Talk:Billy the Kid/Archive 3

New online photos

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/10/15/why-experts-say-a-2-photo-from-a-california-junk-shop-is-the-holy-grail-of-western-americana/?postshare=4301444920218864

The photos and info in the world article could be useful for this wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:FB01:8E00:6518:927D:FDF5:7FBF (talk) 16:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB references

The article uses IMDB sources, which are not reliable (see Wikipedia:Citing IMDb). This ought to be resolved, given that this article is a GA nominee and reliable sources are a WP:GACR. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 22:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly this is really a waste of other people's time. The IMDB source was not sourcing a piece of controversial information. It was not sourcing biographical information either. So there really is no problem for the article. And even if there were you could have actually resolved it in considerably less time than it took you to slap a tag on it, write this section and dump the job on someone else, by simply removing the unnecessary imdb link. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:34, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's information that I have challenged, and challenged information must be presented with "inline citation to a reliable source" (WP:MINREF). Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 22:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You didnt challenge the information, you challenged the source. And thanks for proving my point by demonstrating that you are a lazy, sloppy (and apparently also selfrighteous and santimonious) editor who prefers making other people work than taking two minutes to fix the problem yourself.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:54, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from name-calling, as it doesn't help in improving this or any other article and only makes fellow editors (me) feel bad. You and I probably have different, and equally valid, ideas about the purpose of pointing out problems in articles via talk pages and templates. My idea was that regular editors of this article are probably more familiar with the structure of the article and relevant literature. I was pointing out an obvious flaw in the article, something that if isn't fixed, might render the current Good Article nomination 'a waste of people's time'. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 23:43, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All IMDb reference citations have been removed. Reliable sources can be found if claims are challenged. Be prosperous! Paine 04:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References, etc.

I've just begun to spruce up the references since I've noted many minor inconsistencies. Just letting everyone know; I've done all I'm going to do today. <yaaawwn> L8RG8R (and) Be prosperous! Paine 04:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User, Jack DeMattos removal of photos uploaded by OSMOND PHILLIPS and calling them bogus.

You are a published writer, but that obviously does not make you a knowledgeable on identifying photos of the people you write about. Especially since there are not many photos available to compare to. It does take some experience to properly identify these people. It cannot be done with just a quick glance and judgement as you have done. You are not known as having any experience in identifying photographs. This collection is getting known as credible and submitting credible photographs of our old west lawmen and outlaws. I may not be able to write well or impress anyone with my words, but these photos I know. The collection that these photographs come from was put together before you were born, received from family and friends of the deceased people back when there were very little photos to use for comparison. Collectors, typically with money, could afford to buy their hearts desire. Museums have great artifacts, R.G McCubbin has a fantastic collection of old west photographs. Isn't it possible that someone else could of also amassed such a collection? This collection is backed by some influential people and is growing in credibility and popularity everyday. Photos from this collection have been requested by prominent film producers for use with their further investigation to be certain it is of the person claimed. You will soon see some of the photos you dispute on Discovery and National Geographic. You add to our history. Do not block others who may also know their business and contribute to history in their own way. I have attached below the photos with comparisons you dispute to help you identify the people you write about. You can click on the photos to enlarge them for analysis. OSMOND PHILLIPS (talk) 16:31, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Tunstall comparison
William Antrim comparisons
James Dolan comparison
Fred Waite comparisons

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Billy the Kid/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 18:09, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start reading over the next few days and then begin to make comments. I am normally a slow reviewer - if that is likely to be a problem, please let me know as soon as possible. I tend to directly do copy-editing and minor improvements as I'm reading the article rather than list them here; if there is a lot of copy-editing to be done I may suggest getting a copy-editor (on the basis that a fresh set of eyes is helpful). Anything more significant than minor improvements I will raise here. I see the reviewer's role as collaborative and collegiate, so I welcome discussion regarding interpretation of the criteria. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time}

Tick box

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

Comments on GA criteria

Pass

Has an appropriate reference section. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:43, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Query

Prose is clear and readable, though could do with tightening up in places. A copy edit is recommended. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:43, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Stability. While there are no edit wars, there have been recent reverts, and in a short space of time the article has been taken from this state in November 27 to the more concerning state it is in today. Neither version meets GA criteria, but the earlier version has the advantage of being easier to work from as it more closely meets MoS requirements, and is easier to read. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:54, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fail

Lead. To meet GA criteria 1(b), which relates to specific manual of style guidelines, the article needs to comply with the advice in WP:LEAD. That is, in addition to being an introduction, the lead needs to be an adequate overview of the whole of the article. As a rough guide, each major section in the article should be represented with an appropriate summary in the lead. Also, the article should provide further details on all the things mentioned in the lead. And, the first few sentences should mention the most notable features of the article's subject - the essential facts that every reader should know. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:43, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
MoS - Layout. Sub-sections are too short per MOS:BODY. Section headings should use sentence case per Wikipedia:Manual of Style # Article titles, headings, and sections. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:43, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

I like Billy the Kid, so I took on this GAN to learn a bit more about him, while reviewing it, and hopefully moving it toward GA status, but an overview of the article indicates it is not yet ready to be listed as a GA. There are a number of obvious issues before getting into any deeper research. For an article of this size and complexity, the lead does not provide an adequate overview. There are too many short sections, giving this article a poor and cluttered appearance that looks messy, and inhibits reading flow. Sections are written in title case rather than sentence case. The prose is readable, though could do with tightening up in places, such as "A young lawyer named Alexander A. McSween (1844-1878) had once served as the lawyer for "The House."", "The birthdate of Billy has been disputed for many years.". The sourcing is haphazard - The Regulators section is unsourced. Most of Selected references in popular culture is unsourced, and has been tagged as needing sourcing since last month. There are images unevenly presented in the article resulting in bare sections, while other sections are cluttered. There are three separate pictures of his grave, for example.

I like to give every nomination a chance, so I won't quick fail this; but I would like some reassurance that the nominator and/or significant contributors are willing to work to bring the article up to meet the GA criteria: WP:GA? and basic WP:MoS requirements. There is a lot of work to be done, and I am hesitant about getting into researching the topic, and analysing the article closely without some sign that my observations are going to be read and acted on. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been substantially edited since it was nominated for GA. The content added is not encyclopedic quality and the GA nom should be quickfailed. The article unfortunately now needs a lot of work. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 01:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked the history and agree regarding the changes since nomination, so I will roll back to that date, and look again. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it has already been rolled back and improvements made. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm closing this GAN as there is too much work to be done, and there are now clean up tags on the article, both of these things are grounds for quick failing. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:35, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

style of address

I think there should be a consensus on the style of address used throughout the article, whether it's 'Billy', 'McCarty', 'Bonney', 'the Kid', or something else. Perhaps using 'McCarty' until the Lincoln County War, 'Bonney' for that section, and 'Billy' after that? Not a huge fan of using 'the Kid' but if I'm in the minority, I'm good with it. Katie^talk 13:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Katie, hello again. I think that currently that is what the editors of this article are doing: changing the surname used appropriately, i.e. Bonney after the Lincoln County War, as you suggested. I also don't personally think "the Kid" sounds too good either. Ches (talk) 19:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article is getting shorter all the time / The Birth of the Kid

Why is the article getting shorter all the time? There are lots of details of some specific issues and events. Not a word about his influence on the Hispanic people of New Mexico. Jack DeMattos's work was good, though too detailed and the article was getting too long; there's no need to present everything. But is it better now? Shorter than ever.

Frederick Nolan and Robert M. Utley do NOT believe, as somebody, that BTK:s birth has been found out. Mr. Nolan's latest suggestion (www.truewestmagazine.com, May 17, 2015) was that BTK was born in Utica, New York: http://www.truewestmagazine.com/the-birth-of-an-outlaw/ In Mr. Utley's latest book of BTK and Ned Kelly BTK:s age dating from November 1859 is accepted.

Image tube (talk) 18:35, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not new research

A user's comment: "hiding lede description - looking through LOC images of Las Vegas Gazette for December 1880-January 1881, and there is no such article (http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn93061631/1880-12-28/ed-1/))"

Wikipedia is not, as far as I know, new research. The above mentioned interview of BTK at the Las Vegas jail, December 1880, is presented in many books of BTK, for example Mark Lee Gardner's "To Hell on a Fast Horse" and Michael Wallis's "The Endless Ride". So, to me it seems that there is no need to remove the quotation and citation (the Kid's interview) from the article if the source (Wallis, Gardner etc.) has been mentioned.

Image tube (talk) 18:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Billy the Kid/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Display name 99 (talk) · contribs) 02:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comment

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

BlueMoonset, I have expanded the lede as suggested and have rewritten the third paragraph of the death section. I await your comments here regarding same. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:15, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

On point #5: Absolutely not. Calling him by his first name is against MOS for names (see here: [1]). Not to mention, Billy the Kid (a derivative of "Kid Antrim") is a nickname given to him by the public as he grew more notorious, not the name he went by. Not trying to be rude or overly blunt, but if you do not know this basic MOS guideline/policy, I am now having serious doubts as to your continuation as a GA reviewer. He is appropriately referred to as McCarty in the article until the point in his history where he starts referring to himself as William Bonney -- this is noted in the article at the end of the section, First Crimes.

I will get to the other points of reference you noted above momentarily as I take a look at the article in reference to your notes. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:26, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Point #1: The elaboration you ask for is there, a few sentences prior: 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)[reply]

Point #2: I have looked into who Grant was. Essentially, he was an unknown but it was known he was a newcomer to the area. I have added this point and a reference to support. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:46, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Point #3: I have corrected the word omission and reworded slightly for clarity. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:52, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Point #4: The subheading has been removed and the wording/content tweaked for further clarity and a little more brevity to avoid WP:UNDUE. I also removed content with a cite needed tag as unverifiable and unnecessary. It now reads as follows:

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.
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. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:37, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Display name 99, I still see a number of remaining (and newly introduced) issues when doing a quick skim, from grammar and punctuation to incomplete sentences and prose. While it isn't a a violation of WP:LAYOUT, one of the basic GA criteria, I do recommend that text not run between images (it's in one of the Manual of Style sections not required for GAs), as happens between two images under "Capture and escape". WP:LAYOUT does say that 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)[reply]

BlueMoonset: Since I'm the nominator and the main contributor to the article of late, I'd appreciate it if you would address specific, needed fixes with me. Any suggestions you can give as to what needs to be done to the article would be appreciated. I'm not trying to hurry anything, but I would like to get as much done that needs to be done ASAP as I don't know how much time I will have to make those changes in the coming week. Thanks. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BlueMoonset: Images have been moved, a disamibig has been corrected; some redundancies removed as well as some rewording for clarity. One question: when I make these changes, do you want specifics or are you fine looking at the page change diffs on your own? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WV, thanks for the new edits. By virtue of being posted here, any suggested fix is for you as nominator, even if I'm replying to someone else. I'll be sure to ping you in future, however. As for corrections, just mention that you've addressed a point that's been raised; specifics (such as the two paragraphs quoted above) should not be necessary. Reviewers should be comfortable with page diffs to see what's changed, though of course the section should be re-read directly to see how it flows in its new form. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:44, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Winkelvi, I have started work on a list of specifics, but it's involved checking sources and various other things, so it may be another day or two. If it looks like it will be longer, I'll post it piecemeal, but I'd like to try for all in one go, if possible. Sorry I've been keeping you waiting, but I'm also working on a Good Article Reassessment at the moment. I will probably be making minor copyedits as I go, rather than write out the minor adjustments. If my edits make the facts less clear or accurate, by all means adjust as necessary. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:14, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I didn't read in the source where the shooting was the result of the verbal argument, that's why "physical fight" alone is there. I can (sort of) agree to changing "fight" to "altercation", but not adding "verbal argument" as the reason for the shooting, because that isn't how it went down according to the source. It was the physical fight over the revolver that escalated things to the end result: murder. One more thing, there really was nothing that led to the physical altercation and the shooting. Which is part of Bonney's reputation: an irrational, stone-cold killer. He never seemed to need a reason to kill anyone. He just killed them. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:42, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Not trying to be contentious, but you do know that WP:IDLI isn't a valid reason to ask someone to remove or change content, right? "Physical fight" is perfectly acceptable grammar, isn't unencyclopedic, and is unambiguous, giving readers an accurate picture of the events. I'm not really seeing why it's being objected to (aside from your personal dislike for it). Can you elaborate? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:41, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I can overlook it. I personally see nothing else holding the article back from becoming a good article. BlueMoonset promised to come up with a list of specifics for what can be done. I'll wait a day or two more for him to do so. Display name 99 (talk) 23:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Display name 99: I've been patiently waiting for the list, hoping to get things cleaned up as necessary i appreciate you hanging in there with this GA nom. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:55, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've been sidetracked by various non-wiki projects. It still isn't finished, Winkelvi, but I'll post what I have in the new section below, and finish the four remaining sections when I can. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:16, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for posting this below, BlueMoonset, I appreciate it and will start working on the article according to your notes some time tomorrow (1/17/16). No worries about the time it has taken you to get to it and why, I wasn't complaining, just stating I have been looking forward to see what you think about the issues in the article point-by-point. Cheers, -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:35, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is the article stable? Looks to me that there is ongoing editwarring at this article, over substantial content disagreements that look like they little prospect of being resolved soon.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:50, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maunus, the two primary disagreers have been blocked for two and seven days, and the former has disclaimed interest in returning. It seems to me that there should be a way forward with a suitable resolution, hopefully on the talk page. If not, this review can always be closed as unsuccessful due to instability, but in the meantime it can continue to improve. BlueMoonset (talk) 10:29, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

General comment and section-by-section points

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:

in the third paragraph, it says that Bonney killed a sheriff's deputy during his escape; in fact, he killed two, Bell and then Olinger.
according to WP:LEAD, 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:

in the first paragraph, that historians believe he killed eight men (note that the actual number is far more important than the erroneous "reputed" number and should be given primacy, while the "reputed" number should either be reserved to the body of the article, perhaps under Legacy, or retained but with less prominence)
in the third paragraph, the information in the first two sentences (the bounty and the newspapers) do not appear in the body of the article, and should BlueMoonset (talk) 07:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Early life:

as noted in initial comments, the opening sentence (notably father's name, called "total conjecture" by Wallis, and birth date) seems overly definitive under the circumstances
"family's third child": I don't have access to the cited source, page 15 of Wallis (all pages aren't available to me), but since on page 7 Wallis says "Henry and Joseph were Catherine's only children", it seems unlikely this is accurate or supported
further, both Utley and Wallis mention that Catherine McCarty moved to Indianapolis to live (where she met Antrim) and then moved to Wichita. Utley also mentions Denver between Wichita and Santa Fe (I don't have access to those Wallis pages to see if he agrees).
Utley gives Antrim's full name as "William Henry Harrison Antrim".

First crimes:

the time prior to his first arrest doesn't quite add up: if his mother died, he then went to live in the hotel, stayed there for a year, had to leave, and was arrested for stealing food a year to the day of his mother's death, how could he have been at the hotel a whole year?
third paragraph: a surprisingly detailed description of the fight appears in Wallis on pages 113–116 (the start of this section describes Cahill, a blacksmith, putting McCarty in shackles after an arrest; the actual confrontation is the following year).
the fourth paragraph has some chronological issues. Although it starts "Before 1877", it has him in New Mexico, but he is supposed to have gone straight to Arizona after escaping jail in New Mexico in early 1876, and there's no mention of his leaving Arizona until he killed Cahill in August 1877 and fled back to New Mexico. (Might the theft of his horse have occurred while he was returning to New Mexico in 1877 or just after he arrived back? The sources aren't available to me to check.)
also, this is the only mention of John Jones and the Seven River Warriors gang in the entire article. Jones was killed in 1879 by Bob Olinger, according to sources I've seen, who was in turn killed by Bonney during his escape in April 1881. That's probably worth mentioning (that Olinger killed Bonney's friend), though if Bonney's involvement with the Regulators never included a confrontation with the Seven River Warriors, who were one of several groups on the other side in the Lincoln County war, then they may not be.

Lincoln County war:

the second through fourth sentences should be recast: "was involved with" is vague, and starting sentences with "The trio had" and "The men had" is not ideal. I'd recommend reorganizing the paragraph.
in paragraph two, I'm pretty sure one of the sources mentioned nine horses being relocated rather than six when Tunstall was killed.
also in that paragraph, I'd recommend recasting the second and third sentences; it's unclear why, if these folks rode off together, Tunstall was not with the others (or at least, not with Bonney) when the posse killed Tunstall. The third sentence in particular should give Brady's name before adding his affiliation with Murphy et al.
in paragraph four, there are two consecutive sentences that talk about "during the/a shootout"; they should be combined or it otherwise made clear that it was the same shootout for all four deaths.

Battle of Lincoln:

the final paragraph refers to "Bonney and his crew", implying that he was the leader of the house group. If this is so, that should be established in the first paragraph; if not, then "Bonney and the others" would seem to be a more appropriate wording. Indeed, since all of the groups and their leaders had gathered in the house, I'm not sure it would be his crew even so.

Outlaw:

[to come]

Capture and escape:

[to come]

Death:

[to come]

Rumors of survival:

[to come]

Legacy:

Playing croquet: I don't see where in the sources the October 5 date comes from. And the October 23 date given for the show's air date is given as October 18 in the sources I'm seeing. Please check and cite.
Posthumous pardon: the television program strikes me as excessive detail; please condense to "Richardson announced his decision not to issue the pardon" and perhaps even start the sentence with that phrase.
Grave marker: this says eight years later (which would be 1940), but The Outlaw was a 1943 movie per the Selected references section, and the details in the two sentences here do not match the J-Tac source. This needs to be revised to reflect the available sourcing, though I have to question the reliability of the cited source, a school newspaper, given their uncritical view of the "facts" being promulgated by the "museum" they're reporting on that Billy the Kid lived until 1950. Another source should be found.

Selected references in popular culture:

very few of these are referenced; when they are not clearly about Billy the Kid (that is, "Billy the Kid" or one of his other full names isn't mentioned in the title), I think there needs to be a citation. This is also true when there's a particular claim, such as Jane Russell's "breakthrough role"
these lists are an odd mixture of bullets and bulleted sentences. I'd like to suggest that each be a sentence.
some of the entries need revising as the prose is not clear. These include:

"The Disinterested Killer Bill Harrigan,": who is Bill Harrigan and what has he to do with McCarty/Bonney/the Kid?
Inferno and Escape from Hell
Secrets of the Immortal Nicholas Flamel
One-Eyed Jacks
Birth of a Legend

There's really a song titled "Quintana mentions Billy the Kid"? I think that needs a cite.
If "Billy Get Your Guns" wasn't used in Young Guns II, then that movie shouldn't be mentioned in this entry
Stage section: all plays should be in italics, and you should give a title for each entry, even if it's the obvious one. The first entry doesn't quite make sense: if it's by Santley, then why is he only a co-writer?
Television section: the Death Valley Days entry needs a bit of work.

Reference section:

while it is not a requirement of GA that the citation format needs to be consistent, it is odd that they are so inconsistent.

I'm not sure why their are separate sections for Sources and Periodicals, but they certainly shouldn't overlap, as they do with the Rickards and one of the Nolans (and I may have missed others).

—BlueMoonset (talk) 19:16, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Sorry I wasn't clear there in Posthumous pardon. My objection was to the phrase that details him going on television to explain why he didn't do the pardon (and the name of the show he did it on), which to me is highly irrelevant. I'm fine with the inclusion of his reasoning, which is germane, but not with the venue for the announcement. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:24, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Update After hitting dead ends regarding the Utley work on Bonney regarding the death of Windy Cahill, I found other sources which gave more and, in my estimation, better elaboration on the murder. I have added these sources and expanded the content in the article regarding the incident accordingly. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Further update: In response to your concerns regarding the timeline of Bonney's travels between Arizona and New Mexico, I have expanded the first crimes section and added another reference. You also noted that Bob Olinger killed friend of Bonney who is mentioned in the article, John Jones. What I have found is that it was not John Jones killed by Oliner, rather, a man named Bob Jones, who does not appear to be have been affiliated with John Jones' Seven Rivers Gang. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I read that Bob Olinger murdered John Jones at the Last Days site, in its first paragraph. This is the site that's used to source the entire third paragraph in the Death section. Might Olinger have killed more than one Jones? (There were certainly multiple Olingers and Joneses around at the time.) BlueMoonset (talk) 07:00, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

There certainly are a lot of things there, and so I can certainly imagine that there could be a lot of trivial and unimportant information. I think the example given by BlueMoonset regarding poor prose, "The Disinterested Killer Bill Harrigan," which contains no explanation as to who Bill Harrigan is, is a perfect example of something unimportant that can be deleted. Whoever put it there should have added a citation and brief explanation as to why it was important if he/she wanted it to be kept in the article.Feel free to exercise some discretion regarding what you delete and retain. However, please try to keep as many of the sourced references in the article as possible. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 18:45, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References and sources are being kept, Display name 99, I'm not deleting any of those. I only moved the ones contained in the "Periodicals" sub-section into the sources section. It didn't make sense to have two separate subsections. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Display name 99 and BlueMoonset, Winkelvi was just blocked for 7 days. If you still don't fail this article, I have to question if you are biased about this topic and wont follow GA rules? --MaranoFan (talk) 08:08, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MaranoFan, you are welcome to question what you want, but your comparative inexperience at GA leads me to wonder what makes you such an expert at GA rules. Your recent claim that stability requires months to recover from demonstrates otherwise. The goal at GA is, if feasible, to work with the nominator to get them to improve the nominated article to the level where it can meet the GA criteria and be listed. At this point, with a review ongoing and not yet complete, even a seven-day block is not a reason to abruptly close the nomination. There's no guarantee that the article will attain GA status this time out, but so long as Display name 99 is satisfied that useful work is being done and the article is being improved, then continuing the review is worthwhile. You can always, if you wish, take this to WT:GAN, but be aware of WP:BOOMERANG. BlueMoonset (talk) 10:29, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Something is smelling very fishy to me. Why are the reviewers acting like nominators here? Let me explain, on a normal GA review, an editor lists their concerns, after which 7 days are given to the nominator, and a nom be failed or passed. However, here it seems like even the reviewers are acting like nominators. Dn99 has an inexperience in Ga reviews, shown by the way he started this review page. But BlueMoonset, this article is unstable, the nominator is blocked for 7 days, there have already been weeks since the first concerns were initially listed, a lot of concerns not highlighted on the review page are on the article page. If reviews take SO much time to address, and SO much time where it is inactive, reviews are failed. I don't know what is going on here, but so much patience is never shown at any reviews, they MUST be failed at a certain point. This is FAR from GA, with a lot of instances of "historians believe" and a lot of unverified and disputed claims. A discussion about a possibly wrongly attributed image is progressing on the talk page. Again, a nominator has to address the concerns, who is BLOCKED for not one not two, but 7 days. So many reasons the article is not even close to passing any one of the 6 GA criteria. --MaranoFan (talk) 10:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thank you for your welcoming response, that is something that other people lack here. I was just talking about the article being unstable, and how discussion about the disputed content will still go on after the editors are unblocked, and that will keep it unstable. I was referring to the fact that this article still isn't placed on hold. That is something that has to be done in GAs. On the talk page, the "on review" parameter should have been changed to "on hold", and that is done within a month. --MaranoFan (talk) 14:40, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

~~Displayname99,~~ MaranoFan, and BlueMoonset, is there anything which requires doing on this article as of this week? As we are all aware, Winkelvi (the nominator) is blocked for the same amount of time as the GA review is on hold. If you could tell me what needs to be done on the BTK article it would be greatly appreciated. Ches (talk) 16:07, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for God's sake. Display name 99, read above. Ches (talk) 16:10, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you are referring to. Display name 99 (talk) 16:19, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Display name 99, could you tell me what the issues are with the BTK article, and I will sort them out on WV's behalf? Ches (talk) 16:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks. I'll get working on it. Ches (talk) 20:05, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently an RfC on the article talk page. Lol, is even that not reason enough to fail thisnom?--MaranoFan (talk) 07:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

BlueMoonset and Display name 99, more extensive work done on the article today. Please feel free to look over and let me know what you might still see as being problematic. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:01, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Arbitrary break 02/11/16

Winkelvi, Display name 99, I'd like the rest of today to complete the four sections I never finished, and also to complete a source review. One thing I noticed in the most recent changes—I need to review them more fully—is the placement of the Lew Wallace reward at the beginning of the Death section. Wallace posted two separate awards, so far as I can determine. The first, chronologically, belongs between the last two paragraphs of the Outlaw section (see pages 237-238 of Wallis). The second was after his escape (Wallis, p. 245). (Both were $500, which may be why they're being conflated.) I'm puzzled by the use of a Daily Kos blog entry as a reliable source here, since there is no editorial verification there: anyone can write anything and publish it on the site. The Kos blog does say that the Kid only killed four people, which contradicts the eight you've listed in the lede and body, though one of the new cites added to support the eight, Wallis pp. 244–245, says "Olinger and Bell brought the Kid's proven murder count to four", so the article's "is known to have killed eight men" seems awfully definitive in the face of a "proven" four from a major source. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BlueMoonset, I'd really love it if you could give an indication as to when you will have the last four section suggestions completed. You promised them by the end of day four days ago and time continues to tick away. I realize we are all volunteers and are giving up our own time, so I'm not going to hold you to your previous promise, but an indication of when you could get them done and posted here would be greatly appreciated! Also, some clarification about the $500 reward/rewards as to dates would be also appreciated, as I would like to get that discrepancy fixed as well. I have looked high and low for indication of two bounties for the same amount, no luck on that yet. It seems that the Wallis source is the only one indicating such so far. Since I don't have that resource at my disposal, I will need your assistance on that. Something to consider, however, is that (as has been now noted in the article per changes yesterday), only $500 was awarded to Pat Garrett by the NM legislature, so the possibility of two $500 bounties now seems suspect (in my mind, at least). If there truly were two bounties for the same amount, why weren't they both awarded to Garrett, the killer on record of BtK? Any help you can give on this would also be appreciated. Looking forward to hearing back from you on all this, and thanks for all you've done so far. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Winkelvi, I've found a copy of the Utley 1989 book, Billy the Kid: A Short and Violent Life, at a library in a not-too-distant town, so I now have that and the Wallis (found at a local library) here at home to refer to. The Utley is very clear that there were two rewards: on page 147, he says Wallace posted the $500 reward on December 13, 1880; on page 188, after the Kid's escape, he writes, 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)[reply]

Wow, that's fantastic to have another book source to go on, BlueMoonset. Your help and effort on this review has been invaluable, by the way. I didn't want to have to use True West Magazine much more and will be glad to add new content and strengthen what's already there based on what you've got in the way of the Utley book. Thanks for getting back to me on this; looking forward to seeing what more your review notes bring to light. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:34, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Source review

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.

Legends of America (FN25), four cites: the "about us" describes material put together by a single person, so not reliable
Officer Down Memorial Page (FN60), one cite: anyone can contribute information, and there's nothing to say that there is checking done; this should easily be replaced
Lenny Flank/Daily Kos (FN63), one cite: Flank effectively has his own blog on Daily Kos with no editorial oversight, so not reliable
AboutBillytheKid.com (FN67 and FN95), one cite each: a personally assembled website; I'm especially concerned that the entire "after death" paragraph with details about the death certificate is cited to this source, and something more reliable needs to be found
Historical Marker Database (FN97), one cite: anyone can contribute, though there seems to be some sort of editorial board; I'm not sure about this one, but there is probably better out there

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)[reply]

BlueMoonset, I have done work on all the problem sources you listed, except for the PBS timeline. Still working on replacing those. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BlueMoonset, adding now that I have removed the PBS source and have replaced with Wallis and a reliable source from online. More new content was also added, with appropriate sourcing. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:44, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thank you for taking care of that one, Display name 99. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

My point wasn't whether the source is appropriate for the content BlueMoonset is questioning, my point is the larger picture suggested: that the source should be completely discounted and dismissed. I don't see any reason what that should be the case as PBS is a reliable source. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:04, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would not consider PBS a reliable source for a GA level article. For a GA article one should choose the best sources available, not just the minimum standard.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be interested to know when and where and by whom PBS has been declared a "minimum standard" for sourcing and where there is a list of such sourcing classifications for GA articles and non-GA articles. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:12, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A person who understands sourcing will realize that for history topics news agencies and documentaries are not appropriate sources, academically published sources written by historians is the appropriate type of source for such a topic. You can look at WP:HISTRS an essay about how to identify different levels of reliable sources for history articles.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job at dodging the question and not answering it, rather, giving personal opinion and providing nothing either per policy or established precedent. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HISTRS is not my personal opinion, but it is a good description of the best practice for sourcing in history articles.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:04, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for finally answering the question according to what was actually asked, rather than appearing to give only your personal opinion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:08, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You realize that part of the GA and other review processes on wikipedia is that other editors give their personal opinions about how to improve articles? It is my personal opinion, which is shared by the author of WP:HISTRS, that relying on professionally published academic historians instead of journalists would improve the article. Are you interested in collaboratively improving the article or only in having pissing contests? ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:13, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Winkelvi, as I pointed out, the very nature of the source (a timeline) makes it far from ideal for this purpose. Looking at the individual citations, there are four in First crimes and two in Capture and escape. The first one in First crimes has two other sources; the second, about the robbery he was arrested for, starts out "according to the legend" in the timeline, and is thus clearly unreliable. (Wallis p. 88 says that Schaefer did the robbery solo; McCarty later smuggled the loot into his room at Mrs. Brown's boarding house and began wearing some of the stolen clothes.) The third cite, about the stepfather, is also contradicted by Wallis (pages 94 to 95), who says that far from Antrim giving Billy money, he effectively kicked him out, with Billy stealing clothes and guns from his stepfather's room on the way out of town. (Wallis also says this is the last time stepfather and stepson ever see each other.) The fourth is again one of three cites, and thus superfluous. Under Capture and escape, the first one, a set of quotes, is something I wouldn't worry about, though that quote and more are available on Wallis, p. 240. For the second, well, I'd want a more scholarly backup for it than that. Wallis does offer something along those lines on page 244, but you might want to try Utley or Nolan. (I only have Wallis to hand, so that's the only one of your primary sources I can check.) BlueMoonset (talk) 19:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Generally what is published online relies on print sources, and sometimes without acknowledging it. For historic topics it is very rare that scholars publish new findings online. And if they do they ar eunlikely to have been vetted by peer review, so all in all print sources are almost always more reliable - as long as one relies on the best print sources.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:08, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the source largely because it did not fit with the content. Display name 99 (talk) 17:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the year of publication for Utley "hard and violent life" from 1989 to 1990, since that seems to be the correct year (it appears in the 2000 edition as the first year of publication). I also noticed that reference formatting is quite haphazard, Utley's book is cited in about 6 different ways combining full citations, short citations, and different kinds of medium length citations. If proceeding to FA this will definitely be a problem that needs to be fixed. A strict GA reviewer might also consider that this is a problem under criterion 2A.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to help out by standardizing the reference system, so that only hrvard short refs are used. I am hoping for patience from the reviewer and notminator as this is a little bit of a tedious process.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Turns out the bibliography is also extremely inconsistent, some of the titles are not even in templates, so I may have bitten off more than I can handle in one sitting. I will come back and finish though.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:08, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maunus, take as much time as necessary. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 20:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My efforts seem not to be appreciated so I will spend my time on something more worthwhile.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maunus, I hardly blame you at all. Display name 99 (talk) 00:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Display name 99 This GA has been open for almost a month and a half. It is the longest review I have ever witnessed, and there are still MAJOR defects in this article. It is really starting to WP:snow in here, when will you fail this?--MaranoFan (talk) 19:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editors who are truly interested in seeing Wikipedia improve are want to see GA nom'd articles pass, not fail GA. Yet, you seem to be chomping at the bit for it to fail. Curious behavior, indeed. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Resuming source review

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)[reply]

BlueMoonset:Yes, if you don't mind and have the time to spare, Wallis and Utley would certainly be preferable. History.com, I believe, is generally reliable, however, you're right that they would be prone to regurgitating legend - it's television, after all. Reminding myself of that has made me realize that in a historical article such as this, scholarly sources should be quoted/referenced as much as possible. I hope a good, solid reference for the dead dead dead/hell hell hell quote can be found. It's a great quote and Bonney was known for his smart alecky quips. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:51, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BlueMoonset, I may have solved the dead dead dead/hell hell hell quote with this edit. I like it because it addresses the fact that there are legends and there is the historical record. A true life character this colorful has a lot of legends still alive, and even the article used as a source that states the record gives a different picture admits that there's a fine line between legend and truth when it comes to Bonney and it's hard at times to know what's real and what isn't. Let me know what you think. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Winkelvi, I'm not sure why you replaced "and" with "...," but other than that it looks fine. Display name 99 (talk) 04:06, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because with rewording the section, there would have been two "and"s one quite soon after the other. Not good writing. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:14, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting of content

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

So, you are asking some editor to make a second revert on your behalf? Wouldn't that really be breaking the spirit of your 1RR restriction from your last block experience? I am allowed to edit and make reverts when I find clumsy wording and sentences with missing words whether I have 10 edits, 100, or 1000. You seem to be predjudiced against editors that are newer, and especially against editors who have not created a user page. The way you refer to some editors as "red-linked" is offensive, as if you consider that a measure of their worth. Your behaviour at this article has been horrendous and your attitude toward newer editors is demeaning. Jilllyjo (talk) 00:21, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

None of what you have written here deserves a response as it's all laden with accusation that doesn't belong on this page. If you have something to say to me, please do it somewhere appropriate. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was responding to what YOU typed on this page. Nice way to sidestep the issues at hand. I do not have anything to say to you. So you go be appropriate somewhere else. I am going to get back to improving the article in hopes that it might reach GA despite all of the issues in this debacle. Jilllyjo (talk) 01:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll revert it now. --Ches (talk) 08:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA fail

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)[reply]

On what basis, Display name 99? Frankly, I find this sudden, out of the blue failure to be as improper as your initial passing of it when, as BlueMoonset told you from the jump, it shouldn't have been passed because it didn't have a proper review. What's more, did you consult with BlueMoonset about your unilateral decision to fail it? Truth be told, he's really the one doing the review and has given the proper guidance on moving it forward as well as getting things in order so it will pass. You've done little to nothing, other than offering an opinion now and again, to review it appropriately. You haven't even done the proper checklist on the article talk page or at this page as reviewers typically do. BlueMoonset needs to weigh in on this and make the decision with you. There's been a hell of a lot of work done on this article to get it to GA, and to just decide without any valid reason why it failed (or without going through the proper motions to do so), is wrong. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:40, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Winkelvi, seeing that the article was semi-protected for next to no reason was probably the last straw for me. The article is of very high-quality overall, but is very far from reaching the 4th requirement on the GA criteria, requiring the article to be stable. Some of the editors here have shown a blatant inability to work together to make this article better. As such, it cannot be passed just yet. Display name 99 (talk) 18:44, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any clue why it was semi-protected? Because it was being vandalized by a known, WP:LTA IP vandal. The article is not unstable. There is no edit warring. Your reasoning for failing it is not valid as the conditions you say exist don't exist; having an article GA failed because it needed to be semi-protected against IP vandalism is not a reason to fail, either. I have tried to work with one particular editor (did you even look at the article talk page?), to no avail. They preferred, instead, to go from one editor talk page to another to sully my name and get allies against me (are you aware of that?). I'm at the point of where I believe you have absolutely no clue what you are doing and have no business being a GA reviewer. I'm not saying that to be cruel, or to hurt your feelings, but think about it: you have less than 1000 edits, less than two months ago came off an indefinite block for WP:NOTHERE after being away from editing for three years. You simply don't have the editing experience or the critical thinking skills and knowledge of policy that would be gained from such experience to be doing GA reviews. As I stated above, you didn't even go through the proper motions of GA review and had to have this one taken over by someone else. You've demonstrated your inability to use sound reasoning pretty much every step of the way with this review. This isn't right, it just isn't. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:53, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Winkelvi, I take responsibility for my sometimes-unpleasant editing history, as you should do as well. You have over 20,000 edits, but your history is seemingly characterized by incessant wars and disputes with other editors stemming largely from your accusatory and vindictive nature. Ever since other editors have gotten involved with this article, you have repeatedly accused them of vandalism or attempting to disrupt the GA process, often with little or no evidence. This is demonstrated perfectly in your reactions to an edit I made immediately after your block, which merely summarized the lengthy report written by the admin, to which you gave a lengthy response, which I now know was total BS, you beginning a sentence on Maunus's talk page with "What the fuck are you doing?," and continuing to insist that your version of what should go under "Authenticated photographs" was correct even after nearly every other editor involved voiced his disagreement. But you, of course, assumed bad faith and laid baseless accusations against them. Only when I made the changes on my own, and basically dared you to revert them, did you begrudgingly capitulate. I'm sure that there are other good examples. While my experience may be low, you should consider these things about yourself before you criticize my credentials as a reviewer.

Now, please note that I do not condone all actions taken by other editors involved with this. And yes, I was aware of Jilllyjo's irresponsible posts on the talk pages of Legacypac and MaranoFan prior to making the decision to fail the article. You may choose to ignore this. But if you would only learn to be a bit less childish-perhaps this could be done by going over some of the things that you have written on your userpage but have rarely seemed to follow yourself-you might become a better person, or at least, a better editor. I wish you well and better fortunes next time. Display name 99 (talk) 19:15, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My editing history and mistakes made in the past/present have no bearing on any of this because I'm not posing myself as a qualified GA reviewer. You are posing yourself as a qualified GA reviewer, have only really been "here" for 6 weeks after a three year forced absence, therefore, your editing history is appropriate to mention. Your inability to remain neutral about an editor nominating and heavily editing a GA nom'd article and continuation of discussing an editor rather than edits is appropriate to mention. Here's a good question: Have you ever written or significantly edited a GA article that became GA because of your efforts? I think the answer has to be 'No'. That is significant. Your less-than 1000 edits and indefinite block is significant and relevant to this discussion. None of my actions in relation to this article's edits and GA nom have any validity or relevance in your failure of this article for GA because they aren't listed in the reasons why an article should be failed for GA. That in mind, you shouldn't even be mentioning any of it here. This only further demonstrates why you have no good understanding of the GA review process and should not be reviewing articles for GA at this point in your editing career in Wikipedia. Reviewers are supposed to look for appropriate reasons to pass an article for GA because it only makes Wikipedia better. They aren't supposed to look for bogus, prejudicial reasons to fail it. You have employed the latter consistently since your initial, inappropriate "pass" of the GA nom was overturned by BlueMoonset. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:26, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Winkelvi, for the record, I currently have one article, John C. Calhoun, that I have edited significantly, waiting to be reviewed. Is there any need to continue this further? You have the ability to bring in one of two of your friends if you want to berate me and defend you, as you have done before. But due to the continuing disputes on this article, it does not come anywhere close to meeting Section 5 of the GA criteria, even though the others are mostly covered. As I have said, wait a month or so, and if there are no major conflicts, renominate it and let someone other than me review it then. Display name 99 (talk) 19:34, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do yourself and others nominating articles for GA a favor: don't try to review any more articles for GA. You're not up to it, you don't have the experience, and if it were a permission to be granted, I have serious doubts you would be approved for it, based simply on your history and your lack of experience. This is not a negative criticism of who you are as an editor, it's just a fact about where you are and aren't currently in your editing career here. Good luck with your GA nom. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:46, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's over

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)[reply]

BlueMoonset, what do you mean by, "reset"? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:48, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That everyone gets to take a breath, relax, and take stock without the pressure of an active GA review. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:59, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. It is a shame that the GA review failed, but I imagine the article will be ready by March - hopefully we can try again then. Thanks to everyone who helped. --Ches (talk) 10:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break for collapsed section

Collapsed off-topic, stricken discussion

~~@BlueMoonset:, @Display name 99:, @Winkelvi: - Guys, this GAN has been open for 2 weeks, almost inactive for 1. I hope y'all haven't forgotten about it. --MaranoFan (talk) 11:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)~~[reply]

MaranoFan, thanks for inquiring. For future reference, good article reviews can take far longer than two weeks; anything under a month, so long as it is progressing, is not something to worry about, and if a complex review or one with controversial aspects or requiring new sources, it can be longer. If you think a nomination needs a nudge, then a couple of weeks without action is the point at which you might want to inquire; the typical hold is given a full week at least. I hope to be able to add comments on the remaining four sections over the course of the coming week. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but the recent edit warring on the article has made it unstable, and that is grounds for quick failing. I understand, as much as ya'll have been working hard on this. This GAN needs to be quick-failed, and this is not optional. Thank you for your work, Display name 99, BlueMoonset and WV. This article fails WP:GACR #5 and needs months for being even close to meeting this. --MaranoFan (talk) 15:54, 30 January 2016 (UTC)--MaranoFan (talk) 15:45, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MaranoFan, I have no idea where you got the idea that this must be quickfailed, but you are not correct. As it says on the good article criteria page: An article can, but by no means must, be failed without further review (which is what a quickfail is) if it is unstable, so while it might have been grounds for quickfailing at the time the review was begun, it by no means a requirement. Further, you'll note that quickfail is only an option when the review is beginning. While it is true that the review could conceivably be terminated for not meeting the stability requirement today, it might well do so by the time the review has concluded. Finally, the ultimate decision for this review rests with the official reviewer, Display name 99, not with you or anyone else. The idea that stability is measured in months is one I've never seen before, whereas I have seen GANs that had become unstable during the course of the review ultimately pass said review after the article quieted down. Can you give me a citation for stability requiring months? BlueMoonset (talk) 16:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean quickfail as in the option "quickfail". But rather the idea to fail it quickly. The aricle needs a peer review and from what I have read, maybe even GOCE. I have seen many articles being failed for being severely unstable, no matter how much into the review process. I am not failing it myself as I don't have the right, but this review has definitely gone on long enough and it will touch the threshold of one month before it can be deemed stable again.-MaranoFan (talk) 16:19, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Billy the Kid Claimants

The subject of Billy the Kid claimants is a valid one and deserves to be mentioned in a factual article, especially Brushy Bill Roberts. There are a tremendous amount of people who do not believe Pat Garrett killed Billy the Kid, including former President Harry S. Truman and Mr. Bill O'Reilly. To exclude them completely shows non-academic bias. Please stop deleting this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1970:564c:400:69b1:268:3479:a7c8 (talk • contribs) 02:48, 12 January 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

Please see "Rumors of Survival." Display name 99 (talk) 02:17, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is a curiosity that deserves mention, but which should not be given any credence or undue weight. More than one or two paragraphs would be too much.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:26, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the purported image of John Tunstall

The image of Tunstall has no provenance that I can find, and was uploaded to Wikimedia Commons by a user who claims to be employed, apparently, by the "Phillips Collection", part of a non-scholarly online magazine, so there may be a conflict of interest problem as well. The user's claims of veracity seem dubious. The same user has uploaded other images of persons that he asserts are genuine, but he has provided no provenance for any of them, other than claiming they are from the Phillips collection.

There was a discussion on that user's talk page about this issue, which has been raised by other users, where he has stated "I also have a signed contract from the owners that allows me to promote the collection. I can submit a copy of the contract." Has he done so? He says, "I have completed the OTRS process.", but provides no link. I see no indication that the problem has been resolved. There is a better quality image of Tunstall with provenance, curated by an academic source, unlike the disputed image, which also presently resides at the John Tunstall article. Carlstak (talk) 04:41, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given your evidence of a better, more reliably sourced image, I would recommend using the second (Russian titled) image. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:05, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did give my evidence. It's this page on the University of New Mexico site, published by the Center for Southwest Research, University Libraries, University of New Mexico. May I ask what evidence there is for the disputed image, other than some apparently unsubstantiated claims by a possibly pseudonymous user? Carlstak (talk) 16:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Carlstak: You've misunderstood me. I recognize your evidence. I agree with you. Your suggested image should be used. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:35, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiDan61: Oh, sorry. I saw "Given" as "Give". My apologies. Thank you very much. I raised this issue on the John Tunstall talk page and never got a response. Many of the images uploaded by "OSMOND PHILLIPS" have the same problem, and this really should be addressed. Carlstak (talk) 16:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We would need more definitive evidence to remove the image, Carlstak. Your personal doubts that the editor, Osmond Phillips, is not who he says he is as a representative of the Osmond Collection is not enough. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:08, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think any resonable doubt should be enough to remove images that may not portray what they are currently claimed to portray.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Winkelvi I am not the only one who doubts their authenticity; my doubts aside, your preferred image has no provenance except the claims of a mysterious personage who has uploaded images that other editors have called into question. An expert should be consulted. I will contact the UNM for an expert's opinion. Carlstak (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my preferred image. It's an image that you haven't proven is inauthentic. You comments at the Tunstall article in regard to the image came from your personal opinion. That's WP:OR and certainly not enough to declare inauthentic a photo that is said to be authentic and from the renown Phillips Collection. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Winkelvi, I should have mentioned it's not from the renowned Phillips Collection, it's from the not-so-reknowned" "Phillips Collection". The so-called "Osmond Phillips" (oh, dear me, I forgot the ALL CAPS) is from the not-so-reputable collection of the online magazine, Texas Escapes. This is exactly the confusion that the mysterious OSMOND PHILLIPS appears to be seeking to perpetuate. Carlstak (talk) 19:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, not from the same collection. And this proves, what? It certainly doesn't prove the photo isn't of Tunstall. So far, just your claim that it's not Tunstall based on the shape of his lips. WP:OR isn't enough, sorry. Until you come up with something definitive and irrefutable based on reliable sources, I won't be responding further in regard to this. Doing so is just a frustrating waste of my time. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:08, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saying "your claim that it's not Tunstall based on the shape of his lips isn't enough" is disingenuous, as I've shown that one image is authentic with a known provenance, whereas your insisting on including a challenged image with no provenance or supporting information other than the claims of an unknown uploader is WP:OR. No one has shown that the Osmond image is of Tunstall, and we know that the other is. This is a serious matter, and should be pursued. Carlstak (talk) 19:19, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Purported image of John Tunstall is not present on the website of the collection that supposedly contains it

This inferior quality image, with no associated provenance other than the unsupported claims of a pseudonymous user, does not appear in the online collection that the uploader claims to be employed by, but yet has produced no proof to authenticate it. A search of the website and its collection for "John Tunstall" or "Tunstall" yields no results. One editor of this article insists on retaining it, when an alternative image with a known provenance curated by the University of New Mexico is available. There is no reason to keep this challenged image in the article, other than the intransigence of said editor. Carlstak (talk) 20:17, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Winkelvi is quick to accuse and short on goodwill. He accuses me elsewhere of "fighting and behaving aggressively", but he is the one who has invaded my talk page and made unfounded accusations.

I made some bold edits from a sincere desire to improve this article, and he reverted them wholesale. WikiDan61 agreed with my edits, and reverted Winkelvi's. Winkelvi accuses me of "poor editing and word choices", but I made edits that any conscientious copy editor would have made, including corrections of obvious grammatical errors, i.e., not capitalizing "Supreme Court", leaving the second "s" out of "in various ways", "Unknown to the Bonney", "found guilty for the murder", "-nickname, Brushy Bill -", "to consider Bonney's death can be officially certified" and writing "in February 8, 1981" instead of "On February 8, 1981". I also caught the "Before 1877, McCarty had his horse stolen" error, where the the source referred to clearly says "in 1877". In fact, I would characterize these and other errors in the article as "poor editing and word choices". It is not as if I am some rogue editor looking for a fight. If you look at the talk page as well as the history of the Gregor MacGregor article, which is a featured article, you will see that my edits and suggestions to improve the article were welcomed. I think Winkelvi's user page tells us all we need to know about him. Lest anyone misread this, I am diagnosed as bipolar. Carlstak (talk) 23:03, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]