Talk:Billy the Kid/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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]