Talk:Wyatt Earp/GA3

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

Reviewer: Hchc2009 (talk) 19:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll get on and commence the review tomorrow. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Right. Positively, a lot a work has clearly gone into the article. I enjoyed reading it and liked the choice of pictures. Gratifyingly, an attempt had been made to provide citations for all major points. I started working through the references though, and by the time I'd gone through the first 17 of them (listed below), it was clear there are major problems here at the GA level. The guidance on reliable sources isn't black and white, but of the first set of references I worked through, there was a pattern of self-published websites, often by unnamed authors; blogs; and so on. Only a few of them referred back to reliable sources (e.g. a specialist historian's website; a published academic book), etc., and then the page numbers were often wrong. I've skimmed through the remainder, and it looks like a similar pattern.

With this in mind, I'm going to fail the article this time around. My advice would be:


 * Work through and ensure that each citation for on-line, web articles gives at least the name of the author(s); title of the article within quotation marks; name of the website; date of publication; page number(s) (if applicable); the date you retrieved it (required if the publication date is unknown). Consider carefully if this is really a reliable, third-party, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, especially if the source isn't giving some of this information (particularly the author). ✅


 * Double check the page references for the published books and articles. ✅


 * Consider, if you can get hold of them, using some of the academic sources cited by the websites. As an example, you reference Douglas O. Linder's webpage; at the bottom, he notes Steven Lubet's book as a longer, better source on the trial; it's available on GoogleBooks, and you might find the book a better source than the webpage. ✅


 * I'm very happy to help out if I can on reliable sources; do drop me a message on my talk page if I can assist.Hchc2009 (talk) 08:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

-

2. Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;


 * David Ashford's film review in the Independent newspaper; probably a good source for film information, but not for the historical information being argued here. ✅
 * The Wyatt Earp FAQs, written by the unnamed WEFAQs Admin, difficult to claim as a reliable source ✅
 * Wyatt EARP Family History, no author given, difficult to claim as a reliable source ✅
 * "Where was Nicholas Earp in 1849-50?", no author given, difficult to claim as a reliable source ✅
 * Twelve references listed to "Woog, Adam (February 28, 2010). Wyatt Earp. Chelsea House Publications. p. 110. ISBN 1604135972." The book's (helpfully) been wikilinked, but p. 110 actually just gives a single paragraph describing Adam Wong's personal life, rather than anything on Wyatt Earp. (NB: I suspect that the wrong page reference has been given, but it would need to be fixed). All of the individual Woog references provide a specific page reference. ✅
 * "http://www.wyattsearp.com/history.html" - it looks like it might be written by a historian and does list some academic sources, but there's not even a name that I could find of who wrote the webpages. ✅
 * WGBH American Experience: Wyatt Earp, Complete Program Transcript. This is probably not a bad source, as it has various name historians quoted, but - the references in this article don't mention who you're quoting each time (is it the unnamed narrator - not a reliable source - or Paul A. Hutton, Historian - probably a good source).
 * "Prof. Mike Donovan" - I don't know how reliable the International Boxing Hall of Fame is, but I'd note that the article lacks an author, which usually isn't a good sign. ✅
 * " A Short Story About the Lawman Wyatt Earp. 3. The Bullet." - I've had a look at the .pdf, and this isn't a reliable source. ✅
 * " "Wyatt Earp History Page" does give an author, and he is an historian. The references are inconsistent, however, in how you refer to the site. ✅
 * Walker, Dale E. (Nov-Dec 2007). "Standing Tall". American Cowboy. 4 (Active Interest Media, Inc.) 14: 152. - its an offline source, but looks promising.
 * Eppinga, Jane (2009). Around Tombstone : Ghost Towns and Gunfights actually links, oddly, to Wyatt Earp: The Ok Corral and the Law of the American West, p.47 - online, and a suitable source for what you're citing though! ✅
 * American Heritage - the link is broken, hard to tell either way, but I'd assume good faith that it's a serious magazine. Fixed link. BP ✅
 * "Kansas Famous Frontier Scouts" - this is the private blog of Dennis Segelquist, who doesn't make any assertions to be a specialist or historian. He does (generally, but usefully) cite an article written by Paul I. Wellman called ( Some Famous Kansas Frontiers Scouts ), published in August of 1932, in the State Historical Quarterly, as the source of most of the information in the blog post though. ✅


 * Thanks for the thorough review. While I appreciate that you feel the references cited are not up to GA standards, I am unable to devote the time required to find suitable additional sources that meet your requirements. The article has been substantially improved and while all of the sources don't meet GA quality, I am satisfied that they are sufficiently accurate that I am going to leave it as is. I will leave the challenge of improving the sources to someone with the time and inclination. — btphelps (talk) (contribs) 16:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand. Thanks for all the work on the article so far; I agree completely that it has improved substantially, and I did enjoy reading it. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)