Talk:Barack Obama assassination plot in Tennessee/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

First off, a question about the name, is it really the best choice? I'm not an expert on terminology, but it seems like it was more of a plot than an actual scare. Perhaps 2008 Tennessee Barack Obama assassination plot?
- Originally, I had it as "plot" instead of "scare". It was changed in this and in 2008 Barack Obama assassination scare in Denver based on some discussion months ago because in both cases, it was questionable how close the actual plot itself was to being formed and coming to fruition. If you feel the title should be changed, I'm not against it; I guess my preference would be to keep it now, just for consistency sake with the other article (which is already GA), but I'm not opposed to a change, especially if it will hold up the GAN process. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 08:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that many of the citations do not use the appropriate cite templates (ie. {{Cite web}})
- Yeah, when I first did this article I wasn't familiar with those templates. Fixed. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 08:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"88 means "Heil Hitler", since H is the eighth letter in the alphabet, and 14 represents the 14-word white supremacist mantra, "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.""
- Needs a citation.
  - Done. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 08:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering if the "Histories of alleged plotters" should go above the "Assessment of threat" section, and maybe even "Investigation and arrests".
- Well, again, I'd argue it should stay as it is for consistency sake with the Denver article. My reasoning in ordering it this way was that the plot itself is the most important thing here, and I thought it should go first and let the history follow. I know it sounds more chronological the other way, but in another sense, it's more chronological the way it is now because they were busted for the plot first, and then their prior histories came out. I dunno. Like I said, I'd rather keep it the way it already is in the Denver article, but if this will hold up the GAN, I'll definitely make the switch. Let me know what you think... --Hunter Kahn (talk) 08:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be an ongoing trial, so I'm wondering if it is stable enough to be passed.
- The trial is still ongoing, yes, but it's going to be a slow and drawn out affair, and it will be very easy for me to make the update when the time comes (I have Google News alerts for both men for when that time comes). Also, even when the trials end, it will really just be a matter of adding a few new sentences to the article, so I think it's stable enough to pass already. And, if you need a precedent, just take a look at the Denver article; two of those three guys are still awaiting sentencing, and that one passed as GA. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 08:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The trial should be mentioned in the lead.
- Done. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 08:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise it looks good. I'll place it on hold for now. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 01:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm almost satisfied. I'm just wondering about the images because it has three fair use images, could it possibly be trimmed to two? File:Paul Schlesselman MySpace photo.jpg seems the most expendable. Perhaps, you could merge it with the image of Daniel Cowart from File:Paul Schlesselman and Daniel Cowart.jpg and then have an image of them with their guns? -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 22:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks fine to me. Promoted. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 13:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]