Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2011 White House shooting/archive1
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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC) [1].[reply]
On on November 11, 2011, bullets struck the second floor near the first family's formal living room of the White House, but It took four days for the Secret Service to realize it. "The shit really hit the fan" when President Barack Obama returned from his travels five days later, and by October 2014, the services of two directors of the United States Secret Service were no longer required. Please enjoy reading this Social sciences and society good article, which we believe is ready to be a featured article. Please let us know your thoughts. Prhartcom (talk) 05:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Feel free to revert, but I separated the images of Sullivan and Pierson. I don't think they need to be attached and the one of Sullivan is of much poorer quality and should be reduced in size from the previous revision (imo). ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I undid my edit per a request on my talk page by one of the nominators. I don't feel strongly either way, which I expressed here and on my talk page, so I am fine to undo and respect the author's preference. Carry on! ---Another Believer (Talk) 03:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Nikki. Prhartcom (talk) 06:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Sorry. I don't think this is at FA quality, and that's not so much a criticism of the writing as a reflection of the fact that for a topic of this kind, getting it to FA is pretty much impossible due the absence of strong (non-news) sources and the inherent "newsiness" of it all. Also, the prose would need a good do-over:
- "President Obama, his wife Michelle, and their oldest daughter Malia were not home at the time of the shooting, although their younger daughter Sasha"
- Agents who thought the building had been fired upon "were largely ignored" - where is this quote from?
- Why are gang-fight and gun-shop hyphenated?
- "The first lady was said to be furious" - said by whom?
- "during which she was reported to have raised her voice so loudly she could be heard through the closed door" - reported by whom?
- "President Obama was also said to be furious over the flawed response" - said by whom?
- "A former agent stated that the Secret Service needed to change its ways in order to prevent "complacency" and stop future attacks" - is this unnamed further agent a credible critic?
- Pierson "got an earful" from Committee Chairman Darrell Issa - whose quotes are these?
- "a release date of October 24, 2033". Is this definite? Any possibility of parole?
- I think a lot of the above examples are indicative of the journalistic approach to reporting creeping into the Wikipedia article, which is perhaps close to unavoidable in an article of this kind, but isn't consistent with FA standards. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comment. It's the first one so i'll have to wait for more to get a consensus regarding the article not being suitable for FA. In the meantime i've attempted to address the specific concerns raised. Freikorp (talk) 11:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Mkativerata, can you be more specific about how the "newsiness" of this article is problematic and/or in violation of FA criteria? ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It manifests itself in two ways, so far as the FA criteria go. First, the article universally uses contemporaneous news sources or primary sources (FBI). That doesn't amount to the high-quality sourcing required by 1c. Second, the over-reliance on news sources has crept into the prose of the article, examples of which are above. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:31, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm certainly not suggesting that you are wrong, I just didn't know 'contemporaneous news sources' = low quality... Thanks for responding and I look forward to seeing what other reviewers also say. ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- If this incident has been extensively covered by scholarly books or peer-reviewed journals, then yes, newspapers are relatively low quality. (and you should preferentially use the scholarly sources) If that isn't the case, you make do with what you get—newspapers, especially NYT, WaPo etc, as is the case here, are fine.—indopug (talk) 19:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Also the WaPo piece that forms the backbone of this article is a detailed investigative article, written three years after the event. It is much more authoritative than a mere "contemporaneous news source".—indopug (talk) 20:00, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm glad to see you clarify that because I certainly agree with that statement. Prhartcom (talk) 22:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm certainly not suggesting that you are wrong, I just didn't know 'contemporaneous news sources' = low quality... Thanks for responding and I look forward to seeing what other reviewers also say. ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It manifests itself in two ways, so far as the FA criteria go. First, the article universally uses contemporaneous news sources or primary sources (FBI). That doesn't amount to the high-quality sourcing required by 1c. Second, the over-reliance on news sources has crept into the prose of the article, examples of which are above. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:31, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Mkativerata, can you be more specific about how the "newsiness" of this article is problematic and/or in violation of FA criteria? ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comment. It's the first one so i'll have to wait for more to get a consensus regarding the article not being suitable for FA. In the meantime i've attempted to address the specific concerns raised. Freikorp (talk) 11:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comment -- sorry but this review doesn't really seem to be progressing so I'm going to archive it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Does this mean it should be nominated again in the near future or does a lack of review participation mean something in particular? It's been a while, but I've written three FAs and I don't recall any of them stalling out like this. Any feedback/recommendation would be helpful, I'm sure to the two nominators as well. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I've seen them stall. Next time let's not kick off the FAC with a strange comment followed by an apology. Prhartcom (talk) 16:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 11:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.