# Talk:Porcupine (Cheyenne)

@Spinningspark: I write this with the best good faith for this article.  Really.  From someone who has done hundreds of reviews of one type or another, and as someone who has had their work reviewed, I understand when an editor submits for review an article they believe meets all criteria...and the reviewers disagree.  It can be a little daunting, to say the least.  Everybody likes to believe their work was well done.
That said, you should know I spent many months in research to create Cherokee Commission, by no means my first study of the genre.  However, it is that very research that makes me look askance at some of the Porcupine article. 
Having grown up in the American southwest, Native American cultures of many tribes are as everyday to me as the air I breathe.  I don't claim to be an expert, and leave that to the people who lived the history.  But I do believe there is much to be corrected in this article. It's OK to say the DYK and GA reviews should not influence each other, but it would be smart to consider the totality of both when looking to why neither review is passing. 
It's my feeling that this article could have been benefited from, and should have gone through, Peer Review before being submitted at either DYK or GA. This article has problems, different ones listed on each review. You can dig your heels in and say something is not criteria for one review or another, or you can take care of the issues. But in answer to what you may be thinking, I will not green light a GA pass on this.
@Notecardforfree and BlueMoonset: I am pinging you both for any input you might have. Notecardforfree as the DYK reviewer, and BlueMoonset as an editor who tries to be a voice of good editing at both those projects. — Maile  (talk) 17:13, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

You have already asked for a second opinion on your review and got one that largely agreed with my position on many points.  Instead of compromising as you should, you are now reviewer shopping until you get someone to agree with you.  There is too much mission creep at all levels of review on Wikipeidia making it progressively harder and less enjoyable for new editors as the years go by.  Excuse me if I don't cooperate in making that process easier to happen. SpinningSpark 20:12, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Up to you.  I'm not shopping around for anything. But I have been trying to help you out.  This is not a contest, with one person on one side, and another person on the other side. The second opinion was not a vote on who was right and who was wrong.  It was just an opinion, and it was offered by some good-faith editor who is new to Wikipediia since 2015, has just over 1,000 edits of their own, and basically just searched to link policies.  It would have been nice if the second opinion came from someone with GA experience under their belt, but that's the way it went.  The GA process is not a vote.  It's a review, and normally when issues are found, an effort is made to correct them. Your attitude is a mystery to me.  But, different strokes for different folks. — Maile  (talk) 21:24, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
I do not want to comment on whether this article satisfies all GA criteria, but in my DYK review, I identified language in this article that does not comply with Wikipedia's core policies. Specifically, I identified language that editorializes the subject, thereby implicating issues of neutrality. I also identified language that is not written in an encyclopedic style with a formal tone. Because this article is written about a subject with string ties to the United States, I also think the entire article should be written in American English per WP:TIES. Spinningspark, you have clearly put a lot of work into writing this article, and I am confident that it can pass the DYK review (if not the GA review as well) with a few hours of work to fix the issues mentioned above. The Wikipedia editing prices (as with any professional writing) is a collaborative endeavor, and it is important to understand and value the perspectives of your colleagues. If you disagree with my assessment of the article, I am happy to engage in a conversation about that too. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:00, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't dispute the article can be improved, but I'm not prepared to work on it for GA if it is going to get failed anyway for non-GA reasons.  I won't argue with you that it should be in Ameerican English, just that I'm not the person to do it, and I don't see why that is such a big deal for either GA or DYK.  While issues of formal tone do need looking at in a GA review, and I would now be responding to them if we had not hit this brick wall, I really have to take exception to your characterisation of it as a breach of core policies, especially galling as you have not actually linked to a core policy it is supposedly in breach of. SpinningSpark 23:09, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Spinningspark, WP:NPOV is a core policy. In fact, it is the first one listed at Wikipedia:Core content policies. It is also one of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia. Additionally, WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM (a core editing policy) directs editors to "[f]ix problems if you can" and to pursue "copy-editing to improve grammar" whenever possible. That said, how do you plan to proceed with the DYK review? The DYK criteria require articles to conform to core policies before the nomination can be approved. Again, I think this article has incredible potential, and I hope you don't abandon your efforts to bring this article to GA status. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 23:54, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
FIXTHEPROBLEM is aimed at reviewers just as much, if not more so, as content creators.  I am prepared to work on any highlighted POV problems, but not in the circumstances we are now in.  Frankly, I feel insulted at the accusation of not adhering to core policies.  That's something to throw at spammers and COI warriors. SpinningSpark 01:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Let's backtrack for a moment. First of all, I sincerely apologize for the fact that my comments came across as insulting and I in no way meant to imply that you are anything less than a fantastic editor. Mea culpa. As I mentioned above, it is clear that you put a lot of effort into researching and writing this article, and for that you should be commended. When I completed the DYK review for this article, I identified portions of the article that present the subject in a manner that did not appear neutral to me (e.g., "unnecessarily sparked an Indian war," the claim that Hancock attempted to "bully them into submission," the claim that killings of white settlers were "atrocities," and the claim that Porcupine and others were caught in a "bureaucratic trap"). If you think the language in this article is appropriate, I would be happy to have a dialogue about why you believe my assessment is incorrect. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:47, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words, but as long as the GA review does not have a reviewer prepared to accept the second opinion (sought through the formal GA second opinion process by the reviewer who is now not prepared to act on it) then that dialogue is not going to happen, at least not with me. SpinningSpark 01:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Maile, Spinningspark, Notecardforfree: Having been pinged, I do have a few thoughts to contribute.
First, I believe that Maile should close the review. It seems clear that Maile believes there are significant issues with the nomination, and that the review cannot prosper. It's also unfair to a new reviewer—assuming one could be found to take over rather than start fresh—to have to start work in the middle of strong disagreement. The initial nomination was made about three weeks ago, so the article is comparatively young in the GA space, and unlikely to suffer any more than the usual delay by having to be renominated. I would recommend that those issues agreed upon by both the original reviewer and the second opinion be addressed right away if the article is renominated; it will save time when the article is reviewed again, since the reviewer is sure to at least glance through any prior review.
Next, I think an examination of Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not would be useful. I was quite surprised the first time a GA was deleted because the topic was not notable, but discovered that notability is not a GA criterion. In this case, while it would be nice to have the article in American English given that it's an American topic, this is not a GA requirement (nor a DYK one), and should not be part of the judgment. If the article uses a mix of English variants, then it is an issue, but I've seen no mention that this might be the case. So long as the English is consistent, then WP:TIES is not relevant here; only the five MOS sections listed in the first set of criteria must be followed for GAs. There's no reason why the Guild of Copy Editors can't separately be asked to copyedit the article so that it is converted to American English, but it would be completely distinct from a GA matter.
The definition of broadness (criterion 3) is one of those that's the hardest to parse, and what should be included or not—and at what level of detail—can be an honest point of contention. Issues of balance and undue detail, straying from topic focus and losing the summary style, can all be issues. Ultimately, this can usually be negotiated by nominator and reviewer, though the reviewer does have the final opinion at least as regards to whether the result meets this GA criterion.
Neutral language isn't easy, but it is a GA (and DYK) requirement, so this issue will need addressing if the nominations in either place are to approved.
Finally, it is up to the original reviewer to weigh any requested second opinions (or volunteered ones) and decide how much to incorporate in further decisions. Sometimes the new opinion clarifies things in the reviewer's mind, even if in a way that differs from the opinion itself. I'm not going to second-guess either the reviewer or the person making the second opinion. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

As now noted on the GA1 template, I am ready to close out the review so a GA2 can be nominated. Because of BlueMoonset's comment above, I think it best if Spinningspark agrees to it being closed out. The only process I see to do this is to fail it.  But it allows everyone go let go and move on. — Maile  (talk) 18:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Any future reviewers are advised to review the previous two nominations to see why they were not successful. buidhe 16:06, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

@Buidhe: but what are the reasons for the second failure? ——SN54129 13:03, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Serial Number 54129, in the review I asked SpinningSpark to cut out the editorializing that was preventing the article from meeting the GA criteria from a prose and neutrality standpoint. As you can see above, they were not willing to implement the changes. We cannot have the article cluttered with "of course" and "presumably" or subjective determinations of ease or difficulty. Your first draft of Percy Glading had similar problems but you cleaned them up when I noted that they compromised encyclopedic tone. buidhe 13:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm glad you thought so Buidhe 😊 ——SN54129 05:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
@Serial Number 54129: You might want to look again at the edits I made in response to your review.  Nearly all the issues you identified as editorializing were dealt with, including the "of course" you gave as an example above.
There were a couple of exceptions which I thought were justified, and explained my reasoning in the review.  You did not respond.  One of these, "presumably", is in a footnote explaining why statements in the major article source have been ignored.  I believe I can rewrite the footnote in a way that just gives the facts, but leads the reader to make the same presumption, if that suits you better.  The source is demonstrably wrong and there is no getting away from the fact that we have made an editorial  presumption here whether we explicitly say so or not.  In any article, we have to make decisions on which sources to go with.  So the question for you is do you object to the whole principle of the footnote (whose absence might leave the reader confused if they have access to the source), or is this simply a tick box problem which a rewording can fix? SpinningSpark 18:31, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping, Spinningspark, but I haven't made a review of this article? (Or any other for that matter!)  ——SN54129 18:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
@Buidhe: Oops, sorry SN54129, I meant to ping the reviewer. SpinningSpark 18:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
The use of notes for clarification is not the issue. However, it is a violation of NPOV to [lead] the reader to make the same presumption... we should present the facts according to reliable sources, NOT lead readers to a particular conclusion. buidhe 03:05, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Buidhe, when you state it like that it sounds like I have done something terrible.  But there is no dispute here in which I am taking a side.  There is no POV.  Nobody now thinks that Thompson died in the attack.  The story of his scalping, carrying his scalp back to town, being sent on a train to Omaha with his scalp in a bucket of water, and the medical attempts to reattach it, were widely reported in the press at the time and it appears in many modern RS as well as his scalp being preserved in an Omaha museum.  Thompson definitely lived.  We are just helping the reader by pointing out that Marquis, the primary source here, was in error on this point.  I'm pretty sure even Marquis himself would agree if he was alive today.  Far from a POV, this is entirely in agreement with the sources.  I have now reworded the note without any "presumably" to say two things, both of which are straightforwasrdly factual; that Marquis was told Thompson was killed, and that his sources were Cheyennes who believed him dead.  If that's not good enough for you then I think you should have a long think about how we go about assessing sources. SpinningSpark 18:15, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Porcupine (Cheyenne)/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 22:16, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Reading now … --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:16, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
@Spinningspark:, this is a solid article. My comments are mostly related to language issues.

The article does not read fluently in many places. Closely connected information is often split into several short sentences, and reading feels sometimes like stop-and-go. This makes following the article sometimes difficult, because the reader finishes reading a sentence and then thinks/tries to understand it, but here there are often two or three short sentences that need to be considered together. I suggest to combine sentences in those instances, also too keep the tension. Examples:
In 1889, Porcupine undertook a long journey to visit Wovoka in Nevada. Wovoka was the prophet of the new Ghost Dance religion. – Suggestion: "In 1889, Porcupine undertook a long journey to Nevada to visit Wovoka, the prophet of the new Ghost Dance religion."
Done SpinningSpark 11:50, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Two men, Pat Handerhan and William Thompson, were sent out on a handcar to investigate the failed telegraph line. Distracted by the fire, they let the handcar hit the obstruction. – I suggest to use a ; to connect these sentences: "Two men, Pat Handerhan and William Thompson, were sent out on a handcar to investigate the failed telegraph line; distracted by the fire, they let the handcar hit the obstruction."
Done SpinningSpark 11:50, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
They were sent to Fort Leavenworth, Kansas at the beginning of 1879 to await trial. They were to be tried in Dodge City and were escorted there by lawman Bat Masterson. It was not an easy journey; – Two successive sentences starting with "they" is not ideal. This is also a good example to illustrate the problems associated with breaking up into multiple short sentences: I am not precisely sure how these sentences are connected. They were sent to Fort Laevenworth, and from there were escorted to Dodge City? If so, what about "They were sent to Fort Leavenworth, Kansas at the beginning of 1879 and from there were escorted to Dodge City by lawman Bat Masterson to await trial"?
Don't think any sentences can easily be joined without becoming unwieldly, but I've fixed the other problems. SpinningSpark 11:50, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
More examples are especially in the section "Political leader".
Done SpinningSpark 12:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
It was the normal custom for a husband to live amongst the band of his wife's family, usually in a lodge adjacent to her parents. – How is it related to Porcupine? Did he do it like this, living with the band of his wife's family? It does not become clear.
Precisely so, this was the reason for his move from the Sioux to the Cheyenne. SpinningSpark 12:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
not a good idea – this is not very encyclopedic language, because it is judgemental and subjective. It can only be valid if this was the precise wording of the Indian agents, but in this case it should be a quote.
I don't entirely agree that an exact quotation is needed, but I've removed it anyway since it is fairly obvious to the reader that the Indian agents did not agree with Hancock's actions.  I've also added that they opposed Hancock burning the village, which in their view started the war. SpinningSpark 12:37, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Porcupine and Red Wolf drove off the men with rifle fire but they were pursued and Handerhan was killed. – Confusing at first read and disrupting reading flow because it is not clear where "they" is referring to. Does it refer to Porcupine and Red Wolf or to Handerhan and his men? Thinking about it, it can only refer to the latter, but it takes the reader some time to figure this out, and the reading flow is gone. Suggestion: "Porcupine and Red Wolf drove off the men with rifle fire but then pursued them, killing Handerhan."
I can't take up your suggestion, but have tried to make this a bit clearer.  I have no information on who pursued and killed Handerhan—it might very well not have been Porcupine and Red Wolf.  Very possibly this information does not exist at all.  It is unlikely that anyone would ever admit to it since it was a hanging offence.  The Indians generally did not talk openly and honestly about their part in the wars until at least the 1920s when they were all old men, and even then, they only opened up to a very few trusted white contacts. SpinningSpark 13:38, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
The large image in the lead is placed on the left, which I find distracting and non-standard. According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images, images should only exceptionally be placed on the left, usually when multiple images are staggered left and right. This is not the case here, and I suggest to just align it to the right side. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:48, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
It is a minor principle of layout that images of heads should face into the page rather than out of it, which is the reason for its placement in this case.  There is no prescription that images should always be on the right and the idea of facing into the page is covered at MOS:IMAGELOCATION.
The lead image is not, in fact, oversize; it is the standard thumbnail width.  This is an optical illusion due to its narrow aspect ratio, but in any case, a slightly larger lead image is sometimes beneficial.  This is hinted at (but not stated explicitly, although I think it was at one time) at MOS:IMGSIZE. SpinningSpark 13:38, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks very much for reviewing this Jens.  I'll do some work on it this weekend. SpinningSpark 16:19, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the fixes, looking all good. Passing now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:21, 29 February 2020 (UTC)