Wikipedia:Peer review/Bonnie and Clyde/archive1

Bonnie and Clyde

This article has the potential to be a featured article, but I think, as it stands today, it needs to reviewed with fresh eyes. I think the article is too long and is decidely slanted to a pro-Bonnie and Clyde perspective. It needs more wikicompliant citationing, copyediting and a strict standard of NPOV applied to it. Mytwocents 16:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some initial issues:

Image:Bc10.jpg and Image:Bonnie and Clyde.jpg have obsolete image tags and need proper licensing
Image:Bonnie and Clyde.JPG needs a fair use rationale (see WP:FUC)
Decades and years without full dates generally aren't linked- see WP:CONTEXT. On the other hand, if they do have full dates, they should be linked.
Quotes need WP:FOOTNOTEs
References generally aren't numbered, just bulleted (*)
The lead should be expanded to fit WP:LEAD (2-4 paragraphs)
Per WP:MOS, the repetition of the article title in headings is generally avoided.

Thanks, AndyZ _t 17:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick input AndyZ. If you have the time, perhaps you could deal with isues 3 through 5, dealing with the wikifing of the dates and footnotes. Mytwocents 17:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I can fix issues 3 and 5 pretty easily; I'll look into 4 if I have time. AndyZ _t 18:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say there are too many sections - there are several that are just a few lines long. Can you maybe combine some sections? You can always use subsections if you really want to. --Cherry blossom tree 23:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly Cherry blossom tree, if you can see a straightfoward way to combine sections, I would encourage you to do so. Thanks for you input. Mytwocents 23:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cherry blossom tree Sure, that is a good suggestion. I am in the process of sourcing the article this week, and have suggested combining many of the sections on the talk page, to achieve consensus. I have done a word template, if anyone wants to see what the revised article would look like after her excellent idea, email me for a copy. Good idea, and thanks.old windy bear 23:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to note that this isn't the place to dispute whether or not users are trying to push forward POVs. I don't see how it would be a Wikipedia violation to rewrite an article, and I disagree that the only reason Mytwocents came here was for pushing forward any POVs; it would be good now to go through the article and use verifying resources to back-up the more controversial of the contents (using footnotes: simply add <ref>The footnote</ref>). It does indeed need more copyediting, as there are numerous mistakes present in the article in terms of grammar, etc. Regards, AndyZ _t 22:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AndyZI removed any question of POV. I agree that there are grammer issues, and it needs to be linked better. That has already begun, for instance, every suggestion you made on language I have gone to orginal sources, used quotes, and source directly. The language is far stronger actually with the quotes,so thank you, and it is unquestinably accurate and completely sourced. I disagree on the motives of the person, but bowed to my own promise: that if one person came here and thought them improper, I would remove those references, and have. I keep my word. I do respectfully point out that no one, absolutely no one, has come forward with a fact in error. (except your correcting pointing that there is disagreemnt on how many wounds Buck Barrow had when he died) --Cherry blossom tree has made a good suggestion - I am going to post some ideas - my point is, I will post some suggestions on combinng some sections, and see what input I get before attempting a wholesale restructuring, which is wikipedia policy. If anyone has factual issues, they need to so the same, as I am sure you would agree. Yes, the article needs work, but it is factually correct. I have already begun really massive sourcing - for instance, you thought it weasal to say Bonnie appealled to the disenfranchised, actually, noted historians and experts(every one on Bonnie and Clyde outside the ambush party!) say it a lot stronger than that, and I simply quoted them, and linked the quotes. I have to admit I had laugh on that one, since the quotes are far more powerful language - I had toned them down to avoid appearing pro Bonnie and Clyde, which I am not, THE FACTS ARE THE FACTS, but you are right to insist on the direct quotes.

On the photos, they are not properly cited as free for public use, but they are, so your help in updating would be appreciated. I found them online listed for public use, but again, had linking issues.

old windy bear 23:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I also respectfully request that before anyone undertake any major rewrite,(as I am proposing to do by combining sections, for instance), that you discuss it on the talk page. I have posted my idea, and will wait a week to see if it achieves consensus. With all respect, no one person should unilateraly rewrite this article, which a half dozen have worked on rewriting for a year, and which two wikipedia editors just examined for POV, one of which cleared it after a few language changes. It would be deeply violative of wikipedia rules for any single person to do a major rewrite without discussion, especially since the current article had achieved consensus for on the talk page. However, as you pointed out, there were things to be corrected, and as Cherry has suggested, the article is too disjointed, which I am attempting to address. But other issues which have been raised simply are not so:

For instance, it has been questioned Clyde's virtually decade long quest to avenge himself on the Texas Department of Corrections as being the motivating factor behind his crime spree -- that comes directly from one of the most respected writers to research a book on the duo, JOHN PHILLIPS, at http://historynet.com/ah/bleastham/
It has also been questioned the horrific aftermath of the ambush, and the actions of Frank Hamer in it, that also is directly sourced from Milner's book on the duo, at page 147;
the extent of Bonnie's involvement has also been questioned, that comes directly from Phillips, Treherne, and Milner's books, ALL found no warrants except one preserved in the FBI data base - which is online to confirm, no proof she ever fired a weapon or was more than logistical support, in addition to Dallas Observer Jimmy Fowler's rather pithy observation on the government's turning her into a demon, when they finally had to admit there was not one warrant on her for a major crime!;
the appeal to the disenfranchised of Bonnie and Clyde: my personal favorite! I simply went to the direct quotes, which I had toned down because they are quite powerful, but hey, we want the best facts, and these are direct quotes from EVERY major historian and expert to write on the duo.

Our obligation at wikipedia is to write the best articles we can, with the most facts possible without making them a 14 page article, as Geringer has done online with BONNIE AND CLYDE: ROMEO AND JULIET IN A GETAWAY CAR. The truth is in this well writen and fair article, but the article did need more sourcing, and restructuring, which I have proposed on the talk page, which will then make it the best on the net except for Geringer's article at http://www.crimelibrary.com/americana/bonnie/main.htm

The article as is is not meant, to be slanted - it simply tells the truth - and another good wikipedia editor just went over it and removed any trace of POV -- see the talk page -- to be slanted, but it is meant to TELL THE TRUTH, NO major rewrite should occur without consensus, which I am working to achieve. old windy bear 10:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rewrite finished for now, consensus achieved, more sourcing will be done however

AndyZFor consensus: following Andy's suggestion, and Cherry blossom tree's suggestions on the peer review page, I removed one section, the role of Bonnie Parker, and used part of that paragraph, plus part of a wonderful quote from noted B & C expert J. Geringer, and created the three paragraph opening that AndyZ suggested, while beginning to tighten the article as Cherry blossom tree suggested. I believe the opening paragraphs flow into each other, introduce the couple, define their role in american history and the times AS THE EXPERTS HAVE DEFINED IT, and lead into the rest of the article:

who exactly were these people,
and what did they do, and why do the experts think they did it,
what victims occurred because of it,
how were they stopped,
what is the controversy surrounding the ambush, and the horrible aftermath,
and why their legend lingers even today, according to the best historians and experts alive.

I also, following Cherry blossom tree suggestion, combined the sections of Bonnie meeting Clyde with their relationship during prison, and the early days of what would be called, the Barrow Gang. I also combined 3 other sections, without deleting fact one. It tightens the flow of the article, without deleting any facts which are not in dispute, and virtually every person who has participated in this discussion wants the facts in, not out, they just want the article better structured, sourced, and written, which, with AndyZ's invaluable help, Cherry blossom tree's excellent suggestions on combining sections without eliminating facts, it is being.

Not one fact is wrong, the weasal words are gone, I agree absolutely with AndyZ when dealing with controversial material, direct quotes from expert sources are the best way to resolve language disagreements. I believe this article is now 100% improved, and flows excellently to the issues involved. THANKS especially to AndyZ for finding the weasal words - which I immediately removed, then his doing what I could not, and linking the quotes and facts to the relevant sources, completely reworking the references, and generally being a great help, thanks to Cherry for a suggestion that remarkably tightened and improved the article.!old windy bear 01:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AndyZ I suggest anyone wanting to see a thoroughly sourced article go look at AndyZ's articles. I am now doing the same to Bonnie and Clyde as AndyZ finally managed to teach an old man how to make a link! All weasal words are gone, the introduction has been expanded to 3 paragraphs as Andy suggested; where controversial subjects are discussed, direct quotes by the most respected experts and historians have replaced subjective language, and I am gradually approaching (not there yet, but getting there!) the level of sourcing Andy has. Cherry blossom tree's excellent suggestions on combining sections without eliminating facts, has been done, reducing the number of sections by 7 without eliminating fact one. I thank everyone for their assistance, especially Andy, whose patience taught me how to link, and what a truly well sourced article requires - and we are closing there.old windy bear 11:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to everyone who participated in this review, AndyZ in particular, and I think the article, with true direct quotes and actual historial facts, all cited, and sourced, eliminated all the weasal words, and the article is immeasurably improved. THANKS! old windy bear 01:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

I would encourage all to review the page for neutral and balanced treatement of the issues. Neutrality in the tone of the language, and the balance of pro B&C statemets to pro 'civilised society' and pro law-enforcement statements. As of now the tilt is decidely pro-Bonnie, anti-Hamer. Mytwocents 17:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Current article has achieved NPOV by consensus, but help from anyone is always welcome!

I am not going to deal with the vicious personal attacks and name calling by Mytwocents when he did not get his way. Anyone wishing to see this contributor as he really is, need merely read the talk page. I will talk about the article, the good article, we wrote with all of your help. The vast majority don't see the language in the article as pro anything, nor is it. Nor do most people see it so - but a vital and moving massively sourced introduction that lists the three salient encyclopedic issues to be addressed in this article:

who were these two people that have held such an enduring hold in the public and especially american mythos, which led into;
what was the real - as opposed to perceived - role of Bonnie Parker, (VERY controversial, thus needing 4 separate sources}, with quotes, leading into:
why the presenece of a beautiful woman led a veneer of daring do to their antics, and appealled especially to the disenfranchised during the depression, and afterwards, also very controversial, and again, better off with direct quotes and historical facts from noted historians.

AndyZ has been invaluable in teaching me several things, first to link, (how to teach an old contributor, new tricks!),and

that when dealing with controversial subjects, which lend to subjective interpretation, use direct quotes to avoid weasal words;
Cherry blossom tree is thanked for her brilliant suggestion to shorten the article, combine sections, which we did so without losing ONE SINGLE FACT.

No one wrote a pro anyone article - I went, as a trained historian and member of the law endorcement community, where the truth took me. I stressed in the article,

that Clyde's psychotic obsession with revenge against the Texas prison system directly resulted in at least 18 deaths, 11 of them totally innocent people.
But the truth also shows that Bonnie Parker was essentially a lovestruck girl who followed a charming, but deadly, psychopath to her death. That is not my wording either, it is almost a word for word conclusion from John Treherne, John Phillips, and E.L. Milner, the three best Bonnie and Clyde historians, plus Jonathan Davis, the great depression era historian.
The horrific aftermath of the ambush has to be told, again, another historian wrote "today he and the posse would be tried for murder, and at the least, imprisoned for life." I left that out, because I feft it, though historically correct, it did not help us achieve NPOV, which the current article has. It is nuanced, balanced, sourced, and fair. The difference now, which AndyZ in particular taught, is that all this is MASSIVELY sourced, and going to be more so.

I welcome anyone's help in adding facts or further finding of weasal words, as Andy did for me, or facts that require additional sourcing - though we have come far in that regard. If anyone feels further sections can be consolidated, again, all help is welcome. But it is clear most people see that the writing is from a historian, in the law enforcement community, who had no agenda but to present the truth about this duo, whose lasting hold in the public mythos has endured 3/4 of a century!old windy bear 22:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]