GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Display name 99 ( talk) · contribs) 02:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
There are some places in which I find the article to be a bit difficult to understand. However, this was the only significant defect that I noticed. Therefore, I decided to raise it to good article status.
Display name 99 (
talk)
02:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what went wrong with the creation of this nomination page, which was named incorrectly and missing all of the standard material up top. Perhaps Display name 99 did not use the supplied review link from the GAN page or the article talk page based on the "GA nominee" template, and thus didn't get the usual boilerplate.
In any event, the review is extremely short, does not mention the GA criteria at all, missed some major and minor issues related to these, and was prematurely passed. It is very rare that there is nothing to correct in a nominated article, and this was not an exception. Since this is an inexperienced GA reviewer, I have reverted the actual passage, and reopened the review so the reviewer can assess it against all of the criteria. There are templates that can be used which list the individual criteria and allow a check-off as the review progresses.
There are issues with the first three GA criteria at least. In particular, I believe the third paragraph of the Death section is too closely paraphrased with the given source (italics show where they match): Garrett allowed Bonney's friends to take the body to a carpenter's shop to give him a wake. The next morning, Justice of the Peace Milnor Rudulph viewed the body and made out the death certificate, with Garrett rejecting it and demanding another be written more in his favor. Bonney's body was then prepared for burial, and was buried at noon at the Fort Sumner cemetery between O'Folliard and Bowdre.
This paragraph needs a major revision to avoid the close paraphrasing.
I also believe that per WP:LEAD the article's introductory paragraphs should summarize more of the article, and given the article's length, I'd recommend three paragraphs (or at least a longer two). There is also a grammatical error in the lead's third sentence, and at least a couple others I've seen in the article proper, though I've not read it completely through.
Finally, if there are places where the article is "difficult to understand", then it doesn't meet the "clear and concise" criterion, and those places need to be identified to the nominator so they can be revised. I feel sure that over the course of this review the article can be brought to GA standard, but at the moment it is not there, and should not be approved until all the issues have been identified and the article edited to fix them. BlueMoonset ( talk) 05:15, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
I apologize for the error and hope to do better with my next review. I guess we all have to learn somehow. I'll take another look at it once these corrections have been made. Winkelvi, I'm particularly sorry for not looking through it well enough. I think that with just a little bit of cleanup, it can reach GA status. Now that I'm looking through it again, I've noticed a grammatical error in the 5th sentence, where the word "and" is used twice. Again, I apologize for the premature review, but hope that we can fix it in a short period of time. Display name 99 ( talk) 13:57, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
It looks a lot better to me. However, here are several issues that I have noticed when looking through the article again:
1. Under "First Crimes," I have noticed this sentence:
"By the time he arrived, McCarty was near death but was nursed back to health by Jones' mother."
Could there be a bit of elaboration on why he was so near death?
2. Under "Outlaw," it is said that Billy shot and killed a man named Joe Grant. However, there is nothing about who this Joe Grant fellow is.
3. I am concerned about this sentence under "Death:"
"People had begun to talk about they felt was an unfair encounter."
It is grammatically incorrect, because there is no word between "about" and "they," and appears to be poorly worded. Also, the "encounter" itself cannot be unfair, rather Garrett would have been unfair towards Billy. I suggest revising the statement accordingly.
4. There is a section under "Authenticated photographs" entitled: "McCarty as a left-handed shooter." This seems like an odd title for a photograph, and there is also no description under that section as to what the image actually is. There is also one statement under that section that has been marked for needing a citation, which I believe to be the only such statement in the entire article. Please try to find a source so that we may fix this.
5. This is just a suggestion, but do you think it might be a good idea to refer to the article's subject as "Billy" rather than by his various last names? It might help make things a bit less confusing.
If these things are fixed, I see no reason why it cannot be reinstated as a good article. However, I agree with your suggestion to wait for BlueMoonset's opinion before we finalize it. Thank you for your work. Display name 99 ( talk) 00:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
McCarty had his horse stolen by Apaches; this forced him to walk miles to the nearest settlement, Pecos Valley, New Mexico.[25] Once in Pecos Valley, McCarty went to the home of friend and Seven Rivers Warriors gang member, John Jones. By the time he arrived, McCarty was near death but was nursed back to health by Jones' mother.I have expanded slightly to add: "...McCarty was near death as a result of his long trek but was nursed back to health by Jones' mother" (added content in italics). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:35, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Of course people should generally be referred to by their last names. However, the lead section of the MOS states that there is room for some exceptions regarding the regulations contained within it. I was simply wondering if this could be considered an exception, considering the fact that man had a nickname that is more widely known than either his birth name or the alias that he went by. I understand your reasoning behind keeping things the way that they are, but I don't think that this consideration alone disqualifies me from reviewing good articles.
Winkelvi, your revisions so far look good. I think we're almost there. I look forward to seeing what you can do with Point #4. Display name 99 ( talk) 01:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
One of the few remaining artifacts of Bonney's life is the iconic 2x3 inch ferrotype taken of Bonney by an unknown portrait photographer sometime in late 1879 or early 1880. The image shows Bonney with a slouch cowboy hat on his head, a bandanna around his neck, wearing a vest over a sweater, and holding a 1873 Winchester rifle with the weapon's butt resting on the floor. For years the photo of Bonney was the only one agreed upon by scholars and historians to be authentic. The ferrotype survived due to a friend of Bonney, Dan Dedrick, keeping it following the outlaw's death. Passed down through Dedrick's family, the image was copied several times and appeared in numerous publications during the 20th century. In June 2011, the original was bought at auction for $2.3 million by billionaire businessman William Koch. At the time of the ferrotype auction, the image became the most expensive item ever sold through Brian Lebel's Annual Old West Show & Auction.-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:37, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
The image, which had been copied and published in various way over the years, showed Bonney with his holstered Colt revolver on his left side. This fueled the belief that the gunman was left-handed. the belief, however, did not take into account that the method used to make the original ferrotype was to use metal plates that produced reverse images. As a result, the photo showed Bonney's pistol on his left, leading modern historians to believe he shot with his left hand. In 1954 western historians James D. Horan and Paul Sann wrote that Bonney was "right-handed and carried his pistol on his right hip". The opinion was confirmed by Clyde Jeavons, a former curator of the National Film and Television Archive. Historian Michael Wallis wrote in 2007 that Bonney was ambidextrous.
I am pleased with these results. You did, at one point in your edit, somehow write the same sentence twice. Because this could be fixed so quickly, I removed the second version of the sentence. Hopefully I did not overstep my role as reviewer in doing so. I believe that it can now be considered a good article, and will wait for BlueMoonset's opinion before raising it to that level. If I do not hear from him in 24 hours, I will make it a good article. Display name 99 ( talk) 01:58, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Images should ideally be spread evenly within the article, and relevant to the sections they are located in.By that criterion, the Tunstall image is misplaced, as is the Olinger (the caption of which should probably note the apparent misspelling of Olinger's name on the stone plaque). Also, images should not spill over from one section to the next. I do plan to take care of some of the basic grammatical issues while identifying the ones that aren't so straightforward—reviewers are encouraged to make minor corrections—but I may not be able to get to them all within 24 hours or even 48 hours. There is no rush here; I ask you to be patient and not pass the article until all the issues have been addressed. Thank you. BlueMoonset ( talk) 03:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I noticed the revisions made to the introduction, and they make it look much better. I also noticed that you have reworded many of the sentences that I previously stated "were difficult to understand," but did not know exactly how to ask you to fix them. I just took the liberty of fixing a grammatically incorrect and poorly-worded sentence under "Lincoln County War." These types of sentences may be the biggest problem with the article. I am bothered now that I did not notice them before. Display name 99 ( talk) 01:35, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
BlueMoonset, is it possible to get specifics from you (such as was done by Display name 99 a few days ago) on what you would like to see fixed? It would be very helpful to me if you did so. Thanks,-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:39, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
I would like to bring up these 2 sentences under "First Crimes:"
"On August 17, 1877, McCarty killed Francis P. "Windy" Cahill in Arizona after the two had a verbal argument and altercation. McCarty shot Cahill after a physical fight over McCarty's revolver."
The mentioning of a "physical fight," though perhaps not in specific violation of any policy, sounds rather unprofessional. I suggest consolidating the sentences into one, reading something like:
"On August 17, 1977, McCarty killed Francis P. "Windy" Cahill in Arizona as the result of a verbal argument and physical altercation of McCarty's revolver."
Also, could there be something added about why they were fighting over his revolver? Thank you. Display name 99 ( talk) 02:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
That's fine. Just please try to find a way to remove the words "physical fight." I don't like the way it sounds, and don't think that many others will either. Display name 99 ( talk) 22:23, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
General commentary: I came to the article as someone who knew very little about Billy the Kid, so I took the facts laid out at face value. Indeed, my edits assumed that they were.
However, I have just read sections from one of the most recent sources, the Michael Wallis Billy the Kid: the Endless Ride from 2007. And in the first chapter, particularly pages 5 through 7, Wallis points out how little definite information is available, and how much is open to conjecture. Wallis offers up three potential birthdates in 1859 (the one in the article, September 17, is listed third), and even then can't commit to 1859 being the definite year. Joseph might be his younger or older brother (something also noted by Utley). Wallis is definite about there only being two children (which contradicts the article), and that the mother was Catherine, but there are several possibilities for the father's name, some depending on which McCarty went with which birthdate.
As a general rule, when reliable sources disagree, the editor has to weigh the reasons, but usually should offer the various surmises rather than pick one to favor. I think the article should be less definitive about the early years.
Please note that I haven't yet written up the "Outlaw", "Capture and escape", "Death", and "Rumors of survival" sections. I've left placeholders, and will post anything I find there as soon as I have the time. I'll try to do so by the end of the weekend.
Lead section:
Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. There are a number of points in the lead that are not so covered:
Early life:
First crimes:
Lincoln County war:
Battle of Lincoln:
Outlaw:
Capture and escape:
Death:
Rumors of survival:
Legacy:
Selected references in popular culture:
Reference section:
— BlueMoonset ( talk) 19:16, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your work, BlueMoonset. I don't see any problem with the "posthumous pardon" section. The way that it is now, it explains that Richardson declined to issue the pardon due to a lack of historical evidence. I approve of that more than stating only that he decided not to issue it.
Another potential issue that I would like to point out is that, under "Lincoln County War," the sentences that discuss Bonney's arrest on 2/20/1878, following the death of Tunstall, appear unsourced. Display name 99 ( talk) 00:50, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
That's fine. Once again, I appreciate the work that you're doing to help improve the article and in teaching me how to do better reviewing. Display name 99 ( talk) 20:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
BlueMoonset and Display name 99, I'm working on looking into the Utley book at JSTOR for more information on the Windy Cahill incident. I agree, there needs to be more in the article content to make the story and the picture more complete. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Please note that unfortunately I will be away from a computer until the evening of Thursday the 21st. As such, I will be unable to take part in reviewing this article until that time has passed. Display name 99 ( talk) 04:09, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
BlueMoonset and Display name 99, looking over the list of the Selected references in popular culture, I'd rather just delete a good portion of the list because it seems to contain a lot of trivial mentions. I believe the content that is sourced and verifiable as well as those that are significant to literature, music, films, TV, etc. should be kept (as long as they are referenced). Anything on the list that seems trivial in nature should be deleted. Any thoughts?
Further, in regard to the sources and periodicals sections, I'm going to combine them as I don't see the need for the distinctions, either. Would this be an acceptable solution to your concerns with this? Also, I have removed the overlapping of the Rickards and Nolan sources/references. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Winkelvi, when I used the word "references," I was referring to "references in popular culture." By "sourced," I intended to refer to popular culture references accompanied by citations. I'm sorry that it wasn't clear enough. Thank you for your work. Display name 99 ( talk) 19:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
I am inexperienced in reviewing GAs. However, I can tell you that there is no mandatory 7 day requirement. However, it is encouraged that the nominator and reviewer work to have the article passed within that period of time, if possible. But by no means is the article automatically failed if the review process goes over that. How, exactly, are BlueMoonset and I acting like nominators? How is the nominator, Winkelvi, blocked for 7 days? I just don't understand what you are talking about. As for your concerns about "unverified and disputed claims," I think that these may be present because Billy the Kid is a controversial person, and there are many aspects of his life which are not agreed upon by historians. As Blue Moonset said somewhere above, if there are wide differences in historical opinion regarding a subject, the role of Wikipedia is not to choose one, but to lay out all major arguments clearly so as to let the reader decide. Also, I have just noticed that an edit-warring user to whom you were presumably referring has just been blocked for 48 hours. That may solve the problem. If you want to help in the review process, you are welcome to. List some specific things in the article that you think ought to be revised. Display name 99 ( talk) 14:07, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
The article has been placed on hold. BlueMoonset and MaranoFan, I now see what you-MaranoFan-meant by referring to the nominator having been blocked. Winkelvi was blocked for a period of 7 days. Because Winkelvi is the nominator, I don't think that we can do much until that time elapses. Display name 99 ( talk) 15:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't understand what you are referring to. Display name 99 ( talk) 16:19, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Chesnaught555, there were many of them listed just above. Winkelvi was supposed to begin making changes to the "Selected references in popular culture" section, which was poorly sourced and not well-written. You can go ahead and look into Shootseven's question about the photographs. It won't hurt. Maybe one of us can establish contact with Winkelvi on his talk page. He is the nominator, and so officially it should primarily be his role to take care of these things. However, reviewing does, of course, involve more than one editor, and so the rest of us can work to sort these things out as well. Thank you for your work. I see what you meant about reading above. I misjudged when the last bit of text that I had not read began, and thus unintentionally skipped over several lines.
Now this paragraph is to everyone involved in the process. Shootseven's edits were irresponsible. Winkelvi, it appears, instead of looking into the sources and making compromises, also grew to become a bit too fond of the revert button. He has apologized for his actions on his talk page. Edit-warring is, as MaranoFan said, grounds for quick-failing. I didn't realize quite how bad the situation was when MaranoFan first brought it up. I have no intention to fail the article yet. Winkelvi has promised to do better. However, things had better improve within a week, or I do not believe I can continue reviewing. Display name 99 ( talk) 16:55, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Winkelvi, thank you for your work. I suppose that in all the controversy I forgot to check the article's history. I told you previously that I did not intend to put a 7 day "restriction" on improving the article. I merely intended to indicate that it was, indeed, "on hold" until your block expired. I'm sorry if it felt the opposite way to you. I'll try to keep track of your edits and please notify me when you believe you have finished. Thank you. Display name 99 ( talk) 02:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Winkelvi, I do not see any other issues. BlueMoonset, is there still anything else that you think ought to be revised before the review is completed? Display name 99 ( talk) 14:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Governor Wallace offered another five-hundred-dollar reward for his capture. Wallis also uses the phrase "another five-hundred-dollar reward" to refer to the post-escape reward on page 245 of his book; he cites the paragraph to page 277 of Nolan's The West of Billy the Kid. Having the two books to hand means that checking is going slowly for the four sections; I will try to have more posted very soon, and will in any case not keep you waiting past the end of this weekend. BlueMoonset ( talk) 17:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
BlueMoonset: I've corrected the content on the bounties and have added content on the first one, along with the Utley book reference. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:08, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
I looked through the sources to see if there were any that might not be reliable by GA and Wikipedia standards. The Sources section looked fine, but some of the References include other sources, and some of those looked dicey: individuals putting up their own websites who are otherwise not experts in the field, general websites that accept all contributions, and the like. I think new, reliable sources should be found for the material these references support, and if none can be found, the material should be removed.
The PBS American Experience timeline (FN14) is not ideal because timelines tend to simplify things or take shortcuts. If there's a reliable source that's more in depth, it would seem to be preferable to American Experience.
There wasn't time to finish the review tonight. I'm continuing to work on it. BlueMoonset ( talk) 07:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Winkelvi and BlueMoonset, I have replaced FN97 with a source from the cemetery's website. Display name 99 ( talk) 15:37, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
BlueMoonset and display name 99, I have to respectfully disagree about the PBS timeline as a source. It's PBS, after all, and PBS is certainly a reliable source. No doubt a good bit of exact research was done for the program and the timeline can be trusted. Unless, of course, you have some kind of evidence that shows PBS timelines have, in the past, been questionable as reliable sources? The rest of the sources you listed above will be looked at by me later today/sometime tomorrow. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:12, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
I examined the source and did not even see a date listed on the timeline for September 16, 1875, which is the date that the article says "McCarty began his criminal career by stealing food." In that case, it ought to be removed. There are two other citations following that same sentence anyhow. Display name 99 ( talk) 16:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
BlueMoonset, book citations are awesome, however, it seems that of the three of us, you are the only one with access to it. Therefore, I have no clue whether a writer/historian's version of events differs from what is available online. That said, print media isn't always the last word as writers/historian's get things wrong. What's published in print prior to what's published online more recently could be old information. Just sayin'. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
I have removed the source largely because it did not fit with the content. Display name 99 ( talk) 17:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Maunus, take as much time as necessary. Thank you. Display name 99 ( talk) 20:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Maunus, I hardly blame you at all. Display name 99 ( talk) 00:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
MaranoFan, I agree with Winkelvi for once. First of all, today is only the one-month anniversary of the review's commencement. Secondly, since you came here, you have done nothing but complain on the review talk page about the process of the review and demand that it be failed. I have come close to failing this article a couple of times. However, it seems to me as though you have not provided us with any constructive or specific advice on how to improve the article. Unless you are willing to do that, please go away. Display name 99 ( talk) 21:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Winkelvi, thank you for removing the PBS source. There are some others to be dealt with, including "aboutbillythekid.com". Would you like me to see what Wallis and Utley have to say, and use them instead? I definitely believe that's necessary in the case of the History Channel (history.com) source used for FN24 and FN66. The latter was used in place of PBS, but I find it even more problematic. It seems to be repeating legends along with fact; for example, Although only 18 years old at the time, Billy had now committed as many as 17 murders
, which we know to be dubious, not to mention sensationalist. I was unable to get confirmation of the "dead, dead, dead" / "hell, hell, hell" quote in either Utley or Wallis, who instead have the judge concluding "until his body be dead." Under the circumstances, I don't think anything from history.com can safely be used.
BlueMoonset (
talk)
17:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
I have twice tried to reduce wording redundancy in the article and keep what's there from being too similar to the source attached to the section, however, a redlink editor with less than 100 edits has changed the content twice - once being a reversion of my appropriate change. Diffs are here: [2], [3], [4]. It would be wonderful if someone ( Display name 99, BlueMoonset, Chesnaught555?) could change it back or at least get rid of the close redundancy (marked/marker) as well as keep the content from being too close in wording to the source cited there. Thanks. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:06, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Winkelvi and Jillyjo, I'll try to take a look at whatever the issue is tomorrow. I don't have much time tonight. Display name 99 ( talk) 01:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Winkelvi, BlueMoonset, Chesnaught555, and Jilllyjo, the GA review has failed. Please wait about a month and, if there are no significant disputes in that time, you may renominate it. If you do so, I will not review it a second time. Thank you. Display name 99 ( talk) 18:23, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Display name 99 has failed the nomination, and that's that. The recriminations from both sides are unseemly and unhelpful. I was going to write more, but with edits continuing at a rapid pace, I think something simple and direct is what's needed here, along with the reset that ending the review will bring. BlueMoonset ( talk) 19:41, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Collapsed off-topic, stricken discussion
|
---|
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Display name 99 ( talk) · contribs) 02:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
There are some places in which I find the article to be a bit difficult to understand. However, this was the only significant defect that I noticed. Therefore, I decided to raise it to good article status.
Display name 99 (
talk)
02:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what went wrong with the creation of this nomination page, which was named incorrectly and missing all of the standard material up top. Perhaps Display name 99 did not use the supplied review link from the GAN page or the article talk page based on the "GA nominee" template, and thus didn't get the usual boilerplate.
In any event, the review is extremely short, does not mention the GA criteria at all, missed some major and minor issues related to these, and was prematurely passed. It is very rare that there is nothing to correct in a nominated article, and this was not an exception. Since this is an inexperienced GA reviewer, I have reverted the actual passage, and reopened the review so the reviewer can assess it against all of the criteria. There are templates that can be used which list the individual criteria and allow a check-off as the review progresses.
There are issues with the first three GA criteria at least. In particular, I believe the third paragraph of the Death section is too closely paraphrased with the given source (italics show where they match): Garrett allowed Bonney's friends to take the body to a carpenter's shop to give him a wake. The next morning, Justice of the Peace Milnor Rudulph viewed the body and made out the death certificate, with Garrett rejecting it and demanding another be written more in his favor. Bonney's body was then prepared for burial, and was buried at noon at the Fort Sumner cemetery between O'Folliard and Bowdre.
This paragraph needs a major revision to avoid the close paraphrasing.
I also believe that per WP:LEAD the article's introductory paragraphs should summarize more of the article, and given the article's length, I'd recommend three paragraphs (or at least a longer two). There is also a grammatical error in the lead's third sentence, and at least a couple others I've seen in the article proper, though I've not read it completely through.
Finally, if there are places where the article is "difficult to understand", then it doesn't meet the "clear and concise" criterion, and those places need to be identified to the nominator so they can be revised. I feel sure that over the course of this review the article can be brought to GA standard, but at the moment it is not there, and should not be approved until all the issues have been identified and the article edited to fix them. BlueMoonset ( talk) 05:15, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
I apologize for the error and hope to do better with my next review. I guess we all have to learn somehow. I'll take another look at it once these corrections have been made. Winkelvi, I'm particularly sorry for not looking through it well enough. I think that with just a little bit of cleanup, it can reach GA status. Now that I'm looking through it again, I've noticed a grammatical error in the 5th sentence, where the word "and" is used twice. Again, I apologize for the premature review, but hope that we can fix it in a short period of time. Display name 99 ( talk) 13:57, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
It looks a lot better to me. However, here are several issues that I have noticed when looking through the article again:
1. Under "First Crimes," I have noticed this sentence:
"By the time he arrived, McCarty was near death but was nursed back to health by Jones' mother."
Could there be a bit of elaboration on why he was so near death?
2. Under "Outlaw," it is said that Billy shot and killed a man named Joe Grant. However, there is nothing about who this Joe Grant fellow is.
3. I am concerned about this sentence under "Death:"
"People had begun to talk about they felt was an unfair encounter."
It is grammatically incorrect, because there is no word between "about" and "they," and appears to be poorly worded. Also, the "encounter" itself cannot be unfair, rather Garrett would have been unfair towards Billy. I suggest revising the statement accordingly.
4. There is a section under "Authenticated photographs" entitled: "McCarty as a left-handed shooter." This seems like an odd title for a photograph, and there is also no description under that section as to what the image actually is. There is also one statement under that section that has been marked for needing a citation, which I believe to be the only such statement in the entire article. Please try to find a source so that we may fix this.
5. This is just a suggestion, but do you think it might be a good idea to refer to the article's subject as "Billy" rather than by his various last names? It might help make things a bit less confusing.
If these things are fixed, I see no reason why it cannot be reinstated as a good article. However, I agree with your suggestion to wait for BlueMoonset's opinion before we finalize it. Thank you for your work. Display name 99 ( talk) 00:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
McCarty had his horse stolen by Apaches; this forced him to walk miles to the nearest settlement, Pecos Valley, New Mexico.[25] Once in Pecos Valley, McCarty went to the home of friend and Seven Rivers Warriors gang member, John Jones. By the time he arrived, McCarty was near death but was nursed back to health by Jones' mother.I have expanded slightly to add: "...McCarty was near death as a result of his long trek but was nursed back to health by Jones' mother" (added content in italics). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:35, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Of course people should generally be referred to by their last names. However, the lead section of the MOS states that there is room for some exceptions regarding the regulations contained within it. I was simply wondering if this could be considered an exception, considering the fact that man had a nickname that is more widely known than either his birth name or the alias that he went by. I understand your reasoning behind keeping things the way that they are, but I don't think that this consideration alone disqualifies me from reviewing good articles.
Winkelvi, your revisions so far look good. I think we're almost there. I look forward to seeing what you can do with Point #4. Display name 99 ( talk) 01:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
One of the few remaining artifacts of Bonney's life is the iconic 2x3 inch ferrotype taken of Bonney by an unknown portrait photographer sometime in late 1879 or early 1880. The image shows Bonney with a slouch cowboy hat on his head, a bandanna around his neck, wearing a vest over a sweater, and holding a 1873 Winchester rifle with the weapon's butt resting on the floor. For years the photo of Bonney was the only one agreed upon by scholars and historians to be authentic. The ferrotype survived due to a friend of Bonney, Dan Dedrick, keeping it following the outlaw's death. Passed down through Dedrick's family, the image was copied several times and appeared in numerous publications during the 20th century. In June 2011, the original was bought at auction for $2.3 million by billionaire businessman William Koch. At the time of the ferrotype auction, the image became the most expensive item ever sold through Brian Lebel's Annual Old West Show & Auction.-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:37, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
The image, which had been copied and published in various way over the years, showed Bonney with his holstered Colt revolver on his left side. This fueled the belief that the gunman was left-handed. the belief, however, did not take into account that the method used to make the original ferrotype was to use metal plates that produced reverse images. As a result, the photo showed Bonney's pistol on his left, leading modern historians to believe he shot with his left hand. In 1954 western historians James D. Horan and Paul Sann wrote that Bonney was "right-handed and carried his pistol on his right hip". The opinion was confirmed by Clyde Jeavons, a former curator of the National Film and Television Archive. Historian Michael Wallis wrote in 2007 that Bonney was ambidextrous.
I am pleased with these results. You did, at one point in your edit, somehow write the same sentence twice. Because this could be fixed so quickly, I removed the second version of the sentence. Hopefully I did not overstep my role as reviewer in doing so. I believe that it can now be considered a good article, and will wait for BlueMoonset's opinion before raising it to that level. If I do not hear from him in 24 hours, I will make it a good article. Display name 99 ( talk) 01:58, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Images should ideally be spread evenly within the article, and relevant to the sections they are located in.By that criterion, the Tunstall image is misplaced, as is the Olinger (the caption of which should probably note the apparent misspelling of Olinger's name on the stone plaque). Also, images should not spill over from one section to the next. I do plan to take care of some of the basic grammatical issues while identifying the ones that aren't so straightforward—reviewers are encouraged to make minor corrections—but I may not be able to get to them all within 24 hours or even 48 hours. There is no rush here; I ask you to be patient and not pass the article until all the issues have been addressed. Thank you. BlueMoonset ( talk) 03:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I noticed the revisions made to the introduction, and they make it look much better. I also noticed that you have reworded many of the sentences that I previously stated "were difficult to understand," but did not know exactly how to ask you to fix them. I just took the liberty of fixing a grammatically incorrect and poorly-worded sentence under "Lincoln County War." These types of sentences may be the biggest problem with the article. I am bothered now that I did not notice them before. Display name 99 ( talk) 01:35, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
BlueMoonset, is it possible to get specifics from you (such as was done by Display name 99 a few days ago) on what you would like to see fixed? It would be very helpful to me if you did so. Thanks,-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:39, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
I would like to bring up these 2 sentences under "First Crimes:"
"On August 17, 1877, McCarty killed Francis P. "Windy" Cahill in Arizona after the two had a verbal argument and altercation. McCarty shot Cahill after a physical fight over McCarty's revolver."
The mentioning of a "physical fight," though perhaps not in specific violation of any policy, sounds rather unprofessional. I suggest consolidating the sentences into one, reading something like:
"On August 17, 1977, McCarty killed Francis P. "Windy" Cahill in Arizona as the result of a verbal argument and physical altercation of McCarty's revolver."
Also, could there be something added about why they were fighting over his revolver? Thank you. Display name 99 ( talk) 02:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
That's fine. Just please try to find a way to remove the words "physical fight." I don't like the way it sounds, and don't think that many others will either. Display name 99 ( talk) 22:23, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
General commentary: I came to the article as someone who knew very little about Billy the Kid, so I took the facts laid out at face value. Indeed, my edits assumed that they were.
However, I have just read sections from one of the most recent sources, the Michael Wallis Billy the Kid: the Endless Ride from 2007. And in the first chapter, particularly pages 5 through 7, Wallis points out how little definite information is available, and how much is open to conjecture. Wallis offers up three potential birthdates in 1859 (the one in the article, September 17, is listed third), and even then can't commit to 1859 being the definite year. Joseph might be his younger or older brother (something also noted by Utley). Wallis is definite about there only being two children (which contradicts the article), and that the mother was Catherine, but there are several possibilities for the father's name, some depending on which McCarty went with which birthdate.
As a general rule, when reliable sources disagree, the editor has to weigh the reasons, but usually should offer the various surmises rather than pick one to favor. I think the article should be less definitive about the early years.
Please note that I haven't yet written up the "Outlaw", "Capture and escape", "Death", and "Rumors of survival" sections. I've left placeholders, and will post anything I find there as soon as I have the time. I'll try to do so by the end of the weekend.
Lead section:
Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. There are a number of points in the lead that are not so covered:
Early life:
First crimes:
Lincoln County war:
Battle of Lincoln:
Outlaw:
Capture and escape:
Death:
Rumors of survival:
Legacy:
Selected references in popular culture:
Reference section:
— BlueMoonset ( talk) 19:16, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your work, BlueMoonset. I don't see any problem with the "posthumous pardon" section. The way that it is now, it explains that Richardson declined to issue the pardon due to a lack of historical evidence. I approve of that more than stating only that he decided not to issue it.
Another potential issue that I would like to point out is that, under "Lincoln County War," the sentences that discuss Bonney's arrest on 2/20/1878, following the death of Tunstall, appear unsourced. Display name 99 ( talk) 00:50, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
That's fine. Once again, I appreciate the work that you're doing to help improve the article and in teaching me how to do better reviewing. Display name 99 ( talk) 20:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
BlueMoonset and Display name 99, I'm working on looking into the Utley book at JSTOR for more information on the Windy Cahill incident. I agree, there needs to be more in the article content to make the story and the picture more complete. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Please note that unfortunately I will be away from a computer until the evening of Thursday the 21st. As such, I will be unable to take part in reviewing this article until that time has passed. Display name 99 ( talk) 04:09, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
BlueMoonset and Display name 99, looking over the list of the Selected references in popular culture, I'd rather just delete a good portion of the list because it seems to contain a lot of trivial mentions. I believe the content that is sourced and verifiable as well as those that are significant to literature, music, films, TV, etc. should be kept (as long as they are referenced). Anything on the list that seems trivial in nature should be deleted. Any thoughts?
Further, in regard to the sources and periodicals sections, I'm going to combine them as I don't see the need for the distinctions, either. Would this be an acceptable solution to your concerns with this? Also, I have removed the overlapping of the Rickards and Nolan sources/references. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Winkelvi, when I used the word "references," I was referring to "references in popular culture." By "sourced," I intended to refer to popular culture references accompanied by citations. I'm sorry that it wasn't clear enough. Thank you for your work. Display name 99 ( talk) 19:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
I am inexperienced in reviewing GAs. However, I can tell you that there is no mandatory 7 day requirement. However, it is encouraged that the nominator and reviewer work to have the article passed within that period of time, if possible. But by no means is the article automatically failed if the review process goes over that. How, exactly, are BlueMoonset and I acting like nominators? How is the nominator, Winkelvi, blocked for 7 days? I just don't understand what you are talking about. As for your concerns about "unverified and disputed claims," I think that these may be present because Billy the Kid is a controversial person, and there are many aspects of his life which are not agreed upon by historians. As Blue Moonset said somewhere above, if there are wide differences in historical opinion regarding a subject, the role of Wikipedia is not to choose one, but to lay out all major arguments clearly so as to let the reader decide. Also, I have just noticed that an edit-warring user to whom you were presumably referring has just been blocked for 48 hours. That may solve the problem. If you want to help in the review process, you are welcome to. List some specific things in the article that you think ought to be revised. Display name 99 ( talk) 14:07, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
The article has been placed on hold. BlueMoonset and MaranoFan, I now see what you-MaranoFan-meant by referring to the nominator having been blocked. Winkelvi was blocked for a period of 7 days. Because Winkelvi is the nominator, I don't think that we can do much until that time elapses. Display name 99 ( talk) 15:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't understand what you are referring to. Display name 99 ( talk) 16:19, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Chesnaught555, there were many of them listed just above. Winkelvi was supposed to begin making changes to the "Selected references in popular culture" section, which was poorly sourced and not well-written. You can go ahead and look into Shootseven's question about the photographs. It won't hurt. Maybe one of us can establish contact with Winkelvi on his talk page. He is the nominator, and so officially it should primarily be his role to take care of these things. However, reviewing does, of course, involve more than one editor, and so the rest of us can work to sort these things out as well. Thank you for your work. I see what you meant about reading above. I misjudged when the last bit of text that I had not read began, and thus unintentionally skipped over several lines.
Now this paragraph is to everyone involved in the process. Shootseven's edits were irresponsible. Winkelvi, it appears, instead of looking into the sources and making compromises, also grew to become a bit too fond of the revert button. He has apologized for his actions on his talk page. Edit-warring is, as MaranoFan said, grounds for quick-failing. I didn't realize quite how bad the situation was when MaranoFan first brought it up. I have no intention to fail the article yet. Winkelvi has promised to do better. However, things had better improve within a week, or I do not believe I can continue reviewing. Display name 99 ( talk) 16:55, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Winkelvi, thank you for your work. I suppose that in all the controversy I forgot to check the article's history. I told you previously that I did not intend to put a 7 day "restriction" on improving the article. I merely intended to indicate that it was, indeed, "on hold" until your block expired. I'm sorry if it felt the opposite way to you. I'll try to keep track of your edits and please notify me when you believe you have finished. Thank you. Display name 99 ( talk) 02:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Winkelvi, I do not see any other issues. BlueMoonset, is there still anything else that you think ought to be revised before the review is completed? Display name 99 ( talk) 14:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Governor Wallace offered another five-hundred-dollar reward for his capture. Wallis also uses the phrase "another five-hundred-dollar reward" to refer to the post-escape reward on page 245 of his book; he cites the paragraph to page 277 of Nolan's The West of Billy the Kid. Having the two books to hand means that checking is going slowly for the four sections; I will try to have more posted very soon, and will in any case not keep you waiting past the end of this weekend. BlueMoonset ( talk) 17:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
BlueMoonset: I've corrected the content on the bounties and have added content on the first one, along with the Utley book reference. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:08, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
I looked through the sources to see if there were any that might not be reliable by GA and Wikipedia standards. The Sources section looked fine, but some of the References include other sources, and some of those looked dicey: individuals putting up their own websites who are otherwise not experts in the field, general websites that accept all contributions, and the like. I think new, reliable sources should be found for the material these references support, and if none can be found, the material should be removed.
The PBS American Experience timeline (FN14) is not ideal because timelines tend to simplify things or take shortcuts. If there's a reliable source that's more in depth, it would seem to be preferable to American Experience.
There wasn't time to finish the review tonight. I'm continuing to work on it. BlueMoonset ( talk) 07:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Winkelvi and BlueMoonset, I have replaced FN97 with a source from the cemetery's website. Display name 99 ( talk) 15:37, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
BlueMoonset and display name 99, I have to respectfully disagree about the PBS timeline as a source. It's PBS, after all, and PBS is certainly a reliable source. No doubt a good bit of exact research was done for the program and the timeline can be trusted. Unless, of course, you have some kind of evidence that shows PBS timelines have, in the past, been questionable as reliable sources? The rest of the sources you listed above will be looked at by me later today/sometime tomorrow. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:12, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
I examined the source and did not even see a date listed on the timeline for September 16, 1875, which is the date that the article says "McCarty began his criminal career by stealing food." In that case, it ought to be removed. There are two other citations following that same sentence anyhow. Display name 99 ( talk) 16:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
BlueMoonset, book citations are awesome, however, it seems that of the three of us, you are the only one with access to it. Therefore, I have no clue whether a writer/historian's version of events differs from what is available online. That said, print media isn't always the last word as writers/historian's get things wrong. What's published in print prior to what's published online more recently could be old information. Just sayin'. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
I have removed the source largely because it did not fit with the content. Display name 99 ( talk) 17:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Maunus, take as much time as necessary. Thank you. Display name 99 ( talk) 20:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Maunus, I hardly blame you at all. Display name 99 ( talk) 00:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
MaranoFan, I agree with Winkelvi for once. First of all, today is only the one-month anniversary of the review's commencement. Secondly, since you came here, you have done nothing but complain on the review talk page about the process of the review and demand that it be failed. I have come close to failing this article a couple of times. However, it seems to me as though you have not provided us with any constructive or specific advice on how to improve the article. Unless you are willing to do that, please go away. Display name 99 ( talk) 21:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Winkelvi, thank you for removing the PBS source. There are some others to be dealt with, including "aboutbillythekid.com". Would you like me to see what Wallis and Utley have to say, and use them instead? I definitely believe that's necessary in the case of the History Channel (history.com) source used for FN24 and FN66. The latter was used in place of PBS, but I find it even more problematic. It seems to be repeating legends along with fact; for example, Although only 18 years old at the time, Billy had now committed as many as 17 murders
, which we know to be dubious, not to mention sensationalist. I was unable to get confirmation of the "dead, dead, dead" / "hell, hell, hell" quote in either Utley or Wallis, who instead have the judge concluding "until his body be dead." Under the circumstances, I don't think anything from history.com can safely be used.
BlueMoonset (
talk)
17:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
I have twice tried to reduce wording redundancy in the article and keep what's there from being too similar to the source attached to the section, however, a redlink editor with less than 100 edits has changed the content twice - once being a reversion of my appropriate change. Diffs are here: [2], [3], [4]. It would be wonderful if someone ( Display name 99, BlueMoonset, Chesnaught555?) could change it back or at least get rid of the close redundancy (marked/marker) as well as keep the content from being too close in wording to the source cited there. Thanks. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:06, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Winkelvi and Jillyjo, I'll try to take a look at whatever the issue is tomorrow. I don't have much time tonight. Display name 99 ( talk) 01:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Winkelvi, BlueMoonset, Chesnaught555, and Jilllyjo, the GA review has failed. Please wait about a month and, if there are no significant disputes in that time, you may renominate it. If you do so, I will not review it a second time. Thank you. Display name 99 ( talk) 18:23, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Display name 99 has failed the nomination, and that's that. The recriminations from both sides are unseemly and unhelpful. I was going to write more, but with edits continuing at a rapid pace, I think something simple and direct is what's needed here, along with the reset that ending the review will bring. BlueMoonset ( talk) 19:41, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Collapsed off-topic, stricken discussion
|
---|
|