Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2008 Barack Obama assassination scare in Denver/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 19:19, 29 December 2009 [1].

2008 Barack Obama assassination scare in Denver[edit]

Nominator(s): — Hunter Kahn (c) 01:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I waited to nominate this article because I wanted to wait until the charges were resolved for one of them. Now that they have been, I think it is ready for FAC, and it has already long passed as a GA. I believe the article is as well-sourced and comprehensive as it could possibly be, but am ready and willing to make any suggested improvements. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn (c) 01:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technical comments

    • OK, I've dropped the description beyond the "gray shirt" bit, and changed it from talking to someone to looking off screen. — Hunter Kahn (c) 02:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*In File:Gartrell johnson adolf.jpg: "Since it is a screenshot from a television news program, the fair-use version is available and no free-use versions can be used."—um, what? No, rly, what does this even mean? I don't mean that as a troll; it just makes no sense because Wikipedia strongly prefers free content over non-free (as it should). I think (policy aside) we really should come down harder on rights-reserving companies and make them release more free images and such. Companies love to whitewash our articles and then complain when we use something of theirs that wouldn't cost them (much) money. Sorry if I come off as rude, but that part seems wrong.

--an odd name 02:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree. That wording was there already (or if I did write it, it must have been a while ago because I don't remember it). My own fair use rationale is explained in the summary, so I've cut this confusing bit altogether. If my own rationale still needs work, any feedback is welcome... — Hunter Kahn (c) 02:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. "Security had already been tight around Obama due to low-grade fears of possible assassination threats against the first African American major party presidential candidate." This should either say "...due to low-grade fears of possible assassination against..." or "...due to assassination threats against...", but not "fears of possible assassination threats". Kaldari (talk) 17:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • What I had meant to convey was "low-grade fears of possible assassination attempts". I've fixed that wording, although if you think it needs to be changed to "...fears of possible assassination against..." let me know. — Hunter Kahn (c) 22:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many problems. Nominated for deletion. Has possible libel issues as the men were never convincted of attempted assassination, even though they are 3 stooges that should be jailed. Just a news footnote of an obscure incident. These problems mean that it should not be the featured presentation, or whatever you call it. Otherwise, the featured presentation will become a joke. Even the title needs work. Scare? Who was scared? Even the police say it was a non-credible threat. Maybe 2008 alleged plot but not scare. Best of luck in fixing these many problems. Head of Security for the World (talk) 00:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Obviously, now that the article has been nominated for deletion, the opinions voiced by the above user will be discussed in the AFD. If the decision is delete, then the FAC will obviously become moot. But if the decision is keep, it would still be eligible for FAC, so I would ask would-be FAC reviewers to continue looking over the article for any specific problems or issues that need to be addressed, so that the FAC can continue in a timely manner if it survives the AFD. Thank you! — Hunter Kahn (c) 01:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Never mind, the AFD closed as a speedy keep. The only thing left is the neutrality tag, which I've addressed on the Talk page. I feel the article is neutral, but I'm waiting for more feedback before I remove the tag... — Hunter Kahn (c) 02:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please note, I have removed the neutrality tag due to a lack of response to my changes. If there are still neutrality issues here, I'd be happy to address any that come up, but as it stands I strongly feel the article is neutral. I've gone out of my way to include dissenting voices who believe these men posed no threat to anybody. Ironically, it's that very material I've included in the article that this user has cited in his recent AFD arguments... — Hunter Kahn (c) 18:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • What makes the following reliable sources?
    • http://www.finalcall.com/
      • This is the website for The Final Call, a print newspaper published in Chicago. It's the official newspaper of the Nation of Islam and was founded by Louis Farrakhan, so it carries with it a bit of controversy, but it's a legitimate print source. — Hunter Kahn (c) 21:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • It might be better to source to something a bit less controversial, unless you are looking for information on the Nation of Islam's reaction. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've not found these particular comments from Boone in any other articles. (I have found, in a Lexis search, however, that the exact same Charlene Muhammad story that ran in the Final Call has also run in publications like The New York Beacon and Capital Outlook.) Nevertheless, I'd like to include the Boone quotation if possible, as it lends a different point of view than others in the section. Perhaps I could just include the fact that it came from The Final Call in the prose of the article itself (not just the inline citation)? That way, readers could consider the source and judge its reliability for themselves? — Hunter Kahn (c) 22:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • This one is moving into more lines of context and stuff. I'll leave it out for other reviewers to consider, so I'm basically done. (This one isn't really an unreliable source all the time, it just needs to be used carefully when it is used, which is a content, not a sourcing issue, and thus is more for other reviewers to decide..) Ealdgyth - Talk 22:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • http://www.nationalledger.com/
      • Well, they describe themselves as a "new media independent news publication". The articles appear to be factually accurate, but I suppose you could make a case this isn't a reliable source. I only use this source to discuss the Sons of Silence bit. I did a Lexis search and found an article in a publication called "The New Review" about the Sons of Silence connection, and I could cite it, but is only says that there was a vague alleged association with the Sons of Silence, which the group denied. I could either 1) keep the National Ledger source, 2) scale down the info and cite this New Review article or 3) drop the Sons of Silence info altogether. — Hunter Kahn (c) 21:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • If only The New Review and this are picking up the information, is it really encyclopedic? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I thought it was a worthy addition, but that's a good point. I've cut the Sons of Silence bit (and thus, this questionable source) altogether. — Hunter Kahn (c) 22:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • http://www.bradblog.com/?p=6337
      • This is a blog, but it's the blog of Brad Friedman, who is a well-known journalist and blogger. His blog has been cited and praised by mainstream newspaper (some of that info is available on Friedman's site. In the context of this article, I only use Friedman's site as a source when I'm citing bits of criticism or claims made by Friedman himself. I felt the use of the site would be acceptable in that context... — Hunter Kahn (c) 21:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • As long as it's only used for Friedman's opinion and it's directly attributed in the article itself (not just inline citations), it may be acceptable, but then you get into the problem of whether his opinion is notable or not. I'll leave this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=home
      • This is the official site of the Centre for Research on Globalisation, which is mentioned by name in the "Media coverage" section of this article (which also includes this citation). I just did a Lexis Nexis search and research from this group has been cited by a number of newspapers, from The Guardian in London, to the Moscow Times, the Derby Evening Telegraph, the Post-Standard in Syracuse, etc. etc. (I can copy-and-paste email you some of these articles if you want. A verbatim copy of one of the stories that ran in 2005 in The Guardian can be found here as an example.) And, again, the only citations I use from this source are in the context of describing reactions to the assassination scare from the Centre itself... — Hunter Kahn (c) 21:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • http://www.opednews.com/articles/Conspiracies-To-Assassinat-by-Robert-Arend-081027-401.html
      • Well, again, it's a blog, but it's a pretty widely known and read blog. (It was nominated last year for the Bloggers Choice Awards 2007 "best political blog" award, for what that's worth! lol. Once again, I only cite the page once, and only in the context of citing a comment made by that blogger. However, if you feel it has to go, then I'll drop it... — Hunter Kahn (c) 21:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Again, you're up against what makes the blogger's opinion noteworthy? I'll leave this out for other reviewers to decide. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and there is no need to ping my talk page when you've addressed things, I watchlist FACs I comment on, so I'll see it. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, sorry about that! — Hunter Kahn (c) 22:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: prose is of FA quality, or at least, high-end GA quality. Sceptre (talk) 13:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please upload the mugshots of the suspects instead of the non-free images.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 11:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't believe those are available, which is why I had to use the non-free image in it's place. Unless you can direct me to where those shots are available? — Hunter Kahn (c) 01:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • How about this --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 06:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah, ok. I thought you meant it should come from an official Dept. of Corrections site or something like that. I've replaced the photo. On my screen, it still looks like a scrunched version of the original photo, but I'm guessing that will change when the cache is updated? — Hunter Kahn (c) 14:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Isn't it a free image, because it's by the FBI ?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 14:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ah, right, my mistake. Fixed the licensing... — Hunter Kahn (c) 15:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. WP:OVERLINK, prose worries.

  • We are meant to be able to speak English if we're consulting en.WP. Why is "assassinate" linked, and jammed up next to "Barack Obama" too, another breach of WP:LINK? Please pipe "Denver, Colorado" to "Denver, Colorado: this is a chain link; readers will face the link to the state as soon as they hit the one to "Denver". Are "African Americans" so exotic that they need a link? I'd say as normal as whites, actually. And "white supremacist" is linked, which is good—we certainly don't need both; nor do we need "racist" to be linked a couple of seconds later.
    • I've removed several overlinks, including the ones you pointed out and several others I found myself on a comb-through. I've also fixed the location links and made a few other changes, which you can see here. Please let me know if I've missed anything! — Hunter Kahn (c) 02:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • First pic underexposed; pity, but if you don't have control over it, I guess we can't have it brightened. Could be cropped, too. And here's "Denver, Colorado" again, fully linked. I'd not bother the readers 8 seconds after the last blue-link to this.
    • I'm not sure which "Denver, Colorado" link you mean. Are you talking about the one in the first paragraph under "Investigation and arrests"? I was under the impression I should link everything on first reference in the body of the article, even if it's already been mentioned in the lead. If this isn't correct, though, I have no problem removing this wikilink... — Hunter Kahn (c) 02:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "like in the 1992 Kevin Costner movie, The Bodyguard."—"like in" is not grammatical; it may be occasionally ok in speech, but not in this register. Here's "African American" linked again ... I think we got it the first time, didn't we?
    • The overlink has been dropped. I've fixed "like in", and will look for other mistakes like this in my upcoming grammatical review... — Hunter Kahn (c) 02:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Gartrell was high on methamphetamine when arrested."—"high" is kind of colloquial; I'm trying to think of the more formal word for it. "Crutches"—we're supposed to know what they are.
    • "Gartrell was under methamphetamine influence when arrested"? --an odd name 16:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've changed the wording to reflect that they were under the influence, rather than high. — Hunter Kahn (c) 02:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's the "Federal" Bureau of ...? Might be good to add that word. Some Americans probably don't know that either.
    • I'm sorry, I don't know what you are referring to here. Could you point out which section/sentence? — Hunter Kahn (c) 02:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see MoS on ellipsis-dot spacing.
    • I think I've fixed this now, but please let me know if I'm misunderstanding... — Hunter Kahn (c) 02:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What a ghastly, ghastly story. (Just saying.)

Look, some of this is OK, and the prose is saveable overall. Let's try to get the overlinking under control and see if it can't be brought up to standard. Tony (talk) 15:48, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sounds good! I will be unavailable for any major editing over the next two or three days due to the holidays (can check in from time to time, but not for a long amount of time) so I'll jump on this as soon as I get back. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn (c) 15:58, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK—the examples above are just a sample; the whole text needs an independent run-through. Tony (talk) 04:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Understood. I'll give it a go, probably Sunday night or Monday, and then we'll see if this is something we can work on for this FAC or if it'll have to go beyond it... — Hunter Kahn (c) 04:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, I've fixed the individual items above. I'm going to take another look at the text and see if I can fix any other grammatical or stylistic problems. I understand, of course, that this isn't an independent review, but rather my own. So once I'm finished, all I ask if that you take another look and see if I've addressed your concerns. If not, I'll put this up for a peer review when and if the FAC fails. Thanks for your help! — Hunter Kahn (c) 02:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've sent a message to Tony1 to see if my changes to the prose are acceptable. — Hunter Kahn (c) 02:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose - Kind of reads like a news story, to be completely frank. I really dislike opposing candidates, especially well written ones, but as Tony1 has demonstrated, I just don't think the prose is there yet. I also agree that it needs a copyeditor to clean up the stylistic issue(s). Best, ceranthor 19:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Optima, I've made some changes to the prose that I think are an improvement, and I believe I've all but addressed the overlinking concerns. I'm waiting to hear from Tony1 whether any further improvements are needed, but if he is satisfied, would you consider supporting, or at least withdrawing your weak oppose? — Hunter Kahn (c) 02:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hunter is a nice person so I am reluctant to point out negatives on the article. I'll keep the savage ones to myself and just point out the little ones.

  • The section headings are not the best. Look at them without reading or knowing about the events and you might see that the headings do not summarize the events well and look strange.

1 Investigation and arrests
2 Johnson implicates Adolf (Sorry, but this sounds like a boxing commentator or title of a chapter of a novel
3 Assessment of threat
4 Histories of alleged plotters
5 Comparison to other cases
6 Media coverage
7 Criminal charges

Possibly better headings might be:

0. Lead introduction with brief description of the incident (no section heading needed)
1 Alleged plotters
2 Plot (what already happened then subsection on what more was planned)
3 Foiling of the alleged plan
4 Investigation
5 Post arrest events (including a subsection of Johnson implicates Adolf)
6 Media coverage
7 Criminal proceedings
8 Other cases (is this even necessary?)

Once these headings are made, then the rewrite can be made to satisfy the headings. If there is left over information, then new sections or subsections can be made.

  • The top picture says that they tried to shoot President Barack Obama. At the time, the President was George W. Bush. There cannot be these errors or people will laugh at Wikipedia.
  • Mr. Gartrell's life could be ruined and Wikipedia, being a big website with high search engine results, should not hurt Mr. Gartrell's chances of finding a job and other life events. The introduction calls it an alleged plot but Mr. Gartrell got a short sentence and wasn't convicted on anything close to killing someone. We need to think how to treat the guy carefully.
Maybe we need to say that the scare was initially thought to be an assassination plot but later evolved into a legal question of weapons possession (or crack possession, or whatever the charges were). This should be very clear in the beginning. JB50000 (talk) 04:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/2008_Barack_Obama_assassination_scare_in_Denver/archive1&oldid=1136099195"