GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Stedil ( talk · contribs) 22:32, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Greetings! I will be reviewing this article. I plan to start going through the article tomorrow, time permitting. I'll update review progress in the table, with specific concerns to address below.
Stedil (
talk)
22:32, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | A few small little things here and there, but overall very good. |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | A few issues to clean up in the lead. Update: fixed. |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | Biggest issue with the article is here. Quite a few suggestions for improvement, listed below. Update: one more issue left. Final update: fixed. |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | sources are mostly reliable. |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | may contain OR, though perhaps all information in the article can be properly cited. Update: fixed. |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | just a few small moments where the text closely mirrors the source. Update:fixed. |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | one fair use that has valid rationale. Lots of public domain images. |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | A lot of citation issues to address. I'll give you some time to address these issues before making a decision. Update: issues have been addressed, so I'll pass the article. Nice work! |
There are still a lot of details in this section that aren't found in any of the sources.Stedil ( talk) 18:31, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
I have addressed everything above this point (i.e. lead section and whole of the History section) as of 27 April 2018. I have plugged new sources in and addressed inconsistencies and other issues you raised. Let me know if I have missed anything pertinent—it's possible I may have missed something here in the shuffle. The only point I'm not sure how to address is your note about a citation needed for the "equivalent to $626,451,852 in 2017"—reason being that the inflation is calculated by the Template:Inflation/US function, which is used to convert the $23,000,000 total. The $23 million total itself is cited; the inflation function is merely reinterpreting it to give readers an idea of the contemporary monetary equivalent. Let me know your thoughts on this. Thanks for all your work. I will resume the points you've raised below (i.e. Geography section onward) in short order.-- Drown Soda ( talk) 23:29, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
I still found a lot of inconsistencies in this section, so I made some significant changes. One issue with the "Quick Facts" page is it pulls some of its numbers from ACS survey data, not the Decennial Census. The ACS has a wider margin of error than the Census, so I replaced this data with the 2010 Census numbers. I also tweaked some numbers in the table and infobox so they are all consistent with each other. Some of the numbers referred to Silver Bow County instead of the city of Silver Bow-Butte (balance), which are different because of Walkerville.Stedil ( talk) 20:33, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
@ Drown Soda: Initial review completed. I have placed the review on hold to give you time to respond. Let me know when you have addressed everything, and I'll take another look. Stedil ( talk) 00:48, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
I think I have ticked the boxes so far here, but let me know if something appears outstanding. An online version of Ref. 151 concerning The Killer Inside Me is unfortunately gone; the newspaper was previously archived at Newspapers.com, but it appears to have been removed. I left the newspaper source information as a reference without an online copy (unsure of what else to do about this). Best,-- Drown Soda ( talk) 00:34, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
@ Drown Soda: I have looked through the article again. I had two comments above, only one of which needs action from you (look for the green text). Stedil ( talk) 20:43, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Stedil ( talk · contribs) 22:32, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Greetings! I will be reviewing this article. I plan to start going through the article tomorrow, time permitting. I'll update review progress in the table, with specific concerns to address below.
Stedil (
talk)
22:32, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | A few small little things here and there, but overall very good. |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | A few issues to clean up in the lead. Update: fixed. |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | Biggest issue with the article is here. Quite a few suggestions for improvement, listed below. Update: one more issue left. Final update: fixed. |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | sources are mostly reliable. |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | may contain OR, though perhaps all information in the article can be properly cited. Update: fixed. |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | just a few small moments where the text closely mirrors the source. Update:fixed. |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | one fair use that has valid rationale. Lots of public domain images. |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | A lot of citation issues to address. I'll give you some time to address these issues before making a decision. Update: issues have been addressed, so I'll pass the article. Nice work! |
There are still a lot of details in this section that aren't found in any of the sources.Stedil ( talk) 18:31, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
I have addressed everything above this point (i.e. lead section and whole of the History section) as of 27 April 2018. I have plugged new sources in and addressed inconsistencies and other issues you raised. Let me know if I have missed anything pertinent—it's possible I may have missed something here in the shuffle. The only point I'm not sure how to address is your note about a citation needed for the "equivalent to $626,451,852 in 2017"—reason being that the inflation is calculated by the Template:Inflation/US function, which is used to convert the $23,000,000 total. The $23 million total itself is cited; the inflation function is merely reinterpreting it to give readers an idea of the contemporary monetary equivalent. Let me know your thoughts on this. Thanks for all your work. I will resume the points you've raised below (i.e. Geography section onward) in short order.-- Drown Soda ( talk) 23:29, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
I still found a lot of inconsistencies in this section, so I made some significant changes. One issue with the "Quick Facts" page is it pulls some of its numbers from ACS survey data, not the Decennial Census. The ACS has a wider margin of error than the Census, so I replaced this data with the 2010 Census numbers. I also tweaked some numbers in the table and infobox so they are all consistent with each other. Some of the numbers referred to Silver Bow County instead of the city of Silver Bow-Butte (balance), which are different because of Walkerville.Stedil ( talk) 20:33, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
@ Drown Soda: Initial review completed. I have placed the review on hold to give you time to respond. Let me know when you have addressed everything, and I'll take another look. Stedil ( talk) 00:48, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
I think I have ticked the boxes so far here, but let me know if something appears outstanding. An online version of Ref. 151 concerning The Killer Inside Me is unfortunately gone; the newspaper was previously archived at Newspapers.com, but it appears to have been removed. I left the newspaper source information as a reference without an online copy (unsure of what else to do about this). Best,-- Drown Soda ( talk) 00:34, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
@ Drown Soda: I have looked through the article again. I had two comments above, only one of which needs action from you (look for the green text). Stedil ( talk) 20:43, 6 May 2018 (UTC)