Talk:Brooks–Baxter War/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 20:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
The lead is too short for an article of this length. It should be 3-4 paragraphs long and give a good summary of the entire article, while including no new information.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
The placement of references needs to be standardized. They should be placed either immediately before or after the punctuation (most editors prefer after), with no space in between.

I have added a few fact tags where references are needed. Please note that when the tag is at the end of a paragraph in which there are no references, generally the entire paragraph needs referencing, not just the last sentence.

The formatting of the references needs some work. Bare urls need to have more information added, especially when they are books. Books should include title, author, publisher, publication date and isbn at the least, and page numbers if possible.

Why has the decision been made to split out some of the Arkansas Gazette references into short refs in the numbered notes and more information bulleted later in the references section? There is not much information on these references, and all of the information could easily be included in the in-line references.

Reference #4 should include the title of the exact article that is being referred to within the publication, and the url should be linked to the title, rather than being a bare reference.

Reference #5 should have the url linked through the title, as well.

Reference #23 needs a publisher.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

This article has quite a few issues with referencing that need to be addressed. Because of this, I have not yet thoroughly examined the article for prose, POV or coverage. When the referencing issues have been mostly taken care of, I will begin my review of the remaining issues. I will be watchlisting this page, and please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 20:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe a lot of the ref needed tags placed were actually for paragraphs that summarized the information directly proceeding them. I have gone through and added refs where I felt like they were necessary. This is a difficult topic to reference because of so much conflicting evidence, if more specific references or clarification is needed I need to know specifically what the discrepancies are, who? what? when? where? etc. I believe the article is reasonably free of WP:weasel words. What I need the most help with is prose, since this is a pretty complicated topic that has hardly any thorough contemporary sources. --The_stuart (talk) 16:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the work you've done so far on the article. I'm sorry I haven't had time to conduct a thorough prose review so far - I will attempt to get to that within the next few days. In the meantime, could you please work on the remaining fact tag and the other reference formatting/information that I have requested above. Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 00:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Separate page numbers needed:

FALSE:
== References ==
Driggs, Orval (1943). Issues of the Clayton Regime. Fayetteville, Arkansas: University of Arkansas.  

CORRECT:
==References==
===Citations===
Driggs 1943, p. 29
Driggs 1943, pp. 54–55
===Bibliography ===
Driggs, Orval (1943). Issues of the Clayton Regime. Fayetteville, Arkansas: University of Arkansas.

Another thing, please try to find a parallel source for these: "The Daily Arkansas Gazette. #101. March 19, 1871". Since these old newspapers are impossible to verify. Peltimikko (talk) 18:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Errr, not exactly Peltimikko. Page numbers are not required for GA status, just FA status. It is nice if the authors include them, and you'll see I noted this in my initial review above, but they are not insisted upon. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by the old newspaper sources being "impossible to verify". I'm sure they would be quite easy to verify if you went to the same library or newspaper headquarters that the author of this article did to gather this information. They are, of course, more difficult to verify than web sources, but there is nothing on Wikipedia that emphasizes web sources over print sources. In fact, there is actually starting to be a trend at FAC (which I realize, this is not) to emphasize print over web sources on historical or very broad topics.

The stuart, my apologies for not starting the prose review of this article sooner. I was planning to do it this weekend, then got knocked down by a nasty little illness. I'm still only able to be upright and focused on a computer for short amounts of time. I'm hoping that by this weekend I will be able to concentrate for long enough to finish the prose review of this article, so that we can get it passed! Again, my sincerest apologies :( Dana boomer (talk) 20:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking at it at all, I have had some difficulty just generating interest in it. I want to eventually get this article featured so I will try and put in some page numbers for Driggs, so much of this article comes from that source, it's a masters thesis I found and there is probably only one copy of it in existence, and I have had it in my backpack now for months. I have a lot more research to do, I still need to read Claytons autobiography, of which I think there might only be two copies, while I'm still a student and can check it out of the library. There are also quite a few newspaper articles I need to read. --The_stuart (talk) 15:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Final Comments

Sorry for taking so long, here are my final comments on this article to make it ready for GA status.

The lead needs to be longer. An article of this length should have a lead of three to four paragraphs. It should be a summary of the article, without including new information.
- Fixed--The_stuart (talk) 22:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
References need to be placed consistently around punctuation. References are generally placed directly after punctuation, but it just needs to be consistent. I have fixed a few instances as I was copyediting, but there are still a few more that need to be fixed.
- Fixed--The_stuart (talk) 22:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the section "Brooks' Legal Battle", you use the name "Judge Wm. M. Harrison". I assume that "Wm" stands for William - this should be spelled out.
- Not sure, that is how his name was presented in the literature, which was a very old book, so that is how I wrote it. --The_stuart (talk) 22:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the "Brooks loses favor" section, you say "The President often expressed annoyance with Southern governors who requested help from federal troops to combat regular waves of election year violence, with little understanding of the issues they faced." Do you mean that the President had little understanding of the issues the governors faced? Please clarify this.
- I changed "understanding" to "compassion", I think that better reflects what I was trying to say. --The_stuart (talk) 22:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many of my initial comments on the references still apply, so I am copying them here:
- The formatting of the references needs some work. Bare urls need to have more information added, especially when they are books. Books should include title, author, publisher, publication date and isbn at the least, and page numbers if possible.
  - Fixed, I have page numbers where I could get them, and direct URLs for books that are online. --The_stuart (talk) 22:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Why has the decision been made to split out some of the Arkansas Gazette references into short refs in the numbered notes and more information billeted later in the references section? There is not much information on these references, and all of the information could easily be included in the in-line references.
  - Agreed. I beleive these were from a very early version of the article, I have gone through and fixed them. --The_stuart (talk) 22:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Reference #4 should include the title of the exact article that is being referred to within the publication, and the url should be linked to the title, rather than being a bare reference.
  - I think this has already been fixed, page number is there. --The_stuart (talk) 22:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Reference #5 should have the url linked through the title, as well.
  - Should be fixed now. --The_stuart (talk) 22:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Reference #24 needs a publisher.
  - Fixed. --The_stuart (talk) 22:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed several instances of "It is important to note that" and like phrasings. These are lecturing the reader and are unencylopedic.

Once these things have been taken care of, this article should be good to go for GA status. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. Dana boomer (talk) 23:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is the main editor still interested in this article? If no work progresses on this article within the next couple of days, I'm going to be forced to fail it, which would be a shame, considering how close it is to GA status. Please let me know. Dana boomer (talk) 00:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully everything has been fixed to satisfaction, let me know if there is anything else. --The_stuart (talk) 22:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of the above look good. It looks like the only thing left is the one fact tag at the very end of the article. After this is taken care of, I'll promote the article to GA status. Dana boomer (talk) 23:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. --The_stuart (talk) 16:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allright, everything looks good, so I'm promoting this article to GA status. Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 17:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]