Wikipedia:Peer review/Boys' Ranch/archive1

Boys' Ranch

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Ah reckon' ah's listed this here article fer peer review to gits some of that there creative feedback from the ladies and gents of wikipedia. I aims to git me this article done up to GA status right proper-like or I ain't just whistlin' Dixie.

Thanky, Scott Free (talk) 20:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is a good start, although it has a long way to go to achieve GA quality. It has many, many small errors such as misspellings, misplaced punctuation, typos, and the like. The lead is not yet a true summary. It would also be a good idea to look for more diverse sources, if possible, since you depend so heavily on the Jack Kirby Museum web site. I don't know if you'll find any; it depends on whether or not these comic books were notable enough to attract many reviewers and book authors. Here are my suggestions.

I've added some more diverse refs. I wouldn't say that there's a heavy dependence on the Mendryk blog/Kirby site - it's mostly basic info available elsewhere that I relied on because the source was clearly-written and well-explained.--Scott Free (talk) 22:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Lead

• The lead is pretty thin and could be expanded a bit to give a better summary of the whole article. Also, the Manual of Style generally frowns on extremely short paragraphs like the second one of the lead. Expansion would fix that problem too.
• "A combination of 'kid gang'... " - Double quotation marks are the standard rather than single; i.e. "kid gang". The single quotes should be replaced by double quotes throughout the article.

fixed--Scott Free (talk) 01:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• Careful proofreading would probably catch and fix many small errors. For example, citation 1 has been placed inside the ending punctuation but should be outside, and the last sentence of the "Creation" section lacks a period at the end of the sentence. There are small errors like this throughout the article.

Ran through a spell check--Scott Free (talk) 01:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Fictional team biography

• MOS:BOLD generally advises using bold text for emphasis except in the first sentence of the lead, in heads and subheads (which are automatically bolded) and a few other special cases. For that reason, I'd suggest using italics rather than bolding for the character names in the "Fictional team biography" section.

fixed--Scott Free (talk) 01:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• "Dandy was a 'well-like kid with a ready smile... " - Typo? Well-liked?

fixed--Scott Free (talk) 01:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• "His family history is explicited... " - No such word.

fixed--Scott Free (talk) 01:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• "She arrived at the ranch after the wagon her father driving was attacked by Indians." - Missing word?

fixed--Scott Free (talk) 01:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• "But the acquienscence was only a pretense... " - Misspelling.

fixed--Scott Free (talk) 01:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Critical analysis

• "More and more, the team was abandonning... " - Misspelling.

fixed--Scott Free (talk) 01:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Mother Delilah

• "The first story from issue #3, 'Mother Delilah' has been singled out as one of Simon and Kirby's finest." - Claims like this need to be sourced. A good rule of thumb is to provide a source for every set of statistics, every direct quote, every claim that might reasonably be questioned, and every paragraph.

fixed- --Scott Free (talk) 01:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• "character from Destry Rides Again" - Movie titles should be italicized.

fixed--Scott Free (talk) 01:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• MOS:QUOTE says in part, "A long quote (more than four lines, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of number of lines) is formatted as a block quotation, which Wikimedia's software will indent from both margins." For this reason, the fancy quotes should be replaced by a blockquote.

fixed--Scott Free (talk) 01:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

References

• Some of the citations are incomplete. A good rule of thumb for web citations is to include the author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and access date, if all of those can be found. I like to use the "cite" family of templates, which can be found at WP:CIT. If you use them, don't mix them with the "citation" family of templates that are also explained and displayed at WP:CIT.

fixed- --Scott Free (talk) 01:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Quite a few of the date formats in the citations and external links are out of order. The pattern is yyyy-mm-dd, or you could switch completely to m-d-y. But mm-dd-yyyy and mm-dd-yy are not standard formats. Whether you choose yyyy-mm-dd (e.g., 2009-10-12) or m-d-y (e.g., October 12, 2009), WP:MOSNUM says to be consistent.

fixed - --Scott Free (talk) 01:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Fort Apache links to a disambiguation page.

fixed--Scott Free (talk) 21:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC) I hope these comments prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 04:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Great points, will need to get working on these - thanks for the help, Finetooth. --Scott Free (talk) 17:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks pretty good. What I would do (and you don't have to) is: expand the lead, turn the "Fictional team biography" section into a "Plot" section that's prose and not a list, merge Creation into Pub hist section, merge Mother Delilah into Crit analysis section and rename Reception, get rid of the dates on the external links and make them more like "B & W image of main characters at SimonComics.com" Also the block quote in the MD section looks a little funny. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. I think I was following some Comics Project guidelines on terms like 'fictional character biography' (I sort of followed the Boy Commandos article, so I don't know how much of those changes to make. I'll try something. Thanks!--Scott Free (talk) 01:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Anarky is comic featured article. You might check that out. Of course, so is Superman and Batman, and they all do their sections differently. I think Anarky is the most recent, though, so that's the one I'd look at. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey thanks - that's a great article - it'll definitely help me with the formatting. --Scott Free (talk) 21:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)