconciliation" is supported on page 19 of Curnow 2017. I see on p. 16 a simulated battle of Ekiokpagha is done at coronations - but it doesn't seem to say that it takes place at Ekiokpagha. Am I missing something in context?
Anytime I read that from the source, it definitely is at Ekiokpagha. Please take a look at page 24 of this publication https://issuu.com/newtelegraphonline/docs/thursday__may_5__2016_binder1 and search for Ekiokpagha, take a look at that paragraph and see. Maybe I should also add this source? --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:25, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
"This plan aimed to entice Ogiamien III into a carefully laid trap, culminating in a decisive battle to secure Oba Ewedo's authority" is sourced to Curnow 2017 p. 14 - which supports the battle but does not support the "carefully laid trap" nor the "culminating in a decisive battle to secure Oba Ewedo's authority"
That's not entirely correct, that entire paragraph is sourced to Eweka 1992 p. 18. I will paste the content of that page below. Curnow is generally supports the statement from the entirety of the work. Oba Eweka I started the reign of the Obas . Hitherto , the Benin Kings were known as Ogisos . But when Eweka I came to the throne , he was referred to as Oba . Some people claim that the word Oba is a Yoruba word which means King . Others insist that the word must have been derived from the Benin word Obaa meaning "it is hard or difficult" or probably from an abbreviation of the original name of the first Ogiso , Obagodo (Oba godo : Oba - King ; godo - high ; thus : High King ) . Whatever the origin of the word , one can only say that it really came into use as connoting Kingship beginning with Oba Eweka 1's reign in 1200 AD . Eweka was assisted by elders and his maternal grandfather , Ogiegor . He reigned for about 35 years and at his demise , his children ruled in succession ; first was Uwakhuanhen ( 1235–1243 ) , and then Ehenmihen ( 1243- 1255 ) . Here , there was a violation of the primogeniture law , but on the succession of Ewedo ( who was Ehenmihen's son ) the law was restored . It must be observed that the first three Cbas― Eweka I , Uwakhuanhen and Ehenmihen had political support from the elders ( Edion , who later tecame known as Uzama ) . These Edion more or less treated the monarchy as primus inter pares which position Oba Ewedo could not tolerate when he ascended the throne in 1255 AD. Ewedo therefore embarked upon the risky job of suppressing the Uzama and miraculously , he did not only succeed in doing so but eventually suppressed Ogiamien who was virtually in control of the City State . The final settlement came at the decisive battle of "Ekiokpagha" which the Oba fought with Ogiamien who was defeated . The re - enactment of this battle is now a part of the corona- tion ritual usually performed on the seventh day after a new Oba is crowned . It is in this light that one may venture to say that Ewedo really consolidated the position of the Benin monarchy . He created the following titles - Iyase , Esogban , Uwangue , Osodin , Uso and Isekhurhe. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:25, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
"Whether viewed as 20th-century historical revisionism or factual events, this narrative highlights a collaborative and amicable relationship between the two ostensibly adversarial parties" is sourced to Curnow 2017 p. 15 which supports the information
"The reenactments occur at a constructed "bridge" adorned with fresh palm fronds, representing the crossing from Isekhere's territory to Ogiamien's domain, where the Oba is ceremonially challenged" is sourced to Curnow 2017 p. 16 which supports the information
"These ritualistic performances serve to renew the terms of the treaty, averting potential displeasure of the land that might result in plagues and afflictions upon the city" is sourced to Curnow 2017 p. 1 which does not support the information - did you mean page 7 for this information?
 Done Definitely, fixed, thanks! --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:25, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
"In recent times, particularly surrounding the 2016 coronation of Oba Ewuare II, the Battle of Ekiokpagha has become a focal point of controversy and debate." is sourced to Curnow 2017 p. 39 which ... if the page range is extended to pp. 35-39, would support the information
 Done Fixed. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:25, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
"The Ogiamien family, led by Arisco Osemwengie, asserted their rightful claim to the Benin throne, challenging the authority and legitimacy of the Oba" is sourced to this source - am I missing some context - I don't see how the source supports a "claim to the Benin throne" the source says "Arisco, supported by the Ogiamien family had carved out his Utantan kingdom out of Benin Kingdom and declaring himself an imperial majesty." which sounds like Arisco tried to create a new kingdom - Utantan?
 Done That is actually fully supported by Curnow p. 35-39, I have fixed that now. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:25, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
"In response, the palace dismissed these claims as unfounded, labelling them rebellious and disrespectful, and contending that the Ogiamien family lacked ancestral ties to the Ogiso dynasty, considering them as former slaves" is sourced to Curnow 2017 pp. 28-40 which supports the information (the page range could be slimmed down to pp. 37-38, I believe)
 Done Fixed. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:25, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Let's get these resolved and then we can start on the prose review. 14:42, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Lead:
"between Oba Ewedo of the Benin Empire and Ogiamien III, the leader of the indigenous people of the land" ... I'm not sure what "indigenous people of the land" means here - is this not in Benin?
 Done Fixed. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Background:
"dynasty in the 12th century AD by Prince Oranmiyan, who arrived from Ife." do we mean that Oranmiyan orginated in Ife and conquered Benin?
No, Oranmiyan was sent to probatorily rule over the the Edo people, but could not, so his son, Eweka became the Oba. There was no war or conquerring, whatsoever. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
"The dissatisfaction of the Benin elders with the rule of the last Ogiso, Ogiso Owodo, led to the invitation of Oranmiyan." do we mean "The dissatisfaction of the Benin elders with the rule of the last Ogiso, Ogiso Owodo, led to them inviting Oranmiyan to rule them."? Its not clear what Oranmiyan was invited to do.
 Done Fixed. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Is "Ogiso" a title? If it is, we should explain it and only use it at the first introduction of a person. Likewise, is "Oba" a title? If so, we should only use it on first use of a person's name.
 Done Yes, Ogiso and Oba are titles, and Fixed. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
We said that Oranmiyan left Benin due to hostility, so I assume that was the hostility of the populace? If not, please clarify my copyedit.
Your edit was correct. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
"Eweka, raised by Evian, ascended to become the first Oba of Benin" ascended what?
 Done Fixed. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
"Ewedo, resolute in ending Ogiamien's rebellion and establishing unequivocal rule over Benin, devised a strategic plan." is awkward - suggest "Ewedo desired establish secure rule over Benin and devised a plan to end the Ogiamien family defiance."
 Done Fixed. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Battle:
"exchange for facilitating his entry into the city and assuming a position of general rule." what does "assuming a position of general rule" mean? It just sounds like puffery. Suggest "exchange for letting his forces into the city so Ewedo's rule could be secured."
"Following Ubi's guidance, Oba Ewedo was to meet him at the point where their respective territories were delineated—the streams in the ferryman Isekhere's domain." is way too close to the sentence cited from the source "He instructed Ẹwẹdo that they should meet at the point where their respective domains were demarcated–opposing sides of the streams in the ferryman Isekhere's territory" this is too close paraphrasing. Suggest "Ubi and Ewedo planned to meet at the border of their territories."
"The plan involved Oba Ewedo publicly declaring his intent to enter the city while carrying a white-cloth-wrapped cock around his neck. Ubi, in turn, would deny entry, seize the cock, and make off with it, proclaiming that war would ensue in seven days." Again, this is too close paraphrasing - it's basically just changing a few words from the quoted sources: "The Ọba should announce his intentions to enter the city. Ubi would refuse entry, seize the rooster and run with it, instructing that war would follow in seven days." Suggest "Ewedo, who would carry a cloth-wrapped rooster, would state he was going into the city to which Ubi would respond by denying entry, taking the bird, and that war would begin after seven days."
"Oba Ewedo would then offer a cow, a goat, individuals, an agba stool, and other goods to persuade Ubi to allow his passage and assume control of the city on the seventh day." is again, too closely paraphrasing of the source "Ẹwẹdo should then offer a cow, a goat, some people, an agba stool and other goods if Ubi would let him pass and take control of the city on the seventh day" suggest "Ewedo was then to counter-propose a gift of livestock and goods for entrance and control of the city after seven days."
"The rooster, symbolising a sacrificial offering, was deftly seized, and Ubi fled with it, pursued by the Oba's retinue." is too close to the source: "The rooster, its presence and cloth indicating a sacrifice (perhaps in response to ominigbọn divination), was duly snatched, and Ubi fled with it, chased by the Ọba's men." THis needs to be reworded to not be so close.
"Uttering "O gua, O gua, O gua", 'This place has contained you' repeatedly, Ubi strategically discarded the chicken near the cemetery, leading to the abandonment of the chase." is too close to the source "He was saying 'Ọ gua, Ọ gua, Ọ gua' over and over– 'This place has contained you.' Ubi threw the chicken [when he came to where the cemetery was]. When they saw it, they left him. That became the present palace."
"As stipulated, after seven days, both factions convened for a decisive confrontation at Ekiokpagha." is too close to the source "After seven days, both parties were to meet and battle at Ẹkiokpagha, where Ubi would put up a token fight and then, as agreed, capitulate." It needs fixing.
"However, before the royal contingent reached the designated site, they encountered Oliha, the senior chief of Ogiamien, whom they promptly slew, leading to the adage "A ma he se Ekiokpagha, a gbe Oliha Ogiamien", 'We have not yet reached Ekiokpagha, but we have killed Ogiamien's Oliha'." is too close to the source: "Before the royal party reached the site, however, they sighted Ogiamiẹn's Oliha and killed him, giving rise to the saying "A ma he se Ẹkiokpagha, a gbe Oliha Ogiamiẹn," or "We have not yet reached Ẹkiokpagha, but we have killed Ogiamiẹn's Oliha."." It needs fixing.
Okay, this is a LOT of close paraphrasing that needs fixing. Combined with the source-text integrity issues I noted above, I'm leaning towards just failing the nomination. Given the pushback I've recieved, however, I'd like an outside set of eyes look at this and see if my opinion that this needs to be failed and totally rewritten from top to bottom before renomination is correct. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
This nomination has passed 8 out of the 12 GA criteria, if you ask me, I will say failing this nomination won't be appropriate. Do not read my comments as trying make sure you do not fail the nomination. I don't think any of your feedback is not possible to be fixed, the logic is for you to review, give feedback and for the nominator to fix things. Mind you, some of these statements are direct quotes, and others, I can fix. I don't know where the "failing the nomination" threat is coming from. It is fine to ask for a second opinion, I once tended to one sometime in the past. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:08, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Basically, the entirety of the first four paragraphs of the battle section is too closely paraphrased to the sources that are quoted in the citations. This is a major issue and it's going to mean a total rewrite of at least that section. And to discover that much close paraphrasing usually means that there is a problem with it throughout the article. There's a lot that is not "direct quotes" that is too close to the source. Given the issues that GA has had in the past with too close paraphrasing, it's something that needs to be checked for and this check showed rather severe issues in my opinion. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 Done I rewrote the entire battle section. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)


### Status query
Ealdgyth, Vanderwaalforces, where does this review stand? There were edits to the article on 11 March and again on 19 March; have all the issues been addressed? Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I thought I put it up for a second opinion on the sourcing/close paraphrasing concerns. Ealdgyth (talk) 21:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
@Ealdgyth Well, you have refused to check it back because there's currently none. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
I even came here on the 11 of March to say that I had fixed the issues, and yet, no response whatsoever. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
I am concerned that there are still more problems. Frankly, I'd probably have failed the article because of those issues I already identified making me think a full and complete review of all the article against the sources needs to be done. But the nominator was upset enough that I opted for asking for a second opinion. THere are a LOT of close-paraphrasing issues I found and I cannot check against all the sources so how much more remains is unclear and not something I think needs to be put on a reviewer to go and get all the sources and do that checking. Ealdgyth (talk) 21:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
I agree with Ealdgyth here. Close paraphrasing issues are taken very seriously on Wikipedia and if the reviewer cannot be convinced that the article is free of this problem, they are within their rights to fail it. Unfortunately, where the sources aren't available to reviewers makes it hard to verify if the close paraphrasing issues have been resolved. Contrary to the nominator's comments above, it is necessary to meet all of the GA criteria. At the same time, the nominator should be praised for their efforts to improve the article, which is the main purpose of GAN (not marking articles with the green tick mark). (t · c) buidhe 03:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
@Buidhe Hi there, thank you for your opinion, thank you both. I saw this and didn’t want to bother replying as it’s better for the reviewer to make their decision, but I realized that I need to clarify something’s, just for the records. That, I never disagreed wit the reviewer that there are no close paraphrasing on this article, I was only concerned that after I have taken my time work on this article they’re only going to fails because of a problem that I have, as a matter of fact, fixed. And that, if they decide to fail this nomination, it was not being of any close paraphrasing or a problem from me, rather their inability to access the sources online. If the reviewer can not take my word for it, then they’re good to go in failing this nomination. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the second opinion, I'll go ahead and fail this now, due to the close paraphrasing concerns. Ealdgyth (talk) 00:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Ekiokpagha/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Vanderwaalforces (talk · contribs) 13:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Parsecboy (talk · contribs) 13:55, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
This has been sitting for quite a while, so I'll pick it up. Parsecboy (talk) 13:55, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

@Parsecboy Thank you for looking at this. I'd be happy to work with your guidance. Thanks again. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:11, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
No problem at all - let me know if there's anything I can make clearer. Parsecboy (talk) 15:12, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Lead section

The battle was between Ewedo and Ogiamien III, the head of a royal family in the Benin Empire. It was a result of a power struggle between the two parties, who both had claims to the throne and territory of Benin. - this could be worded better. At a minimum, Ewedo should also be introduced in the text, so we don't force readers to click a link to see who he was. I would center the fact that the war was over a succession crisis, along the lines of "The battle was fought between Ewedo, the recently coronated Oba of Benin, and Ogiamien III, the head of a royal family in the Benin Empire who disputed his claim to the throne."
I clarified this based on your recommendation. We now have The battle was fought between Ewedo, the recently coronated Oba of Benin, and Ogiamien III, the head of a royal family in the Benin Empire who disputed his claim to the throne.--Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
The link to Oba of Benin needs to be at first use of the term Oba
 Done --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Background

This section is somewhat difficult to follow for someone who doesn't know about the topic - there's probably more context needed
I clarified this section now. You might want to give another read and tell me what you think. For example, I mentioned who Evian was, and made the first paragraph a lot better. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:51, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Battle

Context here is still an issue. For example:
Ubi is introduced without any explanation as to who (or even what) he was
Ubi was the eldest son of Ogiamien. I added this now. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:22, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
" in entering the city" - what city?
The city was Benin City. I added this now. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:22, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
"the Edo people" - who are the Edo people? Why do we care about them?
The Edo people was supposed to be wikilinked, I did that now and also added that they're the indigenous people of the Benin Empire. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:22, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
"he creation of the proverbial phrase" - what is this?
I added the exact proverbian phrase now. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:22, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Where is the description of the actual battle? This section is mostly about preparations for the battle and then its aftermath
@Parsecboy: Okay, if you read this section you'd see that Ewedo's men "prematurely" eliminated Ogiamien's Oliha. There was not really an actual battle as the word imply. But this event is mostly notable because it was a battle that ended up not being a fight (this is in my opinion after researching the history of it too). This is particularly described in the third and fourth paragraphs. I hope this clarified it for you. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:22, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
That's kind of what I expected - do the sources usually call this a battle? Or is there a more descriptive title? If not, can we make clear that we aren't talking about a largely symbolic event? I think the average reader would expect to hear about a clash of armies at some point, or something. Relatedly, the line "This plan aimed to entice Ogiamien III into a carefully laid trap, culminating in a decisive battle to secure Ewedo's authority." probably ought to be revised to make clearer that we aren't talking about a literal battle. Parsecboy (talk) 21:11, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
@Parsecboy Yes, sources do call it a "battle", at least the sources I have read so far, both cited and not cited. What do you think this, This plan aimed to entice Ogiamien III into a carefully laid trap, culminating in a decisive battle to secure Ewedo's authority. should be revised to? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 02:49, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
I'm looking at changing "battle" to "conflict"... does that work? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 02:58, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
I think that's ok there. And if the sources refer to it as a battle, then we should too. It can be tough with these sorts of pre-modern events to document them well (especially ones like this, where there is no doubt a semi-mythological aspect to them). We call it a battle, because that's how sources refer to it, but it's no doubt called that because of the popular tradition. Presumably there was no real fighting apart from the death of Oliha, but in modern parlance we'd call that a skirmish at most. I think what we need is a sentence in the introduction like the one at the Battle of the Caudine Forks, another "battle" with no actual fighting. Parsecboy (talk) 13:08, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
@Parsecboy That's right. I copied this from the article above... Its designation as a battle is a mere historical formality: there was no fighting and there were no casualties. It appears that there were no casualties in the one above, but there was a casualty in this one, Chief Oliha's death. So, maybe I'd just say Its designation as a battle is a mere historical formality as there was no fighting but Ogiamien's Oliha was eliminated. WDYT? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:22, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
How about Its designation as a battle is a mere historical formality as there was no fighting, but Ewedo's forces killed Chief Oliha, a senior ally of Ogiamien? It avoids passive voice and tells us a bit about who Oliha was. Parsecboy (talk) 14:20, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
@Parsecboy  Done this is indeed a lot better. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:26, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
Aftermath and legacy
Alright, I think we're in pretty good shape now, and I'm happy to pass the article. Great work! Parsecboy (talk) 15:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
@Parsecboy Thank you so much for your cooperation and guidance. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:08, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
The treaty information needs to come first, before you talk about longer-term effects
@Parsecboy: don't you think I should make the Treaty subsection a section of its own? --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:53, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
That would be fine - the issue is it's below a section that ends with events in the current day, and then we jump back to a discussion of the immediate aftermath of the event. It would make more sense as a subsection of the Battle section.
 Done thanks! --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 02:56, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
General comments

There are some grammatical issues throughout (particularly relating to definite articles), such as "contested the Eweka's", "including Ewedo, and Ogiamien family", "with the Ogiamien formally", etc.
I would appreciate specific things I should do, as I do not quite understand the query. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:24, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Those three examples are situations where either the definite article shouldn't be there (as in the first and third - it should simply be "contested Eweka's" and "with Ogiamien formally" instead of with "the" inserted) or should be there should be one as in the second example (should read: "including Ewedo and the Ogiamien family"). Does that help? Parsecboy (talk) 21:11, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
Ah, I see, I have fixed those specifically. I will go ahead and fix others like these that I spot too. Thank you! --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 02:56, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
 Done I just went through the article entirely and did copyedits. This should no longer be an issue. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:31, 27 November 2024 (UTC)