# Talk:Wooden Leg: A Warrior Who Fought Custer

The tone of this article is largely conversational, with such expressions as "of course" and the like.  This seems a less than encyclopedic approach—more of a book review, which Wikipedia is not.  Can it be made more encyclopedic?
--Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 14:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, the DYK hook is brilliant. Bradley0110 (talk) 17:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

This seems like a US topic per WP:ENGVAR and should therefore be using US English throughout, unless there's a special reason not to. Is there? --John (talk) 08:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

A dubious argument directed at a Cheyenne speaker who hardly speaks any English of any variety. SpinningSpark 17:04, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
...and spent a good deal of his life at war with the US.  An argument also not helped by Marquis' own spelling of words such as whisky instead of whiskey. SpinningSpark 15:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Wooden Leg: A Warrior Who Fought Custer/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Diannaa (talk · contribs) 16:16, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello Spinningspark. I will be taking on the review of this interesting article and will do some copy edits once you have the following issues addressed.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:
Too many paragraphs and sentences start with "Wooden Leg". Please go through and re-word a third to a half of the instances.Y Changed a few
Spell out "United States" on first mention, both in the lead and in the body. Don't wikilink though; it's considered a common term and is no longer linked. Y
We are not told who wrote the book until the second paragraph. In the lead you tell us that  Marquis gathered stories from Wooden Leg and others, but elsewhere you imply that the book is mostly autobiographical and can be attributed to Wooden Leg. Which is it? Authorship needs to be spelled out clearly in the opening paragraph, and this ambiguity needs to be resolved. Y
Wooden Leg lived through some of the most turbulent times in Cheyenne history, but the book begins with his childhood and descriptions of Cheyenne customs. The word "but" implies we should be surprised that the book begins with his childhood. I don't find that surprising at all, as many biographies start that way. Could you re-word this please? N Nominator refused to do this
These included tribal organisation, the warrior societies, sport, religion and mythology, their friendship and cooperation with the Sioux, arrow recognition, warbonnet entitlement, and much more. You don't need to say "and much more", as the word "included" already implies that this is not an exhaustive list. Also the word "included" should be changed to "include", as the book still contains this material. Y Changed "included" to "include", but refused to do the rest. Thought about this, it's okay as is
Wooden Leg took part in, and the book describes, ... How about "The book describes Wooden Leg's participation in..." Y
deported to Oklahoma: Were they deported to Indian Territory, later part of Oklahoma? Please clarify and link. Y not done, but adequately explained
Wooden Leg spends some time describing how he befriended the old chief Little Wolf towards the end of his life. How about "Wooden Leg describes in detail"? Also, towards the end of whose life? Wooden Leg's or Little Wolf's? Y fixed
Wooden Leg's book caused controversy at the time through some of the claims he made about the Custer fight. You've not yet introduced us to Custer. Perhaps this should be done higher up, when you first mention the Battle of the Little Bighorn? This event is common knowledge to you and me, but people in India may not know who Custer is until you tell them. Plus the prose is a bit awkward; how about "Wooden Leg's description of the Battle of the Little Bighorn caused controversy when the book was first published, particularly his claim that many of the US soldiers committed suicide". Also, in the Research section, you are presenting the suicides as though it were fact, when the rest of the article makes it clear that Wooden Leg's claim is still not proven. That passage needs to be re-worded please. Y all fixed
In the meantime the project grew from recording the events at the Little Bighorn to the broader conflict: This would be a good spot to insert a sentence or two of background material about the broader conflict. Y resolved
 all the Cheyenne survivors should be "many" or "most" or quantified in some way, because later you specify that he spoke to ... most of the seventeen Northern Cheyenne participants ... still alive at the time of the interviews. Y
Many other conflicts, both with other Indian tribes, most especially the neighbouring Crows, but also the Shoshone, and US soldiers are documented in which Wooden Leg took part from a very young age. The sentence is convoluted, with too many commas. Please re-work or split it into two sentences if you have to. Y Still needs work, but I will look at it when I do the copy edit
The hardships of hunting in the snow as a boy with minimal clothing should read "The hardships of hunting in the snow with minimal clothing as a boy" Y
nine little warrior chiefs How about "nine minor chiefs"? Y explained
Much else of Cheyenne life is documented, a guide to arrow recognition, marriage customs, the entitlement to wear warbonnets amongst many others. Grammar is sketchy here; war bonnet should be two words; are we provided with guides to all three things listed, or does the word "guide" only apply to arrow recognition? I would tackle rewording it for you but I am not clear on the meaning. Y
Wooden Leg first "made medicine" This needs to be explained; what is the process of making medicine? Y
When "reservation" Indians arrived in camp with rare goods such as tobacco and sugar it was a cause for celebration. Please re-word this sentence and get rid of the scare quotes ("Indians from the reservation"?). Y
In the subsequent fighting Wooden Leg took part in nearly every major engagement. This information needs to move to the end of the paragraph. If you re-word it as "Wooden Leg took part in nearly every major engagement in the Great Sioux War of 1876" the link becomes revealed. Y
"North-East" and "South" should not be capitalised Y
In Wooden Leg's mind, there is no doubt that this gathering of the tribes into one place was intended by the tribal chiefs for defence, not as a preparation for attack on the Whites, despite many of the young men being keen to do just that. Casual wording and not-so-great grammar. Here is a suggested wording: "Wooden Leg was sure that the chiefs had gathered the tribes in one place for defence, not to prepare to make war on the whites, though many of the young men were keen to do just that." Y
An elipsis needs a leading non-breaking space and a trailing space: "trail&nbsp;... could" (two instances) N not done, but not a GA requirement
The Indians drove back these Reno soldiers ... This is the first time Reno is mentioned, so there's some explaining to do. Same with  the Custer soldiers. Perhaps a sourced sentence or two explaining which US military units were involved in the battle, and who their commanders were. Don't assume the reader will know. A brief description of the terrain might be helpful too, as it was important to the outcome of the battle. Y
After the Custer fight Wooden Leg helped to save Little Wolf from being killed by Sioux who were angry that he had arrived after the fight and accusing him of coming to help the soldiers, though it was the actions of Little Wolf's small band that had provoked Custer into a premature attack. This sentence is convoluted and too long. It's difficult to understand the sequence of events, as all the events are in reverse chronological order Y
Wooden Leg, who was a good Sioux speaker, Does this mean he was a fluent speaker of the language? Y answered
I don't understand the story about the boots. Was the US soldiers' boot a multi-piece item, with a top and bottom that could be separated? Y fixed
Bear Coat: I shouldn't have to look at the explanatory note to find out who you mean by this. Y fixed
A few chose not to surrender at either place, and Wooden Leg and his brother, Yellow Hair, joined one such group led by the Fox warrior society chief Last Bull even though the rest of his family had gone to surrender at the agency. The sentence is too long, and events are in reverse chronological order, making it harder to understand. Please re-word Y
then came the shocking news Were the Indians shocked, or is the reader expected to be shocked? How about combining the word "shocking" into the following sentence ("shocked and angered" or some such) Y
Wooden Leg had much contact with the Southern Cheyenne during this time. He learnt from them who Custer was (the Southern Cheyenne were familiar with him since he had previously fought a campaign against them) and of their attempt to come north to join them in the summer fighting of 1876. Sentence too long; the parentheses makes me lose track of the subject matter Y
Wooden Leg says that no-one had bad hearts against Little Wolf The language is too casual for GA standards, and "no one" should not contain a dash Y fixed
The annual Great Medicine dance could use a bit of explanation. Also when you say "practicing Indian medicine" do you mean practicing the indigenous religion, or do you mean medical treatment or healing of some kind? Y fixed
A small selection of the hundreds of books that use Wooden Leg as a reference are listed at the end of this article and Again, a selection of such papers is given at the foot of this article: These need to be removed, as we don't self-reference this way in our articles N Not done, but not a GA requirement
Littlebear believes that the book can help explain how modern attitudes amongst the Northern Cheyenne to other tribes originated in their history. I am unclear on the meaning of this sentence; can you re-word it please? Y
Please tell us who Kate Bighead is. Y
The reader would be better served if material in some of the explanatory notes were moved up into the main body of the prose. Particularly I suggest looking at notes #1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 13, which are all relatively short and would improve the narrative rather than get in the way of it. Y
B. Complies with  MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 
Links:
Thomas Bailey Marquis and Richard Littlebear are red links. These two items should not be linked, unless you are planning on adding articles for them sometime soon. N not done, but not a GA requirement
There's an WP:easter egg link in the lead; the link "agency in Montana" pipes to the article Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation. I don't think you should pipe this link, as readers in foreign countries won't know what an agency is. The word "agency" first appears in the body of the article in the section "Researching the book". You need to explain what the term means and should add a link to our article Indian agent. Y
Link Black Hills (link on first occurrence), Indian reservation, Dull Knife (link on first occurrence), Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. Little Wolf is linked too many times; please link once in the lead and once in the body. Y all fixed
Layout:
Section headers should not begin with the word "The" (The suicide controversy). Y
Section title "Researching the book" should be changed to "Research" Y
Section title "Cheyenne ways of life" → "Cheyenne way of life" ? Y ok as is
Section title "Changed times" → "Changing times" ? Y ok as is
Words to watch:
It should be noted.. is on the list of phrases to avoid. It's not our job to tell the reader what is noteworthy Y
Wooden Leg is said to have retracted the claim in later life needs to be re-worded; who specifically said it? (words to avoid) Y fixed
Other style issues:
Names of periodicals need to be in italics (New York Times). Y
Books listed in the bibliography need to be in camel case title case (Cheyenne memories of the Custer fight becomes Cheyenne Memories of the Custer Fight; there are many such, and they all need to be fixed). Y
Cheyenne Memories is in quotation marks, but it should be in italics, as it's a book. Y
For your ISBNs, it's better if they all have dashes. There's a tool at http://www.isbn.org/converterpub.asp that can convert them for you. N not done, but not a GA requirement
A. Provides references to all sources: 

B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary: 
Sources appear to be reliable scholarly works; spot checks revealed no copyright violations or too-close paraphrasing; citations are formatted in a consistent style
C. No original research: 
As well as source information for Cheyenne military and social history, the book is also a rich source of anecdotes. Does this come from a source, or is it your own opinion?
Ditto and many more equally memorable: your opinion, or from a source? Y fixed
...it is clear that many of the details given by the Indian participants were still controversial and not believed Is this your opinion, or did it come from an independent asessment of the review? Y Discussed -
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Main aspects are addressed: 

B. Remains focused: 

Does it follow the neutral point of view policy?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 
File:Littlebighorn HR Locke.jpg: Do we know the date of death of the photographer, and do we know if/when this photo was ever published (prior to its appearance here)? The Hirtle Chart tells us that photos are in the public domain in the United States if the author died over 70 years ago for an unpublished work. Note that in this context "published" means published in a book or newspaper or printed up and distributed as a postcard or the like. Alternatively, an image is PD in the United States if it was published prior to 1923. I am not seeing any evidence that either of these criterion are met for this image.
File:LittleWolf 02.jpg: For this image we know the date of death of the photoggrapher (1952). The uploader claims that the image was published prior to 1923, but provides no evidence. Y this image is okay
File:Dull Knife.jpg: We don't know the name or date of death of the photographer. We don't know what year the photo was taken, or whether or not it was ever published. Therefore we have no way of knowing the actual copyright status of this image. Y This one is in the National Archives; ID # 530912
B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 
File:Cheyenne using travois.jpg: The caption is written in the present tense. Please change this to the past tense. Y
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
The article will be placed on hold for a week to address these concerns. Please post any questions here, and I will watch-list both the review and the article. Best, -- User:Diannaa (talk) 21:10, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, thanks very much for taking the trouble to review this article.  I will copy some of your comments below a piece at a time so that I can reply to them individually. SpinningSpark 12:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


### Replies and progress
#### GA 1A
Too many paragraphs and sentences start with "Wooden Leg".
I have changed a couple, but I think we have to accept as inevitable that the subject of the article is going to get mentioned numerous times and we should not be distorting the language to try and change that.  I don't know where you get the idea that a third to a half of the instances need changing, that sounds like a pretty arbitrary rule to me.  Before I made the changes there were eleven instances of paras starting with "Wooden Leg", three starting with "Wooden Leg" (ie the book, not the man) and one "Wooden Leg's" compared to 38 paras starting with a word other than "Wooden". SpinningSpark 13:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
We're down to 27 sentences starting with the word "Wooden", which is not as many as I asked for, but it's enough IMO. I will likely change a few more when I do copy edits. -- User:Diannaa (talk) 22:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Spell out "United States" on first mention, both in the lead and in the body.
Done SpinningSpark 14:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
We are not told who wrote the book until the second paragraph. In the lead you tell us that  Marquis gathered stories from Wooden Leg and others, but elsewhere you imply that the book is mostly autobiographical and can be attributed to Wooden Leg. Which is it?
This is quite difficult to handle.  The book is written in the first person as if it were an autobiography (and I have reworded that passage to say that).  Marquis self-describes as author, but modern editions call him interpreter.  I suspect, however, that Marquis input a lot more into this than just a translation.  However, I have no source that addresses this issue other than Marquis' own words in the original preface: "The principal story-teller's statements of essential facts have been amalgamated with those of his fellow tribesmen who fought as companions with him.  Groups of them, with him as leader, took the author many times into assemblage."  I think the best we can do is state the facts about this contradiction and leave the readers to decide themselves. SpinningSpark 14:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
The author of the book should be mentioned in the opening paragraph in my opinion. Or the second paragraph should be amended to say "Much of the material for the book was dictated to Thomas Bailey Marquis by Wooden Leg ..." since you immediately tell us that a lot of material in the book came from interviews with other people. This definitely needs to be fixed please, because it's confusing and unclear. -- User:Diannaa (talk) 22:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Done, Marquis moved to first para. SpinningSpark 18:17, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Wooden Leg lived through some of the most turbulent times in Cheyenne history, but the book begins with his childhood and descriptions of Cheyenne customs. The word "but" implies we should be surprised that the book begins with his childhood.
No, not surprised, it is to contrast with the core of the book, the war with the US and the Custer fight (which was the limit of Marquis' original project).  The book is subtitled A Warrior who Fought Custer but the message "Soldiers are coming to fight you" does not arrive until page 159. SpinningSpark 14:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
The problem is that the word "but" implies that the reader should be surprised by the structure of the book, when in fact this structure is quite usual in a biography or autobiography. -- User:Diannaa (talk) 22:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
These included tribal organisation, the warrior societies, sport, religion and mythology, their friendship and cooperation with the Sioux, arrow recognition, warbonnet entitlement, and much more. You don't need to say "and much more", as the word "included" already implies that this is not an exhaustive list. Also the word "included" should be changed to "include", as the book still contains this material.
Well as a matter of logic, "much more" does add information since "included" might imply only one additional item (or in extrememum, none at all). included > include is done
I've thought about this and understand your point now. -- User:Diannaa (talk) 22:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Wooden Leg took part in, and the book describes, ... How about "The book describes Wooden Leg's participation in..."
Done SpinningSpark 14:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
deported to Oklahoma: Were they deported to Indian Territory, later part of Oklahoma?
I am reluctant to link Indian Territory, firstly because that article is not very helpful in identifying the location they were deported to.  It conflates Indian Territory with Indian Country, which at least at some period included the very region of Montana from which the Cheyenne were deported.  Secondly, Wooden Leg's/Marquis' descriptions do not refer to Indian Territory, they say Oklahoma.  Thirdly, according to this map the region assigned to the Cheyenne was in Oklahoma Territory and not in Indian Territory (they are not synonyms as can be seen from the map).  If necessary, I am sure a source could be found that pinpoints the exact location the Cheyenne were sent to, but in my opinion "Oklahoma" is accurate enough for the purposes of this article and is at least sourced. SpinningSpark 17:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
I think Oklahoma should be linked in the lead then, and you should amend to read "in present-day Oklahoma" -- User:Diannaa (talk) 22:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Wooden Leg spends some time describing how he befriended the old chief Little Wolf towards the end of his life. How about "Wooden Leg describes in detail"? Also, towards the end of whose life? Wooden Leg's or Little Wolf's?
Done.  Little Wolf is meant - although Wooden Leg is also very old at this point. SpinningSpark 17:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Wooden Leg's book caused controversy at the time through some of the claims he made about the Custer fight. You've not yet introduced us to Custer. Perhaps this should be done higher up, when you first mention the Battle of the Little Bighorn? This event is common knowledge to you and me, but people in India may not know who Custer is until you tell them. Plus the prose is a bit awkward; how about "Wooden Leg's description of the Battle of the Little Bighorn caused controversy when the book was first published, particularly his claim that many of the US soldiers committed suicide". Also, in the Research section, you are presenting the suicides as though it were fact, when the rest of the article makes it clear that Wooden Leg's claim is still not proven. That passage needs to be re-worded please.
Done all points.  We need to be careful not to make too much of Custer in the early part of the story.  Although Custer is a great selling device for the book, he was entirely unknown to Wooden Leg and the Northern Cheyenne at the time of the battle. (But their Southern Cheyenne cousins could certainly have filled them in if they had succeeded in their attempt to link up with the Northern tribes). SpinningSpark 18:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
In the meantime the project grew from recording the events at the Little Bighorn to the broader conflict: This would be a good spot to insert a sentence or two of background material about the broader conflict.
Don't really agree that that works.  The book did not end up about the Custer battle, or about the Great Sioux War, but about the life of Wooden Leg.  It would be a rather large detour to insert a synopsis of the conflict into that sentence.  The war is described in the book's synopsis, at least as far as it was visible to Wooden Leg.  Describing the war, and other background history, from a broader perspective would really need to be done in a separate section.  This could be done, but is it going too far off-topic for an article about a book? SpinningSpark 18:56, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
You don't need to detour into a big exposition here. What is the "bigger conflict"? Readers will not know. How about this: "the broader conflict of the Great Sioux War, a series of battles in 1876–77 between the Lakota Sioux and Northern Cheyenne, against the United States" or "the broader context of the American Indian Wars, a series of conflicts between American settlers or the federal government and the native peoples of North America before and after the American Revolutionary War," or whatever bigger conflict it is that you are actually referring to.On a more general note, I see that you are refusing to follow nearly half my suggestions for amendments to the article. I don't see how I will feel comfortable passing the article to GA if this trend continues. -- User:Diannaa (talk) 20:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Keeping that sort of scoresheet is not really going to be constructive here.  I am not attempting to be combative over any issue, I am just calling them as I see them.  If you are not satisfied with any of my responses you are welcome to respond and I will do my best to address your concerns.  But just to put the counting straight, of the ten items I have responded to so far, seven of them have resulted in some kind of change to the article (although it might not have been exactly or completely what you suggested).  Of the other three, the last one I made a suggestion of a way forward. SpinningSpark 20:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Some of the items on my list are not specifically part of the GA criterion, such as removal of red links. In those cases it would not be appropriate for me to fail the article if you choose not to follow my suggestions. I do think the prose in the article needs more work to reach GA standards and will help with that aspect once you have responded to the above items. I am going to post some more comments on specific concerns as a separate edit. -- User:Diannaa (talk) 22:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Returning to the specific issue here, after rereading the source, I am no longer sure that the we are justified in saying that the book was ever planned to be about the wider conflict so I have removed that phrase altogether.  The sentence now reads "In the meantime the project slowly metamorphosed from just recording the events at the Little Bighorn to the battle topped and tailed with Wooden Leg's life story, and from there into the whole biography of Wooden Leg, Marquis' principal informant." SpinningSpark 11:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
What does the expression "topped and tailed" mean? I've never heard it before. -- User:Diannaa (talk) 13:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
A bit idiomatic, maybe we should think of something better.  It means to add something to both ends.  To top and tail a letter, for instance, means to add a salutation at the top and "yours sincerely" or whatever, at the bottom.  Another example is a top and tail train, one that has a locomotive at both ends. SpinningSpark 14:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
It sounds like Cockney slang - top hat and tails. Urban Dictionary has a naughty definition. I take it from the new sentence that the Battle of Little Bighorn forms the central part of the book and was a major event in Wooden Leg's life, while other incidents before and after the battle are dealt with at the beginning and end of the book. How about something along these lines:  "The project grew as Marquis added details of Wooden Leg's life before and after the battle, and eventually metamorphosed from a historical account of the battle into a  biography." I have to go to work now, ttyl. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Done.  "Top and tail" is not cockney.  Urban dictionary has a crude meaning for just about everything nowadays, to the point where it has become almost useless unless you are looking for a new way to insult people.  The phrase is listed in the OED and is now in Wiktionary (but only because I just put it there).   Anyway, it is gone from the article now.  I would not describle the battle of the Little Bighorn as central to the book in the sense that the battle is mostly what the book is about, it is not, although that was Marquis' original plan.  It is a very important event to the young Wooden Leg certainly, and the war as a whole (not just this one battle) occupies about a third of tbe book.  Custer and his annihilation, however, remain central to the marketing of the book. SpinningSpark 14:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 all the Cheyenne survivors should be "many" or "most" or quantified in some way, because later you specify that he spoke to ... most of the seventeen Northern Cheyenne participants ... still alive at the time of the interviews.
Agreed and done...although...Marquis explicitly names fourteen helpers and says there were also some "other older men", meaning at least two, which when added to Wooden Leg himself and a big dollop of WP:SYNTH gets the required total of seventeen. SpinningSpark 14:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Many other conflicts, both with other Indian tribes, most especially the neighbouring Crows, but also the Shoshone, and US soldiers are documented in which Wooden Leg took part from a very young age. The sentence is convoluted, with too many commas. Please re-work or split it into two sentences if you have to.
Done SpinningSpark 15:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
The hardships of hunting in the snow as a boy with minimal clothing should read "The hardships of hunting in the snow with minimal clothing as a boy"
Done SpinningSpark 15:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
nine little warrior chiefs How about "nine minor chiefs"?
This is one of several cases where I have deliberately stuck to Marquis' own terminology.  There may possibly be an acceptable alternative term, I don't know, but in the absence of a source to guide correct usage I am inclined to stick with Marquis.  "Little chief" is along the lines of a junior minister, or, in the context of a warrior society, a lieutenant to a leading chief.  "Minor chief" to my mind has connotations of a "minor king", a king of a small and unimportant country.  Little chiefs, nor any of the Cheyenne chiefs, were independant rulers in this sense.  But, as I said, I would be happy to use this, or some other term, if it were shown to be proper terminology. SpinningSpark 15:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Much else of Cheyenne life is documented, a guide to arrow recognition, marriage customs, the entitlement to wear warbonnets amongst many others. Grammar is sketchy here; war bonnet should be two words; are we provided with guides to all three things listed, or does the word "guide" only apply to arrow recognition? I would tackle rewording it for you but I am not clear on the meaning.
"Warbonnet" is a correct spelling and is the spelling used by Marquis.  It is listed at Merriam-Webster and Wiktionary.  The placement of the list commas should make it clear that guide applies only to arrow recognition. SpinningSpark 15:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
The sentence is not grammatically correct; how about something like this: "Much else of Cheyenne life is documented, as the book includes a guide to arrow recognition and information on marriage customs and the entitlement to wear warbonnets, amongst many other subjects."
Wooden Leg first "made medicine" This needs to be explained; what is the process of making medicine?
Done. SpinningSpark 17:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Shound we link medicine lodge, which redirects to sweat lodge? -- Diannaa (talk) 20:19, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
When "reservation" Indians arrived in camp with rare goods such as tobacco and sugar it was a cause for celebration. Please re-word this sentence and get rid of the scare quotes ("Indians from the reservation"?).
I've removed the quotes.  What else are you having problems with here? SpinningSpark 17:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Nothing else. I thought the meaning would be clearer if you changed "reservation Indians" to read "Indians from the reservation", but it's okay as is. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:19, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
In the subsequent fighting Wooden Leg took part in nearly every major engagement. This information needs to move to the end of the paragraph. If you re-word it as "Wooden Leg took part in nearly every major engagement in the Great Sioux War of 1876" the link becomes revealed.
Done. SpinningSpark 17:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
"North-East" and "South" should not be capitalised
Done SpinningSpark 17:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
In Wooden Leg's mind, there is no doubt that this gathering of the tribes into one place was intended by the tribal chiefs for defence, not as a preparation for attack on the Whites, despite many of the young men being keen to do just that. Casual wording and not-so-great grammar. Here is a suggested wording: "Wooden Leg was sure that the chiefs had gathered the tribes in one place for defence, not to prepare to make war on the whites, though many of the young men were keen to do just that."
Changed to "Wooden Leg believed that the chiefs had gathered the tribes in one place for defence, not to prepare to make war on the whites, though many of the young men were keen to do just that."
An elipsis needs a leading non-breaking space and a trailing space: "trail&nbsp;... could" (two instances)
Not according to MOS:ELLIPSIS it doesn't. SpinningSpark 22:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
At MOS:ELLIPSIS it says "Put a space on each side of an ellipsis" and "Use non-breaking spaces (&nbsp;) as needed to prevent improper line breaks". What am I missing here? -- Diannaa (talk) 01:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
The Indians drove back these Reno soldiers ... This is the first time Reno is mentioned, so there's some explaining to do. Same with  the Custer soldiers. Perhaps a sourced sentence or two explaining which US military units were involved in the battle, and who their commanders were. Don't assume the reader will know. A brief description of the terrain might be helpful too, as it was important to the outcome of the battle.
Done, SpinningSpark 13:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
After the Custer fight Wooden Leg helped to save Little Wolf from being killed by Sioux who were angry that he had arrived after the fight and accusing him of coming to help the soldiers, though it was the actions of Little Wolf's small band that had provoked Custer into a premature attack. This sentence is convoluted and too long. It's difficult to understand the sequence of events, as all the events are in reverse chronological order
Done, SpinningSpark 13:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Wooden Leg, who was a good Sioux speaker, Does this mean he was a fluent speaker of the language?
Yes. SpinningSpark 23:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand the story about the boots. Was the US soldiers' boot a multi-piece item, with a top and bottom that could be separated?
No, the Indians cut up the boots to make tobacco pouches and the like.  Clarified in article. SpinningSpark 23:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Bear Coat: I shouldn't have to look at the explanatory note to find out who you mean by this.
Done. The original idea of the notes on the US commnaders was to keep out of the synopsis anything that was not directly found in Wooden Leg's own narrative.  Wooden Leg for the most part did not know the white commanders at the time and these details are provided in footnotes by Marquis.  But I accept that it is easier to read this way. SpinningSpark 16:07, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
A few chose not to surrender at either place, and Wooden Leg and his brother, Yellow Hair, joined one such group led by the Fox warrior society chief Last Bull even though the rest of his family had gone to surrender at the agency. The sentence is too long, and events are in reverse chronological order, making it harder to understand. Please re-word
then came the shocking news Were the Indians shocked, or is the reader expected to be shocked? How about combining the word "shocking" into the following sentence ("shocked and angered" or some such)
Done, SpinningSpark 16:07, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Wooden Leg had much contact with the Southern Cheyenne during this time. He learnt from them who Custer was (the Southern Cheyenne were familiar with him since he had previously fought a campaign against them) and of their attempt to come north to join them in the summer fighting of 1876. Sentence too long; the parentheses makes me lose track of the subject matter
Done, SpinningSpark 17:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Wooden Leg says that no-one had bad hearts against Little Wolf The language is too casual for GA standards, and "no one" should not contain a dash
"Bad hearts" is a quotation, now in quotation marks. SpinningSpark 23:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
The annual Great Medicine dance could use a bit of explanation. Also when you say "practicing Indian medicine" do you mean practicing the indigenous religion, or do you mean medical treatment or healing of some kind?
Great Medicine dance is the term used in the book for Sun Dance, now made explicit.  I don't think the Cheyennes would have made a distinction between medical and religeous practice.  What the whites meant was anything that was not Christian, although as far as I recall, Wooden Leg does not go into the reasons for the ban so that would not be an appropriate thing to put in the synopsis. SpinningSpark 23:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
A small selection of the hundreds of books that use Wooden Leg as a reference are listed at the end of this article and Again, a selection of such papers is given at the foot of this article: These need to be removed, as we don't self-reference this way in our articles
Don't really agree with that.  While it might be usual practice, in this particular case it is highly relevant to the article. SpinningSpark 17:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Littlebear believes that the book can help explain how modern attitudes amongst the Northern Cheyenne to other tribes originated in their history. I am unclear on the meaning of this sentence; can you re-word it please?
Does the example that follows this sentence not make clear what Littlebear's view on this is? I'm not sure I can make it any clearer, that's pretty much what Littlebear said. SpinningSpark 00:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
I think I understand the meaning, but I am finding it difficult to parse. How about "Littlebear believes the book helps explain the historical origins of the modern attitudes of the Northern Cheyenne towards other tribes." -- Diannaa (talk) 01:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Done, SpinningSpark 17:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Please tell us who Kate Bighead is.
Done, SpinningSpark 18:07, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
The reader would be better served if material in some of the explanatory notes were moved up into the main body of the prose.
Some of these have been incorporated as I went through the other points. SpinningSpark 18:07, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


#### GA 1B
Thomas Bailey Marquis and Richard Littlebear are red links. These two items should not be linked, unless you are planning on adding articles for them sometime soon.
That is not the correct criterion for redlinks.  It is irrelevant whether or not I personally intend to write an article (although I might do Marquis one day in the distant future) or how long it will take for an article to materialise.  The correct criterion is should they have a Wikipedia article.  Marquis without doubt meets WP:N and there is a decent amount of material on him.  I would not want to write an article on Littlebear, but he is published and has an h-index of at least a respectable 5. SpinningSpark 19:51, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
There's an WP:easter egg link in the lead; the link "agency in Montana" pipes to the article Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation. I don't think you should pipe this link, as readers in foreign countries won't know what an agency is. The word "agency" first appears in the body of the article in the section "Researching the book". You need to explain what the term means and should add a link to our article Indian agent.
Yes, an Easter Egg certainly, but the problem with unpiping it is that agency and reservation are not quite synonymous (although sometimes used so).  The agency is the place where the Indian agent hangs out, or carries out his activities.  It does not strictly mean the totality of the reservation real estate.  So perhaps this will do: wikilink "agency" to Indian agent and wikilink the reservation later in the article. SpinningSpark 19:51, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Link Black Hills (link on first occurrence), Indian reservation, Dull Knife (link on first occurrence), Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. Little Wolf is linked too many times
Black Hills is already correct, I think.  Indian reservation does not appear in the article as such.  Most mentions of "reservation" are "the reservation", ie specifically the Northern Cheyenne reservation.  Would it be best to save the link until the first generic mention of "reservation"?  Dull Knife done.  Pine Ridge done. SpinningSpark 21:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Section headers should not begin with the word "The" (The suicide controversy).
Done, SpinningSpark 21:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Section title "Researching the book" should be changed to "Research"
Done SpinningSpark 21:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Section title "Cheyenne ways of life" → "Cheyenne way of life" ?
The present title corresponds to a book chapter. SpinningSpark 21:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Section title "Changed times" → "Changing times" ?
Why? The period being discussed is after the changes had happened.  They were changing during the preceding warefare, deportation and exodus phases. SpinningSpark 21:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
It should be noted.. is on the list of phrases to avoid.
Done SpinningSpark 22:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Wooden Leg is said to have retracted the claim in later life needs to be re-worded; who specifically said it? (words to avoid)
It would not be right to attribute this to one specific individual.  It is cited to both Fox and Hatch.  There are several other sources too, notably John Stands in Timber (p. 205) the Cheyenne tribal historian and grandson of Lame White Man, the Cheyenne chief killed at Little Bighorn.  So we have the same thing from both white man and red man historians, quite a novelty. SpinningSpark 22:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
I am fixing this, as removing this phrase is a GA requirement. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Names of periodicals need to be in italics (New York Times).
Done, SpinningSpark 23:19, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Books listed in the bibliography need to be in camel case
Done, although I think you mean Title case, not Camel case. SpinningSpark 23:19, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Cheyenne Memories is in quotation marks
Done, SpinningSpark 23:19, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
For your ISBNs, it's better if they all have dashes.
Can't be asked. SpinningSpark 23:19, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


#### GA 2
As well as source information for Cheyenne military and social history, the book is also a rich source of anecdotes. Does this come from a source, or is it your own opinion?
Cited, SpinningSpark 23:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Ditto and many more equally memorable: your opinion, or from a source?
Changed to "and many others". SpinningSpark 23:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
...it is clear that many of the details given by the Indian participants were still controversial and not believed Is this your opinion, or did it come from an independent asessment of the review?
We need a source to cite the tone of the source? Come off it.  The review explicitly uses the controversy word and in places comes close to calling Marquis a liar.  Sources are easy to find that say for a long time the Native American record of history was discounted as confused and irrelevant, but we really do not need them here.  The passage is about the views of the New York Times reviewer which he makes abundantly clear in his review. SpinningSpark 23:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
The wording implies that this is your opinion. The problem can be fixed if it is re-worded so that it is clearer that that is the tone of the review. For example, something like "the reviewer's wording made it clear that the details given by the Indian participants were still controversial and not believed." -- Diannaa (talk) 01:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
The whole section is about the views of the NYT so a reader is unlikely to make this mistake.  But even if they do, it would still be a sourcably true statement so I really don't think we need to unnecessarily complicate the sentence here. SpinningSpark 17:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Okay. I am going to start copy edits now that the prose list has been dealt with. Please feel free to amend/discuss if you disagree with any of my changes. Best, -- Diannaa (talk) 00:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
I have re-worded the part about what could be seen from Custer's point of view. Frontal assault has a specific military meaning that does not apply to Reno's charge, as the Indians were not arrayed in a front but were encamped in a river valley, so I am going to amend that too in my next round of copy edits. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


#### GA 6
File:Littlebighorn HR Locke.jpg: Do we know the date of death of the photographer, and do we know if/when this photo was ever published (prior to its appearance here)?The Hirtle Chart tells us that photos are in the public domain in the United States if the author died over 70 years ago for an unpublished work. Note that in this context "published" means published in a book or newspaper or printed up and distributed as a postcard or the like. Alternatively, an image is PD in the United States if it was published prior to 1923. I am not seeing any evidence that either of these criterion are met for this image.
Don't know anything about this image.  Found it on Commons and they seem to be happy with it.  I'll try to find more information. SpinningSpark 14:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
File:LittleWolf 02.jpg: For this image we know the date of death of the photoggrapher (1952). The uploader claims that the image was published prior to 1923, but provides no evidence.
There is a big investigation into this uploader for copyvio.  However, I believe this particular image to have been published in 1911.  I posted my evidence on the investigation page some time ago, but there has been no response. SpinningSpark 14:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
This image was indeed published in 1911, and we are able to prove it. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
File:Dull Knife.jpg: We don't know the name or date of death of the photographer. We don't know what year the photo was taken, or whether or not it was ever published. Therefore we have no way of knowing the actual copyright status of this image.
First I have heard that this image has a problem.  A quick look at the Smithsonian site seems to indicate this might be declarable as PD as the work of a federal employee, but I need to take a closer look. SpinningSpark 14:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
I found this one at NARA, and it's PD. I will add some info to the file page. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Here is an image from Flickr that is available under a compatible license. Though I don't think all the soldiers in the graveyard died at Little Big Horn. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
According to the Smithsonian, whose collection the Dull Knife image is in, it is from the  Bureau of American Ethnology which is a federal agency.  Works of federal agents in the course of their duties are public domain.  On the Locke picture, for someone whose work is so iconic, it is surprising that biographical information seems to be virtually non-existent.  We can at least demonstrate he was taking photographs as early as the 1870s so it would be unlikely that PD-Old does not apply.  Sorry, that's the best I can do on that.  I think the correct course of action if you have doubts about these images is to propose them for deletion rather than just remove them from this article. SpinningSpark 18:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Oh yes, nearly forgot, I e-mailed the uploader of the Locke picture to see if he can throw any more light on it. SpinningSpark 18:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Here is a link to the deletion discussion on the Commons. The Dull Knife image is okay; I found it at Nara, ARC Identifier 530912. I am passing the article to GA as the Locke photo was the last outstanding item. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:41, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you Diannaa, for a thorough and very detailed review. I appreciate the work that went into that. SpinningSpark 16:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

@Mitch Ames:  Mitch, this is enough of an edge case, I think, that WP:IAR and WP:BURO apply.  The real issue that needs resolving is whether or not we should consider this book a true autobiography.  Decide that first then we probably won't need a hidden comment at all.  The book is written as an autobiography, but Marquis actually wrote the book, and in a language other than the one in which the material was delivered at that.  See the "Publishing history" section of the article.  There is also the issue that this is not entirely a military autobiography, there is a great deal of material on other aspects of the subject's life so I am not convinced that category:Military autobiographies is good enough by itself.  If one of them has to go, personally, I would prefer it to be that one. SpinningSpark 13:20, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree that we should determine whether the book is an autobiography (military or otherwise) at all, but until we do, I don't see any reason why we should not follow SUBCAT. As I said, if it is in Category:Military autobiographies (or  Category:Autobiographies) it is also in Category:Biographies (books) automatically so there's no need to list Category:Biographies (books) explicitly. If we're going to have a hidden comment anyway, it can just as easily explain why we don't list Category:Biographies (books) (ie per SUBCAT) as why we do. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, no.  You're looking at it from the point of view of Wikipedia process whereas we should be looking at it from the point of view of helpfulness to the reader.  A reader who believes that they are looking for a biography, and not an autobiography, are not going to find it if you categorise as autobiography.  Decide first what the criterion for classifying as an autobiography is, and then the categorisation will become clear.  If you don't want to be a part of that clarification, fine, but then leave it alone until someone does. SpinningSpark 14:14, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

@Spinningspark:, can you explain your reason for reverting the Infobox book template beyond the edit summary claiming the information was "but this one is utterly inaccurate and has to go." I looked up all that data from current sources and as far as I can tell it is completely accurate. You appear to have possibly used the Twinkle Bot to revert my changes without actually reviewing them. Your feedback is appreciated. § Music Sorter § (talk) 18:37, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

The publication history you give is quite wrong and he cover picture does not come from the first Bison edition of the book as your infobox claims.  More than that, if I thought infoboxes were beneficial, I would have put one in myself when I wrote the article. SpinningSpark 21:00, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
1. Twice you have said it is wrong, but you have not said what is wrong (beside point 2 noted below).
2. The caption says "second edition cover" which matches the image. That is not wrong. I simply used the image you already had in trying to keep the original feel. If that image is good enough for the article without the infobox, why is it no good with the infobox?
3. Your last comment seems to cross over the WP:OWN line. May I recommend you review that article.
I appreciate you have contributed considerable work in getting this article to GA status. I truly commend and respect you for taking the time to make that happen. I have moved a few articles to that status as well, so I can appreciate the feeling of ownership in making it that good. I'm open to understanding your opinion on infoboxes to consider backing off my position in this article if you would be so kind as to share it. § Music Sorter § (talk) 02:41, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
I know perfectly well what WP:OWN is. Please stop being so condescending by advising me to read the guideline, I've been here long enough to see plenty of OWNership. I've also been here long enough to see that shitty argument frequently used against content creators who are just trying to keep crap out of the article.
I'm happy to help you clear up the publishing history and expand that section with correct information if you want.  I'm not so happy helping you to insert a corrected infobox when I am not in favour of such.  Suffice it say that the 2003 edition is not the second edition, nor is the image the cover of it.  If you have a source that says otherwise please share.
Infoboxes are neither prescribed nor proscribed by WP:INFOBOXUSE and MOS:STYLEVAR should apply here.  I don't like them because they so often simplify into black and white information that is more complex.  This most often comes up in controversial parameters like nationality and religion.  The cause of endless edit wars at articles like Nikola Tesla and Mihajlo Pupin.  Admittedly, you wisely didn't put either of those in the infobox.  However, the question of authorship is at least arguable.  The true situation is explained well in the text.  It is not so easy to summarise accurately in an infobox.
If you had put in an accurate, well-researched infobox I probably would have just swallowed it and not reverted, even though I don't like it.  But now it has been forced to a discussion, I'm putting it on the table that I'm against an infobox in this article in any form. SpinningSpark 17:48, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback and no condescension was intended. I appreciate your willingness to share your opinion on the infobox for this article. As we both know, book articles have inconsistent usage of infoboxes and I certainly have no driving need to force one here. Given your assertion that the more complex publication information would not be adequately presented in the standard infobox (and is already in the article), I am happy to accept your proposal to leave it out. Thanks and happy editing. § Music Sorter § (talk) 18:57, 14 July 2018 (UTC)