Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mandan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Mandan

Self-nomination. This is my first FAC. I have been working on this article for quite a while. With the exception of the sections on synonymy and language, I have written the bulk of the article myself. The article has been put through peer review twice and all comments have been addressed. I'm grateful for Ish ishwar who provided the marvelous information on the name and language and Bishonen who provided many helpful "pendantries" that have greatly improved this article. *Exeunt* Ganymead ^Dialogue? 21:39, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support Featured articles desperately need more non-modern/non-Western articles like this. Bwithh 05:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• Weak object Support. Fantastic article, but there are a couple of sentence-level fixes needed. I attempted to go in and fix some things myself, but ran up against the fact that I don't know enough about the subject. So, here:
  • "For the Mandan, each person had four different souls." I find this construction difficult to parse. Are the souls "had" concurrently?

**"These souls lived on much as did the living people." A little awkward, but I don't know how to clarify the sentence. Are the souls immortal? Or do they live additional lives and then die as humans do? **"the exact origins of the Mandan are lost to time" Cliche **"continues to draw tourists and fill the tribe's coffers" Cliche Please allow me to reiterate that I think this article is truly impressive, with wonderful images and prose that is engaging and informative. I am confident that the rewording of those four sentences is a trivial task for someone with experience of the subject, and I look forward to full support. Jkelly 20:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I have rewritten the sentences as requested. Thank you for your suggestions, they are much appreciated! *Exeunt* Ganymead ^Dialogue? 21:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support, fantastic article.--nixie 23:33, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Support. A great article, well-researched, of the better ones I've seen on indigenous peoples anywhere. There are a few further clarifications however, which if addressed would assist the reader:
  1. opening para: "...establish agricultural, stationary villages". "Villages" already implies that they are stationary- would "permanent" be more apt?

• Changed.

• 1. "" "" : From the description of the Okipa ceremony given further on in the text, it is not at all clear how this could actually serve to "bring the buffalo closer to their villages". No doubt this was an intention of the ceremony; but were any more "practical" measures used to ensure availability of this food supply? Or were none needed?

• None of the sources I have describe anything of a physical nature to entice the buffalo. [fair enough, just wondering really- cjllw]

• 1. "" "" : Was it the Missouri or Ohio river where they were 1st encountered by Europeans in 1738? Either interpretation is possible from the current sentence structure (is explained later on, but needs clarification when first mentioned).

• Changed

• 1. ==Language== : Perhaps mention here that the Welsh-origin theory is now discounted (is covered later in history section, but this is where it is first discussed).

• Changed

• 1. ==Religion== : "...Mandan's religion was one of the most complex". This seems to be a subjective view, and one which perhaps unjustifiably if unintentionally underplays the belief systems of other Great Plains tribes they are compared to. Unless this particular complexity can be independently demonstrated, it might be better not to use this comparison.

• Changed to the less-subjective "more complex."

• 1. "" "" : presumably Chief Four-Bears and others who survived two Okipa inductions did not have to sacrifice their little fingers a second time :-) or did they lose yet another digit?

• Not sure. None of the sources say. Though if you count his digits in most of his portraits, Four Bears only has 4 fingers. [no matter, again, just curiosity- cjllw]

• 1. ==Origins & early history== : language relatedness to Ho-Chunk is not mentioned in Language section? These accounts seem to differ.

• Ho-chunk is discussed in Hodge's 1906 tome. I changed the paragraph to reflect that this is from early scholarship. No mention of this relation occurs in the more modern texts.

• 1. ==Late 19/20 C.== : "...was abandoned and later submerged under the waters of Lake Sakakawea"- I know it is explained a little further on that this refers to a later dam, but until that information is reached the sentence is a little puzzling. You might consider inserting something up front when it is first mentioned to explain the inundation of the former village.

• I simply removed the submerged part as it is covered later in the text.

• 1. general- given their current situation/combination with two other groups, would it be possible to expand upon the impact of this, whether separate traditions were/are maintained, or combined somewhow, whether there are any differences in relationships/leadership/social interactions between the three groups now combined into the Three Affiliated Tribes, etc? (the article on the 3 tribes discusses each individually, but does not give more information about how they are united or relate/differ to one another). Only a brief summary would be needed for Mandan article, more detail could go into Three Affiliated Tribes, but it would seem to be relevant info. [brief additions just made now cover the essentials needed for this, as mentioned perhaps some more could be added to Three Affiliated Tribes; for the current purpose however this content is now fine.- cjllw]

• Added. It failed to even cross my mind. Thank you for your concerns! They have been helpful! *Exeunt* Ganymead ^Dialogue? 01:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Again, this is a good article on a worthy subject, the above are mostly minor concerns.--cjllw | TALK 00:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Ganymead for a highly-informative read. Happy to support this material!--cjllw | TALK 02:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support Very interesting subject and very well done. --Pamri • Talk 17:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support, very well-balanced and informative article on an interesting subject. Bishonen | talk 18:43, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Great article. The copy could use some polish, but it's good now and improvement can be an ongoing thing. --Tabor 04:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support: Nice article. Well researched, referenced, and written. Giano | talk 09:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)