A script has been used to generate a semi-
automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and
house style; it can be found on the
automated peer review page for April 2009.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I would like to work on bringing this article up to featured quality. I would like some outside input as to what the article might be lacking. Most importantly, is there anything in the article that is not well explained? I have used alot of summary style writing, and put many of the details on the sub article pages.
The article text looks generally in pretty good shape, so I'm going to make mainly formatting-related comments. Also, it's probably worth noting that this is the first time I've peer reviewed an article.
General points:
There are lots of linked dates, all of which should be delinked per
WP:MOSNUM
It could also do with a legend (use the {{legend}} template), the text on the map shows what's what pretty clearly, but it could be that bit clearer.
Two last points: are the rivers necessary? I can see they form parts of borders, but they don't add much to my personal understanding of the geography of the area. Also, modern-day state names might be of use to show which states fell within the boundaries of Indiana Territory at one time or another. Both just suggestions, it's entirely up to you whether you decide to act on them.
Indiana should probably be linked in its first occurence, at the end of the first paragraph.
"the territory's militia and regulars" should be explained or, if possible, linked.
I'm not sure about this, but "constitutional convention" could link to the (first) section of that name in
Constitution of Indiana.
Original boundaries:
"83 deg 45 min W longitude" is unclear. There are probably conventions for these things, but this is unlikely to be understood completely by anyone very much. Should "deg" be "°"? If "W" means "West", that would benefit from being spelled out.
Longitude could be linked.
"as well as the portions of
Minnesota ." - unnecessary word and unnecessary space before the full stop.
Government:
Was William Henry Harrison actually apppointed by all three presidents listed, or was he appointed by one and served through the terms of the others? If the former, ignore me; if the latter, either remove Jefferson and Madison or rename the column.
John Gibson presumably wasn't appointed by "Acting-Governor", he was the Acting Governor. The best solution would be to create another column titled "notes" and put that note there.
John Gibson (Indiana) says that Mr. Gibson "served twice as acting governor of the territory." If this is correct, should it be reflected in the table?
Does the congressional delegation table need to be sortable? If so, use {{sort}} to make it sort by surnames and years rather than first names and months, and apply the same standards to the Governors table.
Quite a few issues with the tables under "Other high officials":
"
St. Clair's defeat is the worst defeat of the U.S. army by Native Americans in history." should be "St. Clair's defeat in the
Battle of the Wabash is..."
The link to
Anthony Wayne should probably just read "Anthony Wayne". Alternatively, link the whole phrase "General "Mad Anthony" Wayne".
File:Indiana Territory 1812.jpg could be included. It should also be vectorised and the colours and "Fort Detriot" typo fixed, and you might want to check that the map is fully comprehensive.