Talk:Legends of the West

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Legends of the West/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 23:03, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I am sadly going to have to quickfail this article according to quickfail criteria 2—copyright violations. Large amounts of text are closely paraphrased from the source. See for example the below comparison:

Source

Closely paraphrased Wikipedia article

Designer Mark Hess had several images available for Bill Pickett, one a handsome, youthful man with a coiled lariat standing in front of trees, flowers, and an open gate. Pickett wore a complete cowboy outfit -- broad-brimmed hat, shirt, vest, chaps, and cowboy boots. Inscribed on the black and white photo was, "Bill Pickett, famous Negro cowboy. First man bullogger [sic]. Also used his teeth bull dogging instead of hands on horns method used by cowboys today." Six other independent authoritative references identified the same individual as Bill Pickett, and Sheaff, Terrence McCaffrey (USPS project manager), and by the Citizens' Stamp Advisory Committee (CSAC) approved the image.

Designer Mark Hess had multiple images of Bill Pickett available, one of which depicted a handsome and youthful man holding a coiled lariat in front of trees, flowers, and an open gate. Clad in a complete cowboy outfit, including a broad-brimmed hat, shirt, vest, chaps, and cowboy boots, the inscription on the black and white photo described Bill Pickett as a famous Negro cowboy who pioneered the "bullogger" technique, using his teeth to bulldog instead of the conventional hands-on-horns method employed by cowboys today. Several other reputable references also identified the individual in the photograph as Bill Pickett. Consequently, the image received approval from Sheaff, Terrence McCaffrey (USPS project manager), and the Citizens' Stamp Advisory Committee (CSAC).

We can see that "the original word choice, word order and sentence structure" is largely retained in its entirety. Quickfailing is thus the only option. I hope you will work on these issues. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:07, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.