Talk:Montana Vigilantes/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: KingJeff1970 (talk · contribs) 00:42, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to take on this review ASAP.--KingJeff1970 (talk) 00:42, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

This article is well-developed and close to meeting all the good article criteria. A few improvements explained below need to be completed, therefore the article is being put on hold for 1-2 weeks.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * The article is clearly written, with minor copy edit issues. It nearly meets the manual of style guidelines required by the good article criteria.  The lead section is well developed and reasonable in size, adequately summarizing the various sections of the article.  Yet at one point in the first paragraph there is a reference to the San Francisco Committee of Vigilance being a model for Montana's group, though as far as I can tell the influence of this group on the Montana vigilantes is not mentioned in the article.  This apparent oversight may be easily corrected.✅  Also a full read-through should identify multiple copy edit mistakes, extra or missing words and small punctuation errors; I found about ten or more instances (Since I've already located them, I'll gladly correct these).
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * The article is nearly all verifiable and it avoids original research. One important statistic that I could not adequately verify needs some work.  The citation at the end of section 1.4, "Prominent members," stating the number of people killed by the Virginia City-Bannack vigilantes is unhelpful.  The article in note 17 states that 21 men were killed by the vigilantes (and it's citing Dimsdale's count).  Where do we get the range of from 15-35 mentioned in the text?  This important citation should be clarified to achieve good article criteria.✅
 * I've added more information to the citation to clarify this. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:02, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Mike Cline, I appreciate your effort in adding more info to the end note (now end note 18), but the info on the 1884 Stuart's Stranglers confuses things. I suggest that you move this 1884 material down to the appropriate section of the article (Stuart's Stranglers) and leave the info about the 1863-65 Bannack-Virginia City vigilantes. Also, and important to the good article criteria, your work to count the victims of vigilante justice yourself strikes me as original research. I think just citing a couple of the reliable sources will clear up any problem here and will meet the criteria. Steer clear of your own estimates, though in a couple more days of revisions, Mike, you will be a reliable source, yourself. Thanks for making the last push on this.--KingJeff1970 (talk) 23:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Have added citation (Dillon p 370-71) to the "at least 20" in the lead and the list in the content related to the Alder Gulch vigilantes 1st six weeks of 1864. Have also added "Alder Gulch" clarification to Allen's estimate. I don't think the reference to "Stuarts Stranglers" in Allen's quote is confusing as Allen is trying to support his contention that Alder Gulch (1863-65) was deadlier than the Mussellshell (1884) as contended by Brown. If it is removed from the quote, the remainder of Allen's position isn't that clear.  I am not sure where Also, and important to the good article criteria, your work to count the victims of vigilante justice yourself strikes me as original research. occurs unless it was the sentence in the lead that is now cited. --Mike Cline (talk) 19:31, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * The article is broad ranging, covering vigilante activity throughout Montana's territorial period from the 1860s to the 1880s. This helpfully ties together the mining camp groups with the livestock groups, noting the similar conditions giving rise to both.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Most of the article is well handled as far as neutrality goes. A problem develops in sections 6 and 7, "Period accounts" and "20th and 21st century analysis," when varying perspectives on the historiography of the Montana vigilantes are explored.  Undue weight is given to the alternative viewpoints of Mather, Boswell and Fazio (see WP:UNDUE).  Their POV is given half of the space in section 7 while the substantial work of Frederick Allen, Merrill Burlingame (both in his book 'The Montana Frontier' (1942) and his article, "Montana's Righteous Hangmen: A Reconsideration," in 'Montana, The Magazine of Western History' (Autumn 1978)), and Lew Callaway are neglected.  Description of the earliest accounts of the vigilantes by Dimsdale and Langford could be enhanced to give them proper weight.  It may help to combine sections 6 and 7 into one section entitled, "Historiography," though of course this is not necessary to achieve NPOV.  Overall, the pool of reliable sources are not proportionately represented and this should be redressed before the article moves forward. ✅
 * I trust the section name change and additional references to other works added balances this section out.--Mike Cline (talk) 13:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * The painting by John W. Norton should probably be dated 1907 when the book it appeared in was published, rather than 1863.✅
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * With some limited work to improve the NPOV, clarify a citation, fix one portion of the lead, and perform some copy editing this article will meet the good article criteria. It's real close, so let's getter done.--KingJeff1970 (talk) 08:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * With some limited work to improve the NPOV, clarify a citation, fix one portion of the lead, and perform some copy editing this article will meet the good article criteria. It's real close, so let's getter done.--KingJeff1970 (talk) 08:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments
Thanks Jeff, good review, will work on this over the weekend. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:03, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Final Review
I'm satisfied with the numerous adjustments and improvements made by Mike and others. I'm going to pass this article as meeting the Good article criteria. Congratulations! And thanks for your patience and responsive work over the past couple weeks.--KingJeff1970 (talk) 20:28, 22 October 2014 (UTC)