I'd like to start with a review of sources here before proceeding to other elements of GAR. I took a look at the references here and I have the following questions:
What makes War History Online site a reliable source? It appears to me that the author (Knighton) is describing himself as a writer of fiction and I found no published peer-reviewed works of his in the field or any reliable source establishing him as a reliable source.
Thanks for starting the review! In regards to this source, I've deleted it and added the citation for the previous reference (The Encyclopedia of Alabama article on the Creek War) as the information is also found there.Dofftoubab (talk) 02:22, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Source referred to as Bunn, Mike; Williams, Clay. "The Canoe Fight". The Creek War and the War of 1812 seems self-published. However, the cited authors are also wrote Battle for the Southern Frontier: The Creek War and the War of 1812 mentioning this information [1]. The preview unfortunately provides no page numbers, but the information concerned is found one page ahead of Across the Chattahoochee chapter. It says "A historic marker commemorating the event stands on County Road 35 (Morning Star Road) near the community of Suggsville in southeastern Clarke County, Alabama." I think that the source is acceptable because the authors have clearly otherwise published a work in the field. However. Morning Star Road (Co Rd 35) and the Madison Rd (Co Rd 33) are about 10 miles apart. Was the marker moved? Can you find any other source to back up either of the two?--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:37, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think Bunn and Williams started the website to provide images of their sites listed in their book and for publicizing their book/speaking engagements. The GPS coordinates they have on their site line up with the coordinates for the Historical Marker Database entry on the Canoe Fight, even though Bunn and Williams erroneously have the marker being on Morning Star Road. Can't verify the marker on Google Maps, since the most recent street view from that site was captured in April 2011 and the marker was placed in 2013. Even though some of the site info was partially wrong on Bunn and Williams' site, I'd like to keep the link to their site since it has such good images for other important sites of the Creek War.Dofftoubab (talk) 02:22, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is are two minor issues regarding referencing:
Halbert, Henry; Ball, Timothy (1895). The Creek War of 1813 and 1814. Chicago, Illinois: Donohue & Henneberry. ISBN 9781375702775. -- this edition had no ISBN (it has oclc number 457563269 only). The ISBN shown points to a 2017 reprint. Since that does not appear to be a different edition, and since you linked the 1895 edition using the url= parameter, if I were you I'd omit the isbn= and use oclc= parameter instead. However, the reference as is does not point to any different book, so I think this is fine as regards GAR and I'm just posting this for future reference.
A similar situation exists regarding Lossing, Benson (1868). The Pictorial Field-Book of the War of 1812. New York, New York: Harper & Brothers. ISBN 9780781251136. -- although there is no url= link to the first edition so, this is even less of an issue than the above. -- no action required for both of these as far as I can tell.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:45, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The "firendly" vs "hostile" Creek warriors seems non-neutral to me because the expressions assume the reader is viewing the information from the point of view of the US. While the source books certainly were written for the US readers, it would be better to modify these expressions to "Creek warriors hostile/allied/friendly/etc to the US/British" as appropriate.
Is the distinction between the Red and White Sticks only hostility towards the US?
Comment: No, it was not. Note that "White Sticks" is a modern invented term, not attested anywhere AFAIK before the late 1990s. The "Red Sticks" or rebel faction were opposed by the Creek National Council and its "light horse" police commanded by William McIntosh. The 1813-14 Creek war was a civil war with religious overtones in which Creek rebels interpreted U.S. military losses to the British in 1812 as an opportunity to overthrow what they saw as a corrupt and co-opted National Council. Georgia and Tennessee grandees then took the Red Stick rebellion as an occasion to invade the Creek Nation and annex land. When these state-led invasions bogged down, the U.S. Army came to the rescue, incidentally commissioning Andrew Jackson, who exceeded his orders in imposing a cession treaty on the Creeks, then invading neutral Spanish Florida in pursuit of Creeks and their Seminole allies. Casting the conflict in terms of "friendly" and "hostile" Indians enshrines U.S. military reports as the only authoritative interpretation of the war. — ℜob C.aliasALAROB18:52, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Was the hostility caused by encroachment on the Creek lands? If so, why were some Creek warriors still friendly?
Move wikilink to Mississippi Territory to the first instance of the name.
Removed wikilink in the background section as it's linked in the first sentence of the article. If it should also be linked in the first section of the article, I'll do that too.Dofftoubab (talk) 02:38, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It would probably be a good idea to give an idea where Creek lands are for readers unfamiliar with the topic. No need to be overly specific though.
In ...crossed the river at French's (see Brasier's on map) Landing... are French's Landing and Brasier's Landing the same place only under the same name? If so, I'd make this clearer, for example "crossed the river at French's Landing (depicted as Brasier's Landing on the map published in the Lossing's book)".
The map should have an improved caption stating where the map comes from, eg. "Map of Alabama during the War of 1812 published by Benson Lossing. The site of the Canoe Fight is located in the center/Brasier's Landing."
In ...Dale and his volunteers ambushed a band of warriors who were preparing food... was it really an ambush? If the warriors were on the move, I'd have no problem here, but can one really ambush another while preparing food? I would say here more neutral "attacked", but I'm not native speaker of English, so please correct me if I got the meaning wrong.
I've always taken "ambush" as just being a "surprise attack on an unsuspecting enemy". I thought it added a little more emphasis on the fact that the warriors were unaware of Dale and his volunteers--hence the fact they were preparing food instead of expecting any confrontation. As an aside, even though you're not a native speaker you have an awesome use of the English language. I would've never known you weren't a native speaker if you had not said anything. You're doing great!Dofftoubab (talk) 02:38, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Something's missing in These twelve were preparing some of the captured food when they heard the men from the west bank warn they were surrounded by warriors. Could it be "These twelve were preparing some of the captured food when they heard the men from the west bank warn them they were surrounded by warriors.?
In Captain Dale called for eight of the soldiers... "Captain" is redundant as it has already been established as his rank in the text above. I'd drop it from the sentence.
In The smaller canoe, paddled by a free black named Caesar,... judginng from use in African Americans, Black should be capitalised. You might want to recheck this though.
I'd suggest changing "company" in The company marched two more miles up the west bank... with "group", "force" or something else to avoid potential confusion with Company (military unit).
In Dale became a hero and was afterwards known as "The Daniel Boone of Alabama. it would be good to describe briefly hero to whom - i.e. among the local population, in the Mississippi Territory or nationally.
The entire Location section seems a bit odd to me. Its primary purpose seems to be to discuss the marker. I'd recommend you to move the entire contents of this section to the end of the Legacy section since the marker really belongs there and there is no specific location of the battle discussed in the eponymous section.
The lede is brief, but there is not much to summarize. However, I believe it would be worth mentioning Dale in the lede considering that the skirmish earned him the name of a hero, and I'd include some legacy info (no more than a sentence) there too since that part of the prose seems to be missing in the lede.
There are couple of things regarding MOS:SURNAME in the prose comments above.
Per MOS:SANDWICH, avoid placing images on both sides of the text sandwiching prose between them. Specifically, I'd suggest moving the mural image further below to the legacy section.
Responded to all the suggestions. Thanks so much for reviewing the article and working on it. I appreciated your thoroughness and attention to detail! Dofftoubab (talk) 02:38, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]