Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ike Altgens/archive2

Ike Altgens

Ike Altgens (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/Ike Altgens
• Featured article candidates/Ike Altgens/archive1
• Featured article candidates/Ike Altgens/archive2

• Featured article review/Ike Altgens/archive1

Nominator(s): —ATS 🖖 Talk 07:49, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I know, I know ... I said I would never put myself through this again—but this article deserves its place in the sun.

Promoted to FA status in 2006, it fell into disrepair and was demoted in 2010. After a good deal of work and a peer review that went nowhere, I brought it to FAC in 2014 only to watch it die on the vine. Instead, I went to GAN, where Location quite properly put it through the ringer, and MrBill3 lent a vital hand in bringing the article to GA status. It has been virtually untouched since—stable, thorough, correct, and ready. I am bound to see this one through. —ATS 🖖 Talk 07:49, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

• Reviewers please note: this article contains numerous invisible comments, some of which provide citations to otherwise non-controversial details that may not appear on their face to be cited.

Comments from Redtigerxyz

• Lead sentence: I googled Ike. He seems to be best known for his photographs with the JFK assassination. IMO, this should be noted in the lead sentence or at least the 1st para. Compare Richard Drew (photographer).

Done.

• WP:OVERLINK: film, actor, model, television, dialogue etc. need not be linked.

Disagree with "model"—too many meanings. Otherwise done.

• JFK needs to be linked. The article seems to assume an American reader; how Jackie is related to JFK is not told.

Done.

• Jumping to Assassination of President Kennedy section: "This meant that what I took, ... " quote is sudden without context; When did Ike say this? Immediate reaction, in an interview decades after? Similarly for "To have a President shot ... "

First: done; second: all part of "Altgens would later write".

• A non-American may not understand the JFK, John F. Kennedy is the same person; similarly Jacqueline Kennedy, Jackie Kennedy

Done.

• I can't locate the details of "Hill & McCubbin 2013"

Got lost in an old edit. Restored.

• Was there any concrete findings about Ike's death?

Not that I ever found.

• "elsewhere to question whether accused assassinLee Harvey Oswald was visible in the doorway of the Texas School Book Depository" again misses context. The lead needs to clarify that this was used to "prove" Oswald's innocence.

Added as a note; unnecessary in main text, IMO. My thanks for your comments, Redtigerxyz.

Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

• I had never heard about Ike before this article, so I am a little unsure about comprehensiveness. I have a few queries purely based on Googling (forgive my ignorance if some of these queries are foolish):
  • [1] (not sure if this is a RS) talks about supposedly 7-8 photographs Ike clicked; the article suggests that he clicked only two. I find the term "Altgens6" missing from the article. [2]

• • [3] covers importance of Ike's photo as evidence in Warren Commission.

Apart from these quibbles, my Googling suggests this article is near comprehensiveness.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:38, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Redtigerxyz, and thanks again.

First, the phrasing of the number of photos is quite intentional; while Ike made seven total in Dealey Plaza (see note a.), there were two of the assassination—one during the shooting, one seconds later. "Altgens6" was in the article, but was removed after a search found no use of the term by anyone in an official capacity. (The term is specific to researchers.)

Second, I don't see anything in your book reference that should be in the article and isn't there already. Can you be more specific?

—ATS 🖖 Talk 19:23, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Redtigerxyz. Is there anything additional I need to do for this article to earn your support? Thanks for your help! —ATS 🖖 talk 21:37, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• Support on comprehensiveness and prose - my queries have already been asked by Redtigerxyz - only other minor thing would be any details on how he was orpahned but presume that those records are lost. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:35, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

As near as I've ever been able to tell, your presumption is correct. Since you bring it up, though, I'll look around again. My thanks. (Edit: source [Trask 1994, p. 307] cites four sources for all data in the instant graf. I cannot find "Lone 'Pro' On Scene Where JFK Was Shot" for reference; it's not in WCH v.7, p. 516; and the other sources are two interviews of Altgens by Trask. Further detail may never be forthcoming, I'm afraid.) (Edit 2: I was able to get additional information, now in the article. There's actually quite a bit of stuff I didn't see two years ago.) —ATS 🖖 Talk 01:40, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Tintor2

The article looks pretty good but I found some issues while checking it:

• The lead uses some references. If the information is too doubtful, keep the refs. If it's minor then delete them.

Hi, Tintor2, and thanks. Refs are here per the GAN, since the lede includes statements (the controversy, in particular) that need immediate back-up. That said, I'll take another look.

• The body also uses to many quotes. I have often been criticized for this in the past so I would recommend you to paraphrase some or simply make some quotes boxes.

The quotes also were reduced during the GAN, but I'll take another look. Certain statements really cannot go without direct quotation.

Other than that, I see no issues. Just solve them or explain me the issues and I'll support the article.Tintor2 (talk) 22:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I'll pop back in after I'm done. Thanks again. —ATS 🖖 talk 22:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Update: that should do it, Tintor2; the remaining quotes should all be vital to the narrative per the GAN. Please let me know if you have additional concerns. My thanks for your input. —ATS 🖖 talk 23:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay, then I'll support it. Good work.Tintor2 (talk) 23:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments Support from John

Formatting

Nice article. We are breaking MOS:ALLCAPS with the news bulletin, I think? --John (talk) 09:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I'll go with that, John, and thank you. Fixed. —ATS 🖖 talk 19:15, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I still don't like the fancy font. What does it add to the reader's understanding? Why are the images displayed at non-standard size? --John (talk) 11:44, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, John. The idea is to highlight that this is a news bulletin, as opposed to "just" a quote. This always struck me as a necessity. As for the images, I'll look into that, thanks. I've kicked them down a notch. The idea is that each includes quite a bit of text, so some balance was desired.

The material does not even need to be in bold. Putting it in a quotation template is emphasis enough. --John (talk) 20:53, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Since this appears to be your make-or-break, done. Under protest. —ATS 🖖 talk 22:01, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Prose

• "In addition"?

Gone. In fact, rewritten to rm unneeded quote, too.

• Why "made" a photograph rather than "took"? --John (talk) 13:52, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Professionals make photographs. This was discussed in GAN and comments were added. Dunno when they disappeared, but they're back now.

—ATS 🖖 talk 20:19, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

• "Altgens began his career at age 19 " - what is the "age" adding? Just "at 19" or "aged 19" is better.

Gone altogether; the years are enough.

• There are three "though"s in the first two paragraphs. None of them are needed.

None of them remains.

• "He asked instead to go to the railroad overcrossing where Elm, Main and Commerce Streets converge to photograph the motorcade that would take President Kennedy from Love Field to the Dallas Trade Mart, where Kennedy was to deliver an address" is a tortured sentence. At least give it another comma after "converge".

Fixed.

• Fifteen instances of "would" are far too many in a short article. It looks clumsy. American English is more in love with this construction than British English but even in a US context this is too many, and we write for an international audience.

Seven removed; the remainder are direct quotes or necessary.

• We have 22 quotes, including one which is emphasised twice by having it in a quote box and in bold type. This is way too many; see WP:OVERQUOTE. Most of these can be summarised and, as mentioned, the formatting needs to be fixed. --John (talk) 20:53, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I'll go through it again, but many of these quotes were required to pass GAN, specifically to avoid potential OR/SYNTH or UNDUE issues. (Edit: That should do it, John. ) —ATS 🖖 talk 22:16, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Overlinking

Hey, John? I don't remember where I read it, but it was my understanding that every instance of a WLed page within the sources was supposed to be linked. Did I get that wrong? —ATS 🖖 talk 20:53, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

It's at MOS:DUPLINK. --John (talk) 21:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. Are your concerns addressed? —ATS 🖖 talk 00:54, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Without yet having done my detailed reading, I am still somewhat unhappy with image formatting WP:IMGSIZE, the fancy font, and make versus take, in spite of your reasons given for all three. I also note the wise words of Tony below. I am certainly not ready to support yet. --John (talk) 20:24, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, John.

I've re-read IMGSIZE about five times now, and I feel like a complete idiot. I cannot imagine why this would be a sticking point. Nevertheless, the IB image is the default and the rest are upright=1.

The "fancy font" is gone.

"Make" was Ike's preference on top of its correct use. If it's your support-killer, I'll change it, but under severe protest . —ATS 🖖 talk 20:40, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Perhaps we could compromise on the verb choice. I see eight "made"s and two "make"s (one of which is in a quote). I think using this word at all is contentious, though I follow your reasoning for why you have done it. I think ten instances is too many. Perhaps there is a middle path possible here? --John (talk) 21:37, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. I'll take a look. Done. —ATS 🖖 talk 21:38, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, John. Is there anything additional I need to do for this article to earn your support? Thanks for your help! —ATS 🖖 talk 21:37, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

We're down to 16 quotations now which is better but it is still too many for such a short article. Which are the most important ones, do you think? Are things like "they had put him through the interrogation wringer" really essential to the article? (Oh, and we can't put wikilinks into quotes I don't think). --John (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, John. I agree with the interrogation quote; it's now rephrased. I've rephrased a second quote and moved it into the accompanying note. Location hasn't edited in four months but, were he here, I believe he would argue strongly for the remainder, specific to the UNDUE and/or OR issues raised in GAN. (In some cases, the quotes are mandatory in that unsupported inferences could be made from any paraphrasing thereof.) —ATS 🖖 talk 23:37, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you said. What does "In some cases, the quotes are mandatory in that unsupported inferences could be made from any paraphrasing thereof" mean? --John (talk) 20:59, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, John. I meant were mandatory in respect to passing GAN, and should be here. Some of the quotes—from Ike, from news agencies, from witnesses, etc.—would be open to interpretation were they paraphrased. The assassination remains a highly contested subject among many people all these years later; anything that could lead to SYNTH issues cannot, by policy, not be quoted. Anything specific? —ATS 🖖 talk 23:54, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Down to 14 now. All but the most important one or two should be summarised. The full quote can be moved to the references if it is essential to keep them in the article. Incidentally, I feel like querying "anything that could lead to SYNTH issues cannot, by policy, not be quoted": what policy would that be? On my side of the argument we have the fact that our project is to build a free encyclopedia, and having about 10% of the article made up of other people's words will work against that. --John (talk) 11:34, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

The policy is OR. Meantime, I'll see what I can do. —ATS 🖖 talk 19:23, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay, John, we're down to the seven quotes I believe cannot go. (This number does not include the news bulletin or Jackie Kennedy's quote therein.) —ATS 🖖 talk 20:42, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

It's definitely getting there. --John (talk) 23:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

<impassioned plea>John, your help is invaluable. I want this article to be the best it can be. Antiseptic and dehumanized is not the best it can be. We have here a man who, by all accounts, was thrust into a role in history unlike anyone else's. We cannot bleach the human from his own article any more than we can leave details open to interpretation. If we do, we've lost what Wikipedia is supposed to be. —ATS 🖖 talk 00:30, 3 November 2016 (UTC)</impassioned plea>

One by one:

• "but when JFK's head exploded ..." – Ike was the only man on the planet who could describe what he saw, what he did, and what he didn't do, during one of the most pivotal moments in world history.
• "Secret Service men, ..." – this one could go and is now in the note.
• "probably the most controversial photograph ..." — serves two purposes: it gives the reader the proper historical perspective that would otherwise be missing, and it shows that the controversy was not limited to "the fringe".
• "because it caused him to bolt ..." – only Ike could, in his own words, explain his perspective.
• "became very controversial" – this one could go and is now in the note.
• "no blood on the right-hand side ..." – only Ike could, in his own words, explain his perspective.
• "By being up there ..." – only Ike could, in his own words, explain his perspective.

So, we're down to five. I will argue with all possible strength that they remain. —ATS 🖖 talk 01:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

• • User:ATS, I appreciate your passion and energy. I intend to support but I want to take one more pass at the article before I do so. I'm a notoriously picky FA reviewer but I hope you will agree a thorough one. Thank you for indulging my suggestions as well as you have and engaging so intelligently in this review. I predict my part in this will be resolved in the next 48 hours or less. I hope that is ok with your timescales. --John (talk) 17:27, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

My thanks and appreciation, John—this article would not be the best it can be without your help and that of other reviewers. I would only reiterate that to bleach the man from his own article steps away from that goal, both for this article and the encyclopedia as a whole. —ATS 🖖 talk 19:13, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry that was such a long 48 hours, ATS. I had real life things to do. Here are my copyedits, and I hope you don't think I've altered the meaning of your article. I can now support. Thanks for all the hard work. --John (talk) 19:43, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks so much, John! There are some minor things that I will fix presently. —ATS 🖖 talk 19:50, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome, but I am disappointed you undid most of my copyedits. What does "atop" mean that "on" does not? What is an "overcrossing" other than a bridge? --John (talk) 21:07, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, John, and apologies for any disappointment.

• "Atop" is for clarity specific to Mrs. Kennedy's appearance in Altgens' photo; in the corresponding Zapruder and Nix film frames it is clear that she is partially on and partially in.
• I kept "overcrossing" since we've painted a somewhat limited picture of Dealey Plaza for the reader and "Bridge? What bridge?" occurred to me as a potential reaction. "Railroad bridge" would work, but seemed unnecessary.
• "Event" seemed to me to underplay the assassination.
• Without "thoroughly", simply being interrogated doesn't adequately express what Altgens saw ("put through the interrogation wringer".)
• "Discussed" minimizes the debate, so "debated" now supplants "argued".
• "from his position ..." adds clarity. Yours used fewer words, but something got lost. I'll see if I can do better. Fixed.
• "newsmen and women ..." I'd intentionally used "members of the press" because there were editors and photographers in addition to journalists. Sort-of self-reverted [changed "featuring" to the more accurate "including"].

If you have other preferences, please, go right ahead. —ATS 🖖 talk 21:20, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

"Atop" is the wrong word. It means "on top of". She isn't on top of the car, she is half-in, half scrambling onto the trunk. "Atop" isn't right. --John (talk) 22:42, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I'll come up with something. (Edit: this was always one of my biggest headaches—a frozen moment of time in a whirlwind of activity, and we can describe only what's in the photo. We know only by the films that her lower legs are holding her in place. We know only by the films that she was reaching for something and at this point is using her hand as an anchor. We know only by the films that she was facing rearward, but her head has turned forward. Not in, not out, not on, not "facing". Where's my bloody Advil?! ) Are my other changes agreeable? —ATS 🖖 talk 22:49, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Altgens1970s.jpg: Image of the subject is good for top infobox, license in OTRS which I don't have access to.
• File:Altgens1.jpg: Non-free file in a pertinent section, it needs more explanation on how the article would be harmed by its absence, and most of the explanation of how WP:NFCC#3 is met seems irrelevant to #3 and more pertinent to #8. Everything else seems OK.
• File:Altgens2.jpg: Same as above.
• File:Altgens blowup.jpg: Same as above, if that is the image that was used to identify Lee Harvey Oswald then the NFCC#8 claim would have sound merit.

Images ought to have ALT text per WP:ALTTEXT to satisfy WP:ACCESSIBILITY. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Everything should be addressed, Jo-Jo Eumerus. My thanks! —ATS 🖖 talk 19:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Um, actually, the file pages need to better address why these images are needed in the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I fixed that, Jo-Jo Eumerus. Can you be more specific? (Edit: I've made additional changes.) —ATS 🖖 talk 20:28, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

It's a problem not with the article but with the images. Each image has a filepage and when the image is non-free the file page needs to contain text that explains "how does this image significantly improve the understanding of the article topic and why would it be a loss to readers if it wasn't there?" Illustrative of Ike Altgens fulfilling his duties as photojournalist assigned to Dealey Plaza in Dallas, Texas, on November 22, 1963 is very basic and probably not enough. As for File:Altgens blowup.jpg, the explanation should probably be under the NFCC#8 header rather than the NFCC#3 one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:36, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay, fixed the blowup. As for the rest, it's 04:17 hours here and I'm going to bed. Back sometime later. —ATS 🖖 talk 11:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus: all fixed. I hope. —ATS 🖖 talk 20:42, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

All seems fine, but File:Altgens1.jpg seems to be unsupported by the rationale. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:51, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Fixed. Again, my thanks. —ATS 🖖 talk 01:02, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Again with not being clear. Why can we not discuss "the man thought to resemble Lee Harvey Oswald" without [[:]]? I don't see it. If there is an explanation, it needs to be stated on the file page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I have to admit, Jo-Jo Eumerus, you have me completely flummoxed. The file page now reads, "(purpose of use:) Illustration of the controversy surrounding this image and discussed within the article. Specifically, proper discussion of "the man thought to resemble Lee Harvey Oswald" would be difficult if not impossible without visual depiction of the location of the subject relative to the motorcade." Please alleviate my headache and actually tell me what's missing. Please? —ATS 🖖 talk 19:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

The problem I see with that image is that it seems very generic. The other two images are pertinent to his role in the event; this one seems just like a generic image of the motorcad. I don't think it meets WP:NFCC#8 and its omission would be detrimental to that [the article topic's] understanding. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:41, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

This image, and only this image, was scrutinized for the visage and position of "the man in the doorway" respective to the motorcade as the first gunshot (per Altgens) is fired. (Edit: I've tried to word it better, based on my explanation here.) —ATS 🖖 talk 19:58, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

That makes it clearer. Only thing that might be worth doing would be to add the explanation to the fair use rationale on the file page, in the section on NFCC#8 so as to ward off pedants - the non-free use policy is not known for being softhanded. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:16, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Don't I know it! (I took part—a little—when it started.) Once again, my thanks! —ATS 🖖 talk 21:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Sarastro

Comments from Sarastro: This looks good, and I've just a few little nitpicks and queries here. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

• "then did advertising work until he retired altogether": "Did" seems a little weak here; would "worked in advertising" be better?

Hi, Sarastro1, and thank you! I'll take a look. Done.

• "when they died in 1995, at about the same time": I can see why this has been written, based on what is in the main body, but it is a little confusing when read in the lead in isolation. Maybe reword it as "when they were found dead in their Dallas home on 12 December 1995". Although that makes it sound more mysterious than it was.

I'll see if I can improve it. Done.

• "Altgens began his career at age 19 by doing odd jobs": This may be an ENGVAR thing, but "at age 19" sounds odd to me, and I'd prefer "aged 19" but it's not a big deal if it is engvar. I think the sentence would be better with "by" removed.

Honestly, "began his career aged 19" sounds like he worked with cheese or wine. Flows better as is, IMO.

• The section on his appearance in "Beyond the Time Barrier" seems to be cited simply to the film itself. This strikes me as possibly OR; how do we know that this is really him? (I don't doubt for a minute that it is, but there is a principle!) We really need to cite a source that lists his film work. It is possible this is done in Trask, in which case I think the references need re-ordering a little.

It is in Trask; that said, I'll have a look. Done.

• "Since that was not originally his assignment, Altgens took his personal camera, a 35mm Nikkorex-F single lens reflex camera with a 105mm telephoto lens, rather than the motor-driven camera usually used for news events": I don't quite see how these events connect. If this wasn't his original assignment, what was? And if it wasn't his original assignment, why did that affect his choice of camera? Maybe I'm missing something. It has been known!

It's all there; I'll check the phrasing. Done.

• I'm not quite sure about the use of bold type for the news bulletin. It probably breaks MoS somewhere, but I can't place it right now.

Please let me know if you find anything. (Edit: all I've found is that italics rather than boldface are recommended for emphasis of words within quotes. Since this is specifically a news bulletin and not a quote, MHO is the boldface is appropriate.)

• I'd also feel a little happier if the captions for the photographs had a reference to go with them, as they state things that aren't referenced in the main article. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

What things? Can you specify? Done. —ATS 🖖 talk 23:55, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Sarastro. Is there anything additional I need to do for this article to earn your support? Thanks for your help! —ATS 🖖 talk 21:37, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Support: I'm happy to support now, especially as there have been a few more eyes on it. There are four further points below which do not affect my support in any way. A curious little story, and nicely told. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:29, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

• It is a little disconcerting in the "Pictures of the Pain" section to have events of 1984 followed by events of 1979.
• The Later Life section seems slightly pointless, to be brutal. Do we need three sections, one for each of the books/events he played a minor part in? It feels like padding, but it is probably a matter of taste so feel free to ignore this one.
• Given that he died in 1995, have the police reached any conclusions about the carbon monoxide yet? If, as I suspect, there is nothing that tells us an official cause of death, maybe re-write this so it feels less like we are waiting for a police verdict. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:29, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
• "One such theorist, Texas author Jim Marrs,[52] wrote that most researchers were ready to accept Lovelady as the man pictured; he added in 2013 that others were resisting any such concession": The part of the sentence after the semi-colon does not seem quite right. Do we need the date? Is it important? As written, it implies that he changed his mind. And "concession" is an odd word to use here; what are they conceding? I'm sure there is a good reason for the sentence being written this way, but as it is, I can't quite see it. Possibly the other readers also might not. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:32, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

My thanks and appreciation, Sarastro1! I'll take a look at your additional points and make any improvements. (Edit: done.) —ATS 🖖 talk 23:46, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

One other point: I notice in the last few edits, we have changed the heading style and use ; to bold. I'm pretty sure this breaks some sort of accessibility guidelines and if I remember rightly, makes a horrible mess of the article for screen-readers. (I'm fuzzy on the details but remember it is a big no-no!) I would recommend returning these to ordinary headings. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:09, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Much obliged. I went with standard bold type. —ATS 🖖 talk 00:55, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Tony1

Hi, you asked me to come review.

• Why the massive overlinking? I've run Ohconfucius's scripts over it, but it may still need checking for common-term overlinking.

Hi, Tony1, and thank you! Actually, a large portion of your edit confuses me: why would we remove the direct link to the pages in the footnotes (maryfarrell.org)? This assists the reader in doing his/own checking of the facts.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the links still lead down to the correct reference below, don't they? Tony (talk) 03:50, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

The links I restored were all external, to the individual pages as archived at MaryFerrell.org. —ATS 🖖 talk

• "Altgens began his career with the AP as a teenager and, following a stint with the United States Coast Guard, worked his way into a senior position with the AP Dallas bureau." Commas can be a matter of taste, but don't you think this would be easier to read? "Altgens began his career with the AP as a teenager, and following a stint with the United States Coast Guard worked his way into a senior position with the AP Dallas bureau." Or even: "Altgens began his career with the AP as a teenager, and worked his way into a senior position with the AP Dallas bureau after a stint [an intervening stint?] with the United States Coast Guard.". Not sure, but over to you.

I'll take a look.

• Is it commonly the Associated Press, and the AP? I'm used to no the.

It is, and officially.

• Does one "make" photographs? Perhaps "take" or "produce" might be more usual.

See my comment to John above and the comment following its use in the article. (TL;DR: pros make photographs. )

I still think it's weird. Tony (talk) 03:50, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

You're not the only one, it seems ... (Edit: that said, I've reworded the passage in the lead, simultaneously stressing active voice.) —ATS 🖖 talk

• "While on assignment for the AP, Altgens made two historic photographs on November 22, 1963,[a] including the image of First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy and Secret Service agent Clint Hill on the presidential limousine that would be reproduced on the front pages of newspapers around the world." Problem is with the postqualifier: "the presidential limousine that would be reproduced on the front pages of newspapers around the world". Perhaps: "While on assignment for AP, Altgens made two historic photographs on November 22, 1963,[a] including an image of first lady Jacqueline Kennedy and secret service agent Clint Hill on the presidential limousine, which was reproduced on the front pages of newspapers around the world." Or if this emphasis takes your fancy: "While on assignment for AP, Altgens made two historic photographs on November 22, 1963,[a] including an image of first lady Jacqueline Kennedy and secret service agent Clint Hill on the presidential limousine—an image that was reproduced on the front pages of newspapers around the world." I've downcased the vanity caps, added comma+which to create a bigger boundary, and changed the "would be" slightly journalistic future-in-past tense into simple past, since the sequence is clear in this context.
• I found the next sentence hard to understand—specifically the "doorway" bit, which hits readers without context: "Seconds earlier, Altgens made a photograph that became controversial, leading people in the United States and elsewhere to question whether accused assassin Lee Harvey Oswald was visible in the doorway of the Texas School Book Depository as the gunshots were fired at JFK.[b]". Here, the tense is wrong, and why not mark it with a thematic equative? "However, it was the image he had captured just a few seconds earlier that ...". And I'm guessing you wanted to contrast its greater significance (of a different type) compared with the world-distributed one taken a few seconds later. Needs deft wording.

This was one passage in particular that led to great consternation during the GAN; it was Location's assertion that the photo that came to be known as Altgens 7 had to be first in the lead due to its world renown, and because the controversy around Altgens 6 was contained mostly to researchers arguing whether there was a conspiracy. I did not fully agree with the fringe argument, given the massive market for publications on the subject, but the assertion of undue weight nevertheless struck me as valid. That said, I've made some changes that I hope will help the reader while maintaining due weight. (added at 01:38, 25 October 2016 (UTC))

I suppose it's a little better than it was. Tony (talk) 03:50, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

• "Altgens and his wife were in their seventies when they were found dead in their Dallas home in 1995." We finish with a shock. First, why is the fact they were in their 70s (numerals preferred) the grammatical "news" here? The year is enough, isn't it? Second, such a shock statement in the summary lead isn't good unless there's a little more explanation. Leads of WP articles shouldn't be teasers like that.

I'll have a look at all the above. Back when finished. —ATS 🖖 talk 19:45, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I haven't looked further, but the lead isn't promising for the prospects of FA promotion. Tony (talk) 10:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Done for the moment. —ATS 🖖 talk 20:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Does that mean you've finished addressing (or refuting) all points? Tony (talk) 03:50, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Tony. I hoped I had addressed what needed to be, to that point, absent anything that leaves you believing otherwise. You also noted that you hadn't gone past the lead yet, so it also served as an I look forward to addressing any other concerns. —ATS 🖖 talk 04:28, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Tony. Is there anything additional I need to do for this article to earn your support? Thanks for your help! —ATS 🖖 talk 20:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

For example, your fix at the end of the lead: "Both had suffered from long illnesses; police said a bad furnace also may have contributed." Contributed to their long illnesses? Or their deaths? Through fire, or gas leakage over time?

I've flicked through the rest, which doesn't look as though it needs the major surgery that was necessary on the lead. This nomination may well succeed, but it was premature in terms of the quality of writing. Tony (talk) 01:24, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Tony; I've just completed a prose pass. Apparently, after all these years, I still write like a journalist ... —ATS 🖖 talk 06:26, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Tentative support on prose—I've only flicked through the main text (having gone through the most difficult part, the lead, thoroughly). Tony (talk) 12:35, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Wehwalt

Just a placeholder at present as I am having Internet issues. I do however object to the use of any quote from Jim Marrs especially with something presented as a fact like it is in this article. I disagree with his opinions both on the assassination and on aliens and more to the point most scholars seem to as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:48, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

For clarification: any direct quote, or to his presence at all? —ATS 🖖 talk 23:09, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

What I object to is his being given the editorial voice and if he is to be quoted at all there should be in line attribution of who he is. his opinion regarding the photograph is presented basically as the truth. However he is a partisan on the issue and his opinion must be taken with a rather large quantity of salt which the reader is not given. I would delete the quotation. If you want to quote him elsewhere in the article in proper context I have no objection.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:12, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Wehwalt! I have already paraphrased; please let me know if what remains is agreeable. I have also added an identifying news source. —ATS 🖖 talk 04:20, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I will look it over. Here are my other comments, as my laptop is suddenly able to connect to my hotel's wifi:

• “on the presidential limousine” I might say “atop” rather than “on”, for clarity. I might add “moments after President Kennedy was shot”

Done.

• “(b. 1921)” this suggests that she still lives, which may not be so (and if so may not be changed when she dies, as she is not notable and editors may miss the death). Better to put in text.

Fixed.

• Is the Coast Guard technically a military organization?

The USCG is, yes. Still, I've rewritten to a more active voice.

• Can anything be said about Altgen’s life in 1947-1957?

I've done new searches within the past few days; nothing yet, if ever.

• Was his appearance as a witness really part of his acting career or was it a cameo playing off the public attention?

We can't say either way (SYNTH).

• You might mention that the Merc is in Dallas as you have taken a trip to Bonham.

Done.

• You mention twice in the first paragraph of “Assassination”that Altgens was scheduled to work at the office. You might start the sentence with “As”.

Fixed.

• ”His photographs of the motorcade began” I’m not sure the passive voice works well here. Consider “Altgens began to photograph the motorcade”. Obviously not “shoot”!

Fixed.

• I might put the clause in which you mention the Zapruder film in parens.

Meh. Okay.

• You haven’t actually said in the body who this “Oswald” is, and you appear to be linking both in lede and body so you should do that too.

Done.

• I might merge the first two subsections of the Assassination section. It strikes me that is a very inopportune time to break as the second section picks up without a pause in the middle of a very dramatic event. And I’m not sure “Witness to history” is the best title. After all, the point was he was not simply a witness, he captured it for the rest of us.

Done.

• ”his testimony before the Warren Commission was taken” the passive voice again seems to fuzz a bit here. Did he appear before the commissioners? Or was it taken by some other means?

Done.

• The testimony of the depository employees doesn’t really involve Altgen himself, and the reader knows the Warren Commission concluded Oswald did it. I think this could be condensed and maybe appended to the previous paragraph. The blow-by-blow could be put in a footnote, if you like.

Rewritten.

• I might add to the end of the Recollections section “”as they had not been served with the subpoenas in Louisiana”.

That's completely peripheral, IMO.

In general it looks solid.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Wehwalt! Please let me know if I need to address anything to earn this article your support. —ATS 🖖 talk 00:07, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Looks OK, but I want to go through the article again.--10:41, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Support. A well written account of someone perhaps unfairly only known for one thing. Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:17, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Sagaciousphil

This is an interesting article about someone I'd never heard of previously. SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Lead

• I feel overall this could stand a little expansion, especially the final sentence: "Altgens and his wife died in their Dallas home in 1995 after long illnesses." That sentence had me immediately looking around the article to find further details to try and clarify what happened.

Hi, SagaciousPhil, and thanks! I've expanded the graf.

Early life and career

• 3rd paragraph: the word portrayed is used twice in pretty close proximity; can at least one be changed?

Done.

• 4th paragraph: This just seems to cover one day? Were there no other significant highlights in his early photographic career?

That's pretty much it.

Photojournalist

• I'm sorry but I'm also going to join the other reviewers and question the use of "making" versus "taking" photographs. I have read the explanations given here and in the GAN etc but still find it very jarring although I do appreciate Altgens used it himself in the quote. Could the last sentence of the first paragraph be amended to something like: " ... using a manual, reflex camera required particular care to produce good images."? Likewise would it be possible for an alternative word to be used in the last sentence of the 2nd paragraph?

Done.

• 2nd paragraph: the word across is repeated a couple of times in quick succession?

Fixed.

Pictures of the Pain

• At the end of the paragraph is there a reason that note [o] is in front of the ref while all others are after the ref?

Fixed.

Death

• Are there any further details about the deaths? The three refs used are reports in the days immediately after their deaths; are there any follow ups after inquests, for instance, that clarify the cause of death, perhaps in local newspapers?

I looked recently for additional details; nothing. Meantime, the county issues copies of certificates only to next of kin.

References

• I haven't looked at the reference section in detail as everyone has different ways of referencing articles but I'm confused by what seems to me over linking, especially for MaryFerrell.org, which I see has been mentioned already. I would have expected this to be treated in the same way as the Trask books. It seems to be included under Further reading as well?

Each links directly to a separate page and/or document. Were it the same link, I'd agree with you. —ATS 🖖 talk 19:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, SagaciousPhil. Is there anything additional I need to do for this article to earn your support? Thanks for your help! —ATS 🖖 talk 19:45, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

• There is a cite ref error showing for the first entry under "Multimedia"
• As far as I'm aware semi-colons should not be used to create bold subheadings as it causes accessibility problems so please correct these. SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Both fixed. Thank you, SagaciousPhil. —ATS 🖖 talk 19:16, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

The relevant MOS § is PSEUDOHEAD, by the way. Meantime, it's funny how GOODHEAD and BADHEAD lead to the same place. Having once been married, I can relate ... —ATS 🖖 talk 03:51, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Coord note -- ATS, I think this would be your first FA if promoted? If so I'd like to see a reviewer undertake a spotcheck of sources for accurate usage and avoidance of close paraphrasing. This can be requested at the top of WT:FAC, unless one of the reviewers above would like to have a go. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:08, 19 November 2016 (UTC)