Talk:Billy the Kid/GA3

GA Review

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

Reviewer: BlackJack (talk · contribs) 12:55, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Starting review

I'll start this review soon. Jack | ^{talk page} 12:55, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've done an initial read of the article and can't see any obvious "immediate failure" issues so I think a full review will commence soon. I need to check the article history and talk pages first to complete the preliminaries. Meanwhile, I'm adding the template below which I will use for formal marking. I'd like to thank editors Winkelvi and Patient Zero for their offers of assistance. Jack | ^{talk page} 09:56, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know of any questions or additional information that would help the review process. Thanks very much. Jack | ^{talk page} 09:56, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA review criteria

Checklist tools

= pass | = fail | = neutral (may need second opinion) | = don't know (default)

Checking for immediate failure conditions

WP:WIAGA#Immediate_failures states that an article can, but by no means must, be failed without further review (known as "quick failing") if, prior to the review:

it is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria:
it contains copyright infringements:
it has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid — e.g., {{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}}:
the article is not stable due to edit warring on the page:

If the article has not failed any one of the above four tests, a full review will follow:

I've decided, with some reservations, to take the article forward to full review on the grounds that I am not failing any of the above four conditions. I'm not, at this stage, happy about it meeting the six good article criteria but, for the purpose of the immediate failure exercise, I am neutral. Equally, although there is no actual edit-warring, I'm neutral on the question of stability because there is evidence of considerable disagreement and extensive, frequent revision in recent months. Please go to the end of the next section for the full review questions. Jack | ^{talk page} 14:01, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Full review criteria checks

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for the six good article criteria:

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable with no original research?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Inline citations to reliable sources where necessary (e.g., direct quotations):

C. No original research:

D. No copyright violations:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

Questions

I can't say that I'm happy with the article which has come to GAR a third time despite a lot of work still being necessary. I'm going to place the review on hold so that all of the questions and issues below can be addressed. I've provisionally marked the criteria above to reflect my current opinion of the article, but these marks are flexible pending your responses, after which I'll be happy to review the article again. Please note that I will be on holiday for most of June and so it will be July before I'm available again. I will be using the site for the next couple of days and so can deal with any immediate questions then. Jack | ^{talk page} 14:20, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Early life

I find the information here confusing and it was not well written: e.g., I've tried to improve the structure of the first paragraph by moving the baptism piece into the opening sentence for better continuity. The second paragraph needs more data so that it can be properly structured. When did McCarty's father die? What happened to Billy while Catherine and Joseph were in Indianapolis and how long were they there (I see an editor has now partly answered this)? Was Billy ever called Antrim (excluding his phase as "Kid Antrim") and, if not, why not? Do we know when Joseph took the name?

First crimes

Are we absolutely sure about the dates 16 Sept 1874 and 16 Sept 1875, especially given Billy's birthday on 17 Sept? It seems a coincidence that he started stealing on the anniversary of his mother's death.
When he was arrested in Sept 1875, I presume he was jailed in Silver City itself? Was Antrim living in Silver City when Billy found him, or elsewhere? There is more confusion here as the next paragraph begins by saying Billy fled to Arizona after his escape so when, where and for how long was he taking refuge with Antrim?
How long did McCarty work for Hooker and whereabouts in Arizona was Hooker's spread, given that Billy moved to SE Arizona in 1876?
Was John R. Mackie a United States Cavalry private or had he been in the cavalry of another country (GB, for example)? More precise link preferred if known.
Why did McCarty become known as "Kid Antrim"? Had he taken his stepfather's surname because, if so, he should not be called McCarty in this section?
Was John Jones already a friend of McCarty and, if so, how did they know each other? Or did they become friends after McCarty recovered his health?
The band of rustlers who raided Chisum's cattle. Was this the Seven Rivers Warriors gang or the Jess Evans gang or who? If the former, then the structure of this paragraph is misleading.
"After McCarty was spotted in Silver City by a resident, his involvement with the gang was mentioned in a local newspaper". What was the connection between someone recognising him in a place he used to live and his involvement in a gang operating elsewhere in the territory? The sentence needs explanation.
MOS deprecates single sentence paragraphs.
Again, there is a problem with dates because McCarty shot Cahill on 17 August 1877 and then was seriously ill for a lengthy period. So, when in 1877 did he become Bonney and when in late 1877 or early 1878 did he first meet Tunstall, presumably as Bonney?

Lincoln County War

"After his return from Arizona to New Mexico, Bonney went to work for English businessman John Tunstall". In the previous section, we have read that McCarty/Bonney was involved in various other escapades and incidents when he first returned to New Mexico. What is the correct sequence of events and can dates be cited to support the sequence and provide some continuity of events?
"When Tunstall was bothered by rustlers who got the local sheriff to attach nearly US$40,000 of Tunstall's property and livestock,[32] he changed the focus of Bonney's position from cowboy to guard". This sentence is very poor English and must be rewritten.
Again, MOS deprecates single sentence paragraphs (end of Prelude sub-section).
What is the name of the "town not far from Lincoln"?
"Bonney and two men riding with him" were jailed. "Bonney and Brewer (were released from) from jail". What about the third man?
"Learning of this turn of events, Deputy U.S. Marshal and friend of Bonney, Rob Widenmann, along with a detachment of soldiers, captured Sheriff Brady's jail guards, putting them behind bars and releasing both Bonney and Brewer from jail on February 23, 1878". Another sentence that must be rewritten, probably by being split into two or more sentences.
"After his release at the hands of Widenmann" is poor English.
The "Battle of Lincoln" narrative ends abruptly with Beckwith's death. How did the affair terminate (I believe the US Cavalry intervened) and how did Bonney get out of Lincoln?

Outlaw

Short paragraphs again in this section. Better structure needed per MOS.
"According to other sources, after Bonney had been advised that Grant intended to kill him. He walked up to Grant, told him he admired his revolver, and asked to examine it". This is more poor English. The first sentence is incomplete and needs a final clause.
First mention of Garrett in main narrative is unlinked.

Capture and escape

Newspaper names should be in italics (throughout article).
Should "to trial" be "on trial"?

Legacy

I'm happy with the first three sub-sections, especially the photographic one, but disappointed that there is no narrative describing the growth of Bonney's "legendary" status in American folklore. A list is a useful adjunct but does not per se tell the story. The list suggests that the cultural references began in the 1900s with a stage play and a silent movie. What propelled the creation of these works and how did they, in turn, generate an ongoing interest in this person who has been depicted and written about many times in the last hundred years?

Some answers

Because there is so little known for sure about a lot of Billy's life, especially the early portions of it, that lack of definitive information is going to affect the article. Some of the questions raised have no clear answers, so we have to be especially careful of WP:OR. My first edits to the article during the last GA review, trying to regularize some prose, had to be redone when I got hold of the sources and discovered that they did not agree on these particular facts.

One of these—and it really should be addressed as part of this review—is Henry's actual date of birth. The baptismal information presupposes a father named Patrick, married to Catherine. This was Jack DeMattos's theory (he is blocked indefinitely, and used the Jackartist sockpuppet to try to get around the block). However, it's just one of many theories, and one not endorsed by a number of subsequent authors of Billy bios, including Wallis and Gardner. I think we should probably remove it. (A dubious birth date is November 23, from the Garrett book—it's the same as Garrett's co-author Ash Upson's birthday.) Catherine is listed as having a late husband named "Michael" in the 1867 and 1868 Indianapolis directories, although there are disagreements as to whether Catherine was ever married or a widow (Antrim may have been her first husband) and whether McCarty was her birth or married name. Joseph may be a full or half brother. For that matter, Billy gave his age as 25 to an 1880 census taker. All this is to say I'm skeptical of giving a definitive birth date based on the books I've read—Wallis, Utley, and Gardner, which are the ones I'll be referencing below—and think we should opt for "c. 1859". Giving a definitive husband's name is also dubious, though some of the possibilities could be mentioned.

Early life

I've "answered" much of this above. Joseph gave his name as Antrim and his age as 17 in the 1880 census; he was living in Colorado at the time. (There are some theories that Joseph was actually older than Billy, in part based on a later census and his death certificate.) See below for Henry using Antrim.

First Crimes

1. The theft of butter occurred earlier in the year; Gardner says "April 1875". The Sombrero Jack theft was September 4 according to Wallis and Gardner; Billy was arrested on September 23 after the loot was found in his room.
2. William Antrim had long since sold the house and farmed out the boys. One source has him away, mining, shortly after Catherine's death, and none give any hint that Antrim was in Silver City at the time of Billy's incarceration. The sources are vague as to where the stepfather was at the time (or they're guessing), and aside from the "refuge" being short and not going well, there's precious little detail.
5. Wallis, p. 106: In November 1876, Henry, sporting the new name of Kid Antrim. He apparently used "Antrim" during this period, according to all three sources.
10. He apparently became Bonney by the time he showed up in Seven Rivers around mid-October 1977 according to Gardner (p. 79); Utley places it around the same time or shortly before; Wallis is more vague.

I'm going to let others work on the rest, though I'm happy to consult the sources while I still have them (they'll have to be returned to the various libraries at some point; the Utley is Billy the Kid: A Short and Violent Life; the Gardner is To Hell on a Fast Horse). I'd like to suggest to those who plan to work on fixing issues raised in the review that they use interlibrary loan to get their hands on as many sources as possible—primarily including the most frequently cited books in the article—so you can be clear in your minds about who said what. Also, when there are competing theories, such as whether Catherine was married, who the husband might have been if so, and what that means for Billy's age and date of birth, I think we need to present what is known and/or guessed at while clearly identifying which is which, and that requires reliable sources. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Just noting that the bibliography and citations is still a mess - many different formats, repeated long cites, short cites, linked cited unlinked, some formatted with templates others unformatted.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:39, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decision

Sorry, but in my honest opinion, this article is simply not ready for a GAR. The major point I raised about Billy's place in folklore has not been addressed and therefore the article still does not meet the "broad in its coverage" standard I believe is required. I'm more troubled by the altercations that have taken place in my absence and, sorry again, but the article is not stable. I'm failing it and I suggest that one editor should take sole responsibility for an agreed period and then it should be peer-reviewed to a point where some common ground is reached before it ever comes back to GAN. That's it. I'd have liked to pass this, being a big fan of the "westerns", but it just isn't ready yet. Jack | ^{talk page} 19:57, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, you bailed, and that's a bigger issue. The recent vandalism has nothing to do with the article's stability as it was usually taken care of swiftly. The discussions had nothing to do with the article's stability, either. From my standpoint, no one knew what was happening with the GAR or what was going to happen because you were nowhere to be found, and that doesn't seem appropriate -- accepting a huge article for GAR that was previously looked over by two experienced editors who felt it was ready for GAR back then, but then leaving for a month? What was the point of doing anything to the article if no one knew for sure you were even coming back to it or when? Leaving for weeks on end is not typical for GA reviews, am I right, BlackJack? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In fact his absence meant that there was plenty of time for you to have addressed his concerns and improved the article along the lines he suggested. You chose not to. The article has now been through 3 GARs without having developed substantially between any of the reviews.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In fact I "chose not to" because a close family member with whom I reside was diagnosed with cancer right after the GAR was taken up. In light of BJ's almost immediate departure from Wikipedia for a month and the needs of my immediate family member, what I actually chose was real life concerns, taking what life altering disease does and involves seriously, and real life relationships/needs. These immediately took precedence over wasting time with a GAR where the reviewer obviously didn't care about the responsibility he took on when accepting the GAR. He "chose not to" be involved. Knowing he was doing so, he should have passed the review to someone else rather than just taking off and then returning to fail it. He never even seemed to care about working together with editors on the review process, just issuing a list of wrongs and then expecting it all be taken care of while he was gone, however long that would be (which was never really clear). Sorry, but it all struck me as weird, odd, and completely open ended as well as unorthodox. In light of that unorthodoxy and uncaring, irresponsible attitude/absence, I decided to care about what was happening in my own home: a fight for life, a fight to keep the cancer struck family member sane, a fight to keep death away and choose love as well as life alive in my home. Stressing about an unorthodox GAR and the sudden disappearance of a reviewer was at the bottom of my importance list, just as this review was obviously at the bottom of the reviewers list. Cancer took me and my family member by surprise. The absence of the reviewer after taking on the GAR was planned. He bothered to pass another GAR on when he bailed, why not this one? It was all very strange, and remains so. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 11:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am very sorry to hear that and I wish you and your family member all the best. Certainly, real life problems should always trump wikipedia issues. It does seem a little odd though, for you to chide the reviewer for absence when in fact it was to your benefit and allowed you to focus on the most important issues you had going on. The reviewer had left copious comments for the nominator to act on, so I dont see what more could be expected from him than giving the nominator time to work. So now, maybe we should just get back to the business of handling our everyday lives and personal relations and improving the encyclopedia, and perhaps not renominate this article until it has been substantially improved by using the collective comments from the past 3 GA reviews.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:49, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is indeed upsetting news, please accept my condolences. I'm disappointed the article failed; I for one thought it would pass this time. We can always come back to this when you are ready to do so - take your time sir. Best --PatientZero ^talk 17:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]