This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Westerns, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Westerns on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Text says Garrett had two deputies -- two sentences later "the pair sat in the room" -- so was only one with Garrett in the room? If so, it should say that before the pronoun "pair." 220.127.116.11 (talk) 16:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm very curious as to how many death certificates aren't issued posthumously. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 15:44, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
I think they are not improvements. Another editor is choosing to edit war rather than observe BRD. Comments on the changes? -- WV ● ✉✓ 13:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Actually, you are the one starting an edit war rather than observing WP:BRD. Any competent professional copy editor can tell you that the active voice is generally preferred to passive voice. You do not own this article. Carlstak (talk) 13:53, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't "staffed" nor is it comprised of professional copy editors. If you have something specific to prove in the way of why this content is superior over what has been there for a long time, please feel free to present it here so we can discuss and work toward consensus. But the edit warring on your part needs to stop. -- WV ● ✉✓ 15:28, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
I have reviewed the changes by Carlstak and would consider them all minor improvements of style. The only one that I might consider keeping as it was before is the one that says "the photo was reviewed", because the photo is the topic, and the passive construction fronts the topic and demotes the agents (who are less relevant in this specific context) to the position after the verb - this is a legitimate and useful use of the passive construction. The other corrections, including changes to active voice, are well motivated improvements.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:11, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
I've also reviewed the changes and I agree with maunus. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 21:07, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
It would seem that so far, the opinion of the most experienced editor in the discussion is the only one who has made a reasonable case for keeping the changed content. I'm fine with compromising on that, and I do agree that the content on the photo should be reverted to what it was, for the reasons Maunus stated. I'm not okay with pushing through edits just because and without any reasonable case made or attempt at actual discussion. I'm also not a fan of editors who then push through edits while discussion is still occurring rather than actually discussing. Such behavior is disruptive and totally against the purpose of finding consensus in a collegial editing environment. With all that said, I think it would be nice to let this discussion rest for a bit and see if anyone else has any other thoughts on it before calling a consensus. -- WV ● ✉✓ 21:28, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Making minor stylististic changes to prose is not "pushing through edits". Edit warring against a copyeditor with a reasonable argument for their changes is a bad idea for anyone who wishes to one day have an article passed through the peer review process.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:47, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Manaus that the sentence "The photo was reviewed by Old West history and tin-type photo experts in order to authenticate or deny the image's authenticity..." is a useful application of the passive voice, unlike the other instances. Note: At this point, Winkelvi is blocked for 3 months, so it seems he will not be contributing anymore to this conversation. Carlstak (talk) 01:55, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
I have also reviewed edit made here and agree that it is an unambiguous improvement. In my opinion, anyone restoring the phrasing, "While most of the claimants were disproven to be Bonney..." deserves a trout. I'm fine with keeping the status quo photo phrasing as suggested by maunus. VQuakr (talk) 01:18, 17 March 2017 (UTC)