Talk:Wyatt Earp/GA2

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

I am delisting this article from the GA category. It suffers from to obvious concerns without digging deeper.
 * 1) The WP:LEAD is malformed with 7 paragraphs when the stylistic norm is 4 max.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) There are over 10 entire paragraphs, which remain uncited, including a large blockquote. The article was passed while WP:WIAGA 2b had a question mark for sources.

I noticed this after quickfailing Gunfight at the O.K. Corral. By similarity of scope and style, I imagine the same industrious contributor undertook both articles. I expect that with a little effort both and any other related contributions can achieve wikipedia stylistic preferences.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the input. I trimmed the lead to four paragraphs as suggested and added references to each and every paragraph. Please validate and reconsider for GA. Thanks. — btphelps (talk) (contribs) 23:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

GA cleanup
I confess I am a little confused by conflicting information left during the review of this article for GA1 by different editors, specifically the comments left by TonyTheTiger. On my talk page, he explained his delisting of Wyatt Earp from GA and noted, "See the history on its talk page for an explaination." The GA review cites the following issues:


 * "dead external links and dablinks which need fixing"
 * Completed.


 * "but the "popular culture" section is largely unnecessary."
 * I can't see how an article about Wyatt Earp would be complete without including links to media about him in popular culture. His fame and notoriety has been wholly shaped by popular culture. To eliminate links to movies and books about him would undercut much of the article's substance.


 * "If it [the "popular culture section"] should exist at all, it should be hugely culled to include only the most notable pop culture representations"
 * Completed.


 * The ["popular culture section"] should be "converted into prose format"
 * As to de-listifying the list of movies and books in the popular culture section, I'd be happy to entertain suggestions about the best way to do that. However, without adding content to describe the list of items—which María suggested be removed—I don't see how the reader's access to the information would be improved. The MOS specifically states that, "Embedded lists are lists used within articles to present information that supplements the article's prose content."
 * Yes. And let me remark that there is a thing called "list prejudice" on WP. Some things naturally just go better in lists, and major lists of pop culture references are examples. See WP:EMBED.  S  B Harris 21:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The ["popular culture section"] should be "reliably sourced throughout"
 * I've added references to this list.


 * "The lead also needs expansion"
 * Completed.


 * C-class.
 * Upon delisting the article, user TonyTheTiger noted, "See the history on its talk page for an explaination" and, "I expect that with a little effort both and any other related contributions can achieve wikipedia stylistic preferences" while also changing the class to C. Now this confuses me. The other two editors appear to feel that once the above issues are satisfied, it would be ready for GA. The quality scale describes C-Class as "Useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study" and "Considerable editing is needed to close gaps in content and address cleanup issues." I don't see how the C-class criteria applied by TonyTheTiger square with the assessment by the other two reviewers.

I certainly don't have the experience that Maria or TonyTheTiger have in getting articles to GA status. I think the courtesy standard of don't bite the newcomer ought to apply equally to those who've been around a bit longer. A little good faith and time to work out the differences for the GA review would be sincerely appreciated. I've known two generally well-regarded admins who've experienced callous treatment at the hands of other, experienced admins, and retired as a result, and this behavior is certainly related to the trouble WP is having in attracting and retaining editors. This is one of the reasons I've stayed away from administrative-type responsibilities.

I believe the article is ready for a second GA review and would appreciate it if the editor who assumes that responsibility would take a little time to allow me to resolve any issues outstanding. — btphelps (talk) (contribs) 02:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)