My ((merge)) request on this article has been reverted, so here am I. IMHO, it's the same as Battle of Lake Erie, albeit of much lower quality. Is there anyone who can see what can be included to Battle of Lake Erie before being sent to Afd? Thank you, Comte0 (talk) 23:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Other parts are historically dubious to say the least:
Addendum:
The faults of this article are too numerous. Rebel Redcoat (talk) 13:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm gonna have to agree strongly with RR. It doesn't even read like an article, but more like a textbook entry written by Joseph McCartney. I don't even want to cite examples; every paragraph is rift with patriotic language and disparaging of the British army. hbdragon88 (talk) 19:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I do fully agree with Rebel Redcoat too, the questionable quote about the start of an age of naval superiority for the United States of America was why I came here in the first place. Comte0 (talk) 21:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I say just change it to a redirect, no need to merge, I wouldn't be suprised if the content has been completely ripped from the sources (it reads just like a textbook does, as someone mentioned). It's well beyond saving and appears to be identical to The Battle of Lake Erie. Fin©™ 00:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
As Comte0 has made it clear that he wanted to know if there is any information that can be merged into the proper article, I took a look through. I definitely agree that the whole article is biased and has a "point-of-view"-ish bent to it. Furthermore, most, if not all, of the information in this article is already in a summarized and neutral form in the proposed target of merge. With no references (and inline citations), it is difficult to verify each statement in this article as well (not withstanding the unreliability of it using Wikipedia as a source). As such, I recommend simply deleting this article. Jappalang (talk) 01:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree that this entire article needs to be deleted. It is not at all neutral, minimally cited, and the other article is about the same engagement. I was looking through it to find specific places to improve it, but it's all equally biased. Basically, the best thing to do at this point is to wait till its AFD is finished, right now that looks like it will be deleted, and then work on the other article. Borg Sphere (talk) 11:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)