Talk:Gunfighter/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Bulls123 (talk · contribs) 15:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Being a western fan myself, I'll be tackling this one. Bulls123 (talk) 15:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Generally good and lengthy. But there were a few grammar and syntax problems such as ".[6]Clay Allison", "of being" instead of "as being synonymous with cowboy". The "In popular culture" section is so full of this, and many of its sentences are just horrible to read (example: Yasuhiro Nightow is known for creating the manga Trigun, which also was adopted into an anime.) It needs to be fixed and reworked.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lede is good, but it doesn't summarize the "Popular culture" section. It needs to summarize everything in the article.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	One of the main problems of the article. The references are good, but there's a History Channel reference that needs to be replaced. Also, most of the references don't even have any authors, dates, and publishers. Worst, the "Outlaw or lawman" only has 1 reference , and the "Living on reputation" section third paragraph doesn't have any. References are needed.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Aside from what I said above, the quotes in the article has no references.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Given that some parts are not referenced while some aren't written that very well, it may constitute to OR.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Although lengthy, editors did a great job in keeping the facts neatly written. But in the "Fact and fiction" section there's one entry about cowboy hats, which is completely pointless and unnecessary. This is an article about gunslingers, not cowboys.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	The cowboy action pic though needs to be placed somewhere else. It looks like its hanging its sitting in the Legacy section and is untidy to look at.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	The problems I mentioned will hinder this article to be passed for GA, but I'm pretty sure they're too small and easy to fix. The article itself is broad and promising, so I will refrain from failing/passing it for a while to give the nominator the chance to improve on it. Bulls123 (talk) 16:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC) Good job! It seems that you have fixed the problems I pointed out. The article really looks better than the last time I saw it, and firmly deserves to be passed. Bulls123 (talk) 01:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Done! Although there were links that has no author or dates written on them, some references were fixed and I added some along the way. "Outlaw or lawman" and the "Living on reputation" has their references already fleshed out. I fixed some grammars along the way. Godzilladude123 (talk) 12:19, 4 October 2014 (UTC)