Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/David Kelly (weapons expert)/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 promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 15 January 2023 [1].

David Kelly (weapons expert)

[edit]
Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 14:04, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dr David Kelly was one of the leading weapon's inspectors in the world. His work uncovered a covert and illegal BW programme in Russia, and he spent much time in Iraq with the UN, examining Saddam Hussain's facilities where he uncovered an anthrax production programme at the Salman Pak facility, and a biological weapons programme at Al Hakum. He was a decent, honest man who did a difficult job in trying circumstances. He was caught up in a political whirlwind that led to his suicide on a hillside near his home.
This article went through a re-write a couple of years ago and has matured nicely since then, with some additional polishing from a good PR. Any constructive comments are welcome. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:04, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per my detailed comments at the peer review.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:24, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Wehwalt for your comments there. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:27, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Graham Beards

I need to read the article again but in the meantime, and with my microbiologist's hat on, can I ask how sure we are that the anthrax that was used in the tests on Gruinard Island was "weaponised"? As far as I can recall, the bacteria (anthrax spores) were added to bait for cattle (or perhaps sheep) and not spread by bombs or gadgets that would cause airborne spread. Does the source elaborate? Graham Beards (talk) 16:09, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Graham, Thanks for question: the source itself doesn't (it just states that "Britain had conducted tests with weaponized anthrax during World War II"), but I'll have a look round and if there isn't anything else that justifies "weaponised", I'll take it out. I suspect language usage may have changed to mean "using something as a weapon", rather than "anthrax dispersed by a weapon", but my knowledge on the terminology of such work is paper thin! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:19, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This work talks about the "extensive testing of anthrax bombs", which seems to fit the bill. The source looks to be a reliable and specialist one. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:46, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with that. Thanks for taking the time to look into it. Graham Beards (talk) 18:28, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is a direct quotation but "anthrax VX" is not one agent but two: the spores (presumably) of Bacillus anthracis and the nerve agent VX. I can't find "anthrax VX" anywhere except in the Guardian article, a paper known for its type-setting errors. Is anthrax VX a known (potential) combined weapon or are we in danger of perpetuating an error? Graham Beards (talk) 19:02, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Graham, This is something someone pointed out at PR too. We are deep within my area of ignorance here, particularly for a direct quote (even one from the Observer - I've checked the hardcopy version too, and that has it the same as here). When it was raised at PR, I went looking and found page 13 of this, which refers to "Anthrax Vx and Tx", while page 16 of this refers to "Anthrax Vx & Rx" and this has "Anthrax vx"; these are pretty much the only references I saw, although it wasn't an in-depth search and didn't cover specialist material. I am not suitably versed in the nomenclature to make a judgement on this. If you're happy that the two sources here are not talking about the same thing Kelly was, we can always frame the quote as "anthrax [and] VX", if you think that was the original intent. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:27, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is a problem with "8,500 litres of" because Bacillus anthracis spores don't really come in litres, only cultures containing them do and we don't know how many spores per litre (i.e. the concentration). How about a simple [sic] rather than [and]? Because that for me would be an acknowledgement of the confusion caused by the statement? Either way, no deal breaker and having now read your contribution a couple of times, I am more than happy to add my Support to the growing list. It's great to see you back at FAC. Graham Beards (talk) 12:43, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Graham. I've added the sic to the quote, which should suffice. HAL333, you had a comment on this in the PR: are you happy with this change? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:07, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. ~ HAL333 17:18, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from HAL

[edit]

Support from Tim riley

[edit]

Coming later to the peer review than the other reviewers I found there was no remaining scope for carping or quibbling by the time I looked in. The article looked to me then to be of FA standard in all respects and still does. Happy to add my support to those above. A sad and shocking case, sensitively dealt with here. Tim riley talk 17:32, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Suggest scaling up the laboratories diagram and the four-witnesses image
  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:David_Kelly_2000s.jpg: the FUR describes this as a screenshot - from what?
  • File:Stepnagorsk_Corona_Composite.jpg: the tag in use requires that the image come from a NRO "website or publication", but the given source is neither - is there an original source that satisfied that criterion? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:09, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not directly (or directly but not on reliable sources), although there are numerous reliable sources that refer to the Corona programme being run by the NRO. There are also explanations such as this which show a direct link between the two (along with a potted history). I'll keep looking on this one though. - SchroCat (talk) 08:25, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SchroCat, how are we doing with this? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:42, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve added some explanations on the licences (and above) of all except the last one, where there’s only an explanation. Nikkimaria, there isn’t much more I can add than the explanation. Is there any way to keep this? If not, I can always take it out. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:38, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any source that the image was officially published/released by NRO, even if the NRO publication itself is not available? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:52, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Only from non-reliable sources that make reference to it, such as such as this. - SchroCat (talk) 05:36, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria ? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:34, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we've quite met the tag requirements here. Any other reason it'd be free? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:48, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nikkimaria. I think it's almost certainly free, but as we can't prove it, I've taken it out. I'll see if I can find something at a later date. There was nothing from reliable sources that made the definite connection we'd need. Cheers for your thoughts and judgement on this. - SchroCat (talk) 14:03, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from mujinga

[edit]

Thanks for an interesting read, it's fascinating to contrast what I remember from reports of the events at the time to the referenced account here. I have a few nitpicky comments on prose, I'll put them below:

  • "Thomas and Margaret divorced in 1951 and she took her young son and moved in with her parents in Pontypridd" - not wild about the two "and"s, could it be a semi-colon after 1951?
  • "Kelly undertook several visits to Russia between 1991 and 1994 as the co-lead of a team from the UK and US who inspected civilian biotechnology facilities in Russia" - if it's a team as the subject then should it be which instead of "who"?
  • "for the first visit in January 1991, the team visited the Institute of Engineering Immunology, Lyubuchany; the State Research Centre for Applied Microbiology in Obolensk; the Vector State Research Center of Virology and Biotechnology in Koltsovo; and the Institute of Ultrapure Preparations, in Leningrad (now Saint Petersburg)" - for consistency, I'd rather have "in Lyubuchany"
  • "As part of the British government's arguments for war on Saddam, Tony Blair, the British Prime Minister, published a dossier on Iraqi WMD on 24 September 2002." - did Blair publish it or the JIC?
  • "Kelly was often approached by the press and would either clear the discussion with the press office of the FCO, or used his judgement before doing so" - "use his judgement" reads better to me?
  • starting at "He continued that "The long-term threat," - bundle the three subsequent short paragraphs into one?
  • "Soon afterwards the MoD phoned Kelly and advised him to find somewhere else to stay the night as the media would likely arrive at their house" - "his house"? Actually maybe change to "to find somewhere else to stay the night" since house is also in next sentence and we have already heard about the media
  • "As her father had not returned, Rachel walked a route along a footpath her father was known to use regularly to try and find him; she returned to the house at around 6:30 pm, then drove round to see if she could find him" - two "find him"s, suggest changing one
  • "* his biographer, the former MP Norman Baker" - there's a duplink here, possibly a useful one. Also do you need to say "former MP"?
  • as a last point, in the gilligan quote " Not in original draft -- dull" the dash would be "in original draft – dull" under wikipedia style Mujinga (talk) 15:36, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Mujinga - much appreciated. I have either changed all per your suggestion, or reworked a little to get round the issue (see here for all the changes). Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great work on the article. Happy to support now Mujinga (talk) 17:15, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Mujinga - that's very kind of you. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Glad to see you back at FAC.

  • Suggest replacing the US state abbreviations with full names of the states, since some non-US readers may not know them.
  • There are some inconsistencies in the way you're formatting BBC news sources, unless you're following a rule that I haven't spotted. For example, "Kelly coroner names hearing date" has a title and publisher, "BBC", but no website is given. Most are formatted like this, but "Day four: Key points" and "Dr. David Kelly: Controversial death examined" uses the work parameter instead of the publisher, and has "BBC News" instead of "BBC". All the other news sources use "work" instead of publisher so changing the two odd ones out would be consistent.
  • "The Biological Weapons - UNODA" link does not work and there's no archive link.
  • For "Dexter Dalwood and the Tate Collection" you have "Tate St. Ives" as the publisher, but that's just one part of the website. Judging from this page, I would say "Tate" is the publisher.
  • I'm not clear when you're using the publisher parameter and when you're using website for the list under "Websites". For example, the Tate source has publisher but no website; the George Bush source has the website but no publisher.
  • Why is there an NY Time link under the websites? You put other newspapers in the news section.

More to come, probably tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:24, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Mike. I think I've caught all of these in this edit. This should have covered everything, but if I've missed anything, just let me know. If you have any more comments or queries, I'd be delighted to hear them. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:41, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above all look fine now. A couple more minor points:

  • Dodd (2004) is a chapter in Rogers (2004) as are several other book sources; Rogers is cited directly, presumably to an introduction? I would treat it the same way as Dodd -- give a chapter name and use the editor parameter so it shows as "Rogers, Simon (2004). "Chapter name". In Rogers, Simon (ed.) ...".
  • The link for Ruth Scurr's article in The Spectator doesn't work.

Those are the only issues. Sources are all reliable for what they are used for and the other links all work (I wasn't able to check the Guardian links as there's a problem with my access, so I'll take those on faith). -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:30, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. Last two issues fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:04, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harry

[edit]
  • I'm not sure if we have a WP-specific guideline but most suicide reporting guidelines recommend downplaying the method; I was surprised to see the lead was so specific about it.
  • The Institute of Virology was subsequently renamed the Natural Environment Research Council "subsequently" implies it was a result of Kelly's tenure; I'm guessing you mean "later".
  • although he abhorred Saddam's regime perhaps "government" instead of "regime" for the appearance of neutrality?
  • whose mission was similar to that of UNSCOM, and was to continue with UNSCOM's mission two uses of "UNSCOM" and "mission" in very close proximity
  • Can we shorten the bit about GWB's speech a bit? It's valuable background but it's quite a long way detached from Kelly.
  • Most of the country was occupied and the Saddam regime was overthrown as above although maybe just "Saddam was overthrown" would suffice here?
  • Kelly was in New York on 29 May 2003, attending the final commissioners meeting apostrophe needed for commissioners?
  • the reports "have to be reported word perfectly" reports have to be reported?
  • issued a statement to refute the story in the statement redundancy
  • The appearance of Kelly before the Foreign Affairs Select Committee why not just "Kelly's appearance"?
  • Footnote o would be better in the prose imo.
  • Can we use the active voice where possible? Eg Volunteer search teams were also used by the police.

That's it from me. A thorough account of a tragic case. My impression is that he was an expert in his field but was naïve when it came to the cut-throat worlds of politics and journalism. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:14, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks HJ Mitchell, All sorted in this series of edits. - Thanks very much for your thoughts - much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:44, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
LGTM. Excellent work. Support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:30, 15 January 2023 (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/David_Kelly_(weapons_expert)/archive1&oldid=1133882562"