Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1981 Irish hunger strike

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 promoted 21:28, 30 August 2007.

1981 Irish hunger strike

Self nomination. Article is a good article and gone through peer review. The only peer review recommendation was sortable tables which I don't really think are appropriate due to the contents of the tables, but that's easy enough to fix if others disagree. I have improved the formatting of the tables so they are the same width though. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support this; the article is well-written and adequately referenced. I'd like to see a more sophisticated approach in the analyses in some places, but that's just me. I think it meets the standard. --John 17:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Object:
1. ~~The image Image:Victory To the Prisoners Poster.JPG is used under fair use, but does not appear to be discussed in the article.~~
2. What is the status of freedom of panorama legislation in the relevant areas? Can Image:Hunger Strikers.jpg, Image:St James's support the hunger strikers.jpg, and Image:Hunger Strike.JPG be licensed under a free license? --Carnildo 18:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1. Not an image I added, and I've removed it now.
2. I'll leave that for someone who knows about the situation, as I don't. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the sittueeateoin ;) Ceoil 11:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite possibly. The murals are overused in NI related articles anyway, so I've hunted down some free images of memorials instead. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. --Carnildo 01:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support <-- Feels like a loaded statement somehow, but this is an excellent, pacy, overview. Ceoil 10:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. --Hornet35 14:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm curious about the reason given for Bobby Sands' conviction: "possession of a revolver which had been fired at the police". As far as I can tell, this accurately describes his situation, but does it represents the introduction of a POV here? (I know this is a touchy subject for some, so let me say I have no position on this; I'm just asking.) Wouldn't his offense be simply "Possession of a firearm", as you give it for some others in the table? I assume that the fact the revolver had been fired at the police was relevant in the trial, but what was the actual conviction for? The additional few words imply that he was not shown to have fired it himself; true, as far as I can say, but why mention this extenuating circumstance for Sands and not for the others? Mike Christie (talk) 12:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Good point, I've changed that. The conviction was quite strange, there were four people convicted on the same charge, as they were all in the same car where the revolver was found. While the ballistic evidence of the gun having been used in prior offences may have been a mitigating factor with regards to the sentence, it wasn't part of the charge. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - A well handled piece of coverage of a very controversial issue. I do have two comments though, firstly given that this occured in the context of the Troubles, they should probably be linked somewhere in the lead and secondly phyrric should not be capitalised in the consequences section.--Jackyd101 10:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Done. I've seen Phyrric capitalised or not, there doesn't seem to any standard form for it. As it refers to Pyrrhus of Epirus I'd have thought it would be capitalised, in a similar way to Stalinist, Trotskyite, Thatcherite and so on, but it's a minor thing anyway. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually I've since been informed it should be capitalised, various dictionaries use that form - [1]. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 02:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support A well-written article about an important event, and a remarkably NPOV treatment of a controversial subject. The recent changes to the images have improved it IMO. Scolaire 11:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would consider expanding the lead per WP:LEAD: "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article" and "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic". I think more detail on the second hunger strike is desirable, for instance the important fact that "the prisoners joined one at a time and at staggered intervals" and the consequences of that in terms of public opinion, political fallout etc. The "Consequences" and "Commemoration" sections, including the rise of Sinn Féin, might be made into a short third paragraph. Scolaire 11:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the lead does everything it needs to. It's difficult to explain the strategy involved in the second hunger strike concisely without confusing the reader. The public opinion is adequately demonstrated with the Sands funeral attendance, and the political fallout was the rise of Sinn Féin. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no mention of the cultural legacy of the hunger strike - the most notable ommission being Some Mother's Son, a Helen Mirren film directly inspired by the hunger strike.--Macca7174 _talk 20:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Both that and H3 were in a "See also" section, which was pruned by Ceoil. I've added them back to the Commemorations section, they should be in the article and it seems the most sensible place for them. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.