Talk:Boys' Ranch

Peer Review

All the Peer Review recommendations have been worked on. We're ready to take it to GAR.--Scott Free (talk) 19:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Duplicate references

You might want to consider consolidating duplicate references, e.g.,

• Simon & Kirby, Boys' Ranch, 46

Use the {{rp|<pagenum>}} template for page numbers.

And I believe the "Footnotes" section is more propertly titled "References".

-- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the input - if you want to do that reference consolidation thing, please feel free to do so.--Scott Free (talk) 18:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Moved from article

Western-style adventures involving boys in ranch settings already formed part of American popular culture, with the juvenile fiction of authors such as Frank V. Webster and Dale Wilkins as well as 1946 MGM film Boys' Ranch.

they launched their new title in the wave of a Western trend in American comic books.

This should be easy to prove. Is there no overview on western comics? Possibly in a book on western media? Well dagnabit there should be an article on western comics - I probably mentioned this the other month on WT:CMC, when discussing comics genre articles. Now might be the time to at the very least stub it and see what comes of it (but if anyone feels they can also give it structure...). (Emperor (talk) 22:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC))

Sounds like a needed article. Go for it if you have some sources. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I've got nothing I'm afraid, or I'd have started it by now. (Emperor (talk) 02:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC))

Robert Harvey's book may have some useful material? (gbooks preview). –Whitehorse1 00:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

References

yippie ki-yay

Now lissen heah pilgrims, ah'm migthy appreciative of the pow'ful amounts of work done on this here bit a ritin' - ah reckon all the good wikipedans done worked harder than a lonesome polecat on a flaming cactus - ah must confess, ah'm more confounded than an owlhoot at a sunday squaredance as to why in tarnation it didn't git passed - thems the breaks, ya puts in yer money, an ya take yer chances - no worries, just a bump in the wagon trail - fortunately mama Free didn't raise little Scott to be no quitter - ah's gots me an ace up muh sleeve, so's ah'll be shootin' this here arteekle up the GAR flagpole agin afore long, ah reckon... happy trails...--Scott Free (talk) 14:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I think the main problem last time was with the Mendryk references from the Simon & Kirby Blog, so I replaced some of those with more conventional sources and added a few more references.--Scott Free (talk) 16:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The other issue was images. Personally I feel we could easily get rid of the Kirby and Simon photo, it seems more appropriate to their personal articles whereas here it bumps up the image number and it also squeezes the text between it and the infobox (which is something I like to avoid if possible). I don't think it helps explain anything here or adds that much and could be something that is holding the article back. I say, remove it and see how it goes.

Anyway I dropped a note in over at WT:CMC and hopefully it'll get a few mores eyes on it before the assessment starts - it was close last time and I think it has a much better shot this time round. I've had a quick look through and couldn't find much of concern and hopefully a more in-depth read should spot anything that needs a tweak (or a source) but it looks good. (Emperor (talk) 00:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC))

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Boys' Ranch/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Well written, I made one minor copy-edit, follows the MoS adequately

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   All online references check out. I asume good faith for off line sourcing. Sources appear to be reliable.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The article is broad enough and focussed. I can't think of much more that could be said.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   the licensing tag on File:Simonkirbyphoto.jpg is incorrect. It is not a "non-free comic" it is a photo of the authors, although it appeared in a comic book reprint. I have changed it to {{Non-free historic image}}, which I think is more accurate and hopefully correct

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

OK, good to go. I am happy to awrad this article GA status. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanky kindly fer some mighty fine evaluatin' pawd'nuh - me and the the boys' is much oblidged! --Scott Free (talk) 16:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the assessment and well done everyone who worked on the article!! (Emperor (talk) 03:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC))

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Boys' Ranch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090901081940/http://www.povonline.com:80/jackfaq/JackFaq3.htm to http://www.povonline.com/jackfaq/JackFaq3.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:12, 6 November 2016 (UTC)