Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Oklahoma City bombing/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 Karanacs 16:56, 30 June 2009 [1].

Oklahoma City bombing

[edit]
Nominator(s): Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I have been working on this article for several years now, helping it to reach GA in 2007. One of my long-term goals here is to get this article up to featured status (I even brought it up at my RfA!). I have pursued hundreds of sources to expand and reference the article's content, even purchasing books to learn more about the topic. After improving the article by going through a peer review and having several people copyedit it, I believe the article meets the criteria. I look forward to addressing all suggestions for improvement. Happy reviewing! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments -
  • Please spell out abbreviations in the notes. Yes, they are linked, but you don't want your readers to leave your article, they might never return (I noted FEMA, PBS, GAO, CIO, but there may be others)
    I believe I corrected all occurrences (except for CNN, don't believe that needs to be changed). For CIO, it's the name of the magazine, so I added "magazine" after it. Let me know if I should provide a direct link to their webpage since we don't currently have an article on the magazine. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes the following reliable?
    The details of the story were sourced from these sources found in the author's bibliography. The Crime Library articles are "... a collection of more than 1000 nonfiction feature stories and photo galleries relating to crimes, criminals, trials, forensics and criminal profiling by prominent writers." In addition, the website states in their "About" page: "Many Crime Library stories are based on third party sources: books, magazine and newspaper articles and interviews." Let me know if this needs further clarification. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. In this case, we would want to see the actual sources for the page, not just a generic "We used a lot of books, really, we did!" type notice. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you clarify on what you mean by actual sources? I figure the bibliography for the author's article (shown in the first link) indicates the sources he used for his article. As a side note, Crime Library (which the sourced article is part of) was purchased by Court TV (now named Tru TV) in 2000. The Crime Library is used as a source in a 2004 article by the Charlotte Sun-Herald, a 2003 article by the Rocky Mountain Collegian, a 2005 article by the Lancaster New Era, and a 2004 article by Sacramento Observer, among others. Concerning the Tru TV itself, it is referred to in numerous articles as a TV network, as well as when Court TV was renamed. Let me know if this isn't sufficient. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 16:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
those work. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look, I appreciate it. I was glad I didn't have too many issues with the sources, and I'll get to adding those book pages. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As i said prior to this nomination at PR i believe this is a brilliant article and fulfills the FA criteria. Well done. 02blythed (talk) 23:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Arrests section could use an explanation of what originally put Nichols on investigators' radar. As I recall it was an address McVeigh had provided. PSWG1920 (talk) 19:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I mentioned the fake address McVeigh gave when he was initially arrested as well as the FBI pursuing both James and Terry Nichols as a result. Hopefully the link is now clearer. Let me know if you think it needs further expansion. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Everything for which McVeigh himself is the source should if possible be qualified as only being his statement. How do we know that he told the real story? I would say the same for the Fortiers since there have always been questions about their credibility. PSWG1920 (talk) 00:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Each statement is sourced to the book which readers can see. Other sources are used to provide details about the planning. His story was supported by other witnesses at his and Nichols trials. It's possible that some details were fabricated or not mentioned, and that is/can be discussed on the conspiracy theories page. I can add additional sources from the trials detailing some witness/investigations knowledge of the events if necessary. As for the Fortiers, I haven't personally seen (or remember) any credibility claims against their testimonies, but if you know of something, I'd be happy to include it to ensure a fair representation of the information. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say that any source which uncritically accepts as factual McVeigh's overall version of events (specifically that he delivered the bomb alone and that it was just him and Nichols involved in the plot) should be used as little as possible in this article, and qualified where it is. As for the Fortiers, weren't they drug addicts? PSWG1920 (talk) 02:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The majority of the sources available point to the official account of the bombing, and as a result they will list McVeigh and Nichols as the main conspirators. Since no other large amount of evidence was found implicating other conspirators (such as John Doe #2), that's why the article does not state that he drove the truck with someone else. There is discussion throughout the article if other conspirators had been involved, and the conspiracy theories section does delve into the possiblity of other conspirators. Looking at several sources I see that the Fortiers say they used drugs, but didn't see the label "addict" except by Stephen Jones, McVeigh's defense lawyer. Does the drug use need to be mentioned in the article? Or can that be mentioned in their article? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I was just posting this, but got edit-conflicted. Here's an example: The Target selection section seems to be based almost entirely on what McVeigh and to some extent Fortier have claimed. Imo, their word is not nearly enough to treat these details as factual. Details which only make sense if you believe that McVeigh really was calling the shots. PSWG1920 (talk) 03:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies for the ec. I see what you are saying about the sourcing, and regardless of anyone's interpretation of the events, since nobody else was present at these events that could provide a first-hand account, no other sources are available. If there was considerable evidence showing additional conspirators, I'd see no issues in adjusting the article accordingly. Is it possible that McVeigh fabricated (or withheld) all of the details of his planning? Sure, anything is possible for an event like this, but unless there are sources that reliably refute this accepted chronology of events, I don't see why it should be changed. I invite others to comment on this issue for the best approach to citing these details. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments for now, mainly regarding the prose. This is a well structured article, comprehensive, and a compelling read. A lot of hard work has gone into this and it shows. I have a few nit-picks:
  • I'm not sure what an "American militia movement sympathizer" is.
    I added a wikilink for militia movement, hopefully that clarifies. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should "in a radius" be "within a radius"? I'm not sure.
    I don't see anywhere online that clarifies (I see both ways being used), but I changed it to "within". --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think "the pair" sounds a little POV, how about "they"?
    I reworded both occurrences. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here "the largest criminal investigation case in the nation's history" the use of "nations" gives me the impression that the targeted readers are US citizens, how about "American history"?
    I reworded both occurrences. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This phrase "an accomplice to the bombing" doesn't sound idiomatic to me.
    Sorry, could you clarify? Should it be reworded to something else? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    How about "McVeigh's accomplice"? Graham Colm Talk
    Gotcha. Changed as suggested. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this part, "The bombing was planned over several years; as early as August 1994, McVeigh obtained nine Kinestiks from gun dealer Roger E. Moore, igniting the devices with Nichols outside Nichols' home in Herington, Kansas." I think "and ignited" would be better than the participle.
    Reworded as suggested. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instead of "a large number of" how about a simple "many"?
    Reworded as suggested. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are still some facts that require a citation. Here for example, "He regarded the presence of additional law-enforcement agencies, such as the Secret Service or the U.S. Marshals Service, to be a bonus." But there are others too.
    That paragraph came from American Terrorist, I need to go to the library and get an exact page number. I'll try to go over the next few days. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • [Special:Contributions/Nehrams2020|contrib]]) 20:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, would help, we don't want to encourage the conspiracy theorists. Graham Colm Talk
    Went to the library today and added a citation to the statement. I also sourced another statement and clarified a few others. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here, "dissipate some of the concussion from the blast", isn't concussion an injury to the head?
    Yes, but it is can also be used to describe the impact of an explosion. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "impact" might be better.Graham Colm Talk
    Reworded the statement. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here "Doubts have been raised about the pair's involvement in the robbery though, because despite McVeigh having visited Moore's ranch, the robbers were said to be wearing ski masks, making a positive identification impossible." The "though" spoils the quality of the prose—"however" would be better—and their is a fused participle I think in "McVeigh having" (McVeigh's having).
    I reworded the sentence, please take another look. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "anhydrous hydrazine", I think the "anhydrous" is superfluous.
    Removed. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bike racer" - bicycle or motorcycle?
    Nice catch. I changed the first occurrence, do you think it is necessary to change the second occurrence in the same sentence as well since motorcycle has been established? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No need.Graham Colm Talk
  • Here "He declined to take any of the 40,000 pounds (18,000 kg) of ANFO" - he was stealing, he was not offered it presumably. How about "he decided not to steal"?
    Interesting thought. Reworded as suggested. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are "prills"?
    I thought this was common knowledge. Just kidding, I had no idea either. Added a wikilink. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This lacks logical flow, "A piece of Tovex sausage and a blasting cap were used to detonate it out in the desert, to avoid detection." The Tovex and blasting cap presumably had nothing to do with avoiding detection.
    I merged the details with the prior sentence and mentioned the detonation in a new sentence. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sounds odd to me "registered a motel room" - is it a US idiom?
    Reworded to "paid for". --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are problems with the linking. There is a little over-linking such as axel and some terms are linked after there first use. This should be checked throughout the article.
    I removed the axle occurrence. The overlinking could be attributed to the likelihood that readers may visit only the bombing or trial sections (for example) when first viewing the article, and some of these links may be viewed only once. Also due to the length of the article, readers may not want to scroll all the way to the last occurrence to click on the link. I believe that I have ensured that only a few of the double wikilinks occur. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I'm happy with this, but others may not be. Graham Colm Talk
  • "This is very weird "in a backwards j;". How about "in the shape of a backwards J"?
    Reworded as suggested. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Finally with regard to the "stuffed animals" are we describing cuddly toys or the work of taxidermists?
    This has got to be the funniest suggestion I've seen in all of my GA/FA reviews, thanks for that! Instead of adding a wikilink, I added "plush" prior to stuffed animals. Let me know if that is sufficient. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, "plush" does not help me at all, were they dead animals or toys? Graham Colm Talk
    It's referring to the toy stuffed animals. I figure plush would help to clarify. Do you think it should be changed? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    How about a simple "toy animals"? Graham Colm Talk
    I changed it to "plush toys" in the off chance that some of the donated items were not animals. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for a very engaging contribution. I look forward to adding my support. Graham Colm Talk 18:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing the article. A lot of these were very helpful, and definitely helped to improve the prose for clarifying some details. I appreciate you taking the time to look the article over. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are very welcome. Graham Colm Talk 00:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for fair use image concerns as follow:

  • File:OkcW.jpg: not too sure what seeing a faintly visible Ryder truck in the background would serve any significance (not likely people are remembering images from this security video). It might perhaps qualify to illustrate a lack of security, awareness, or vigilance (people nonchalantly strolling about, paying no attention to the truck) but there is no commentary on this.
    I have added details about the security camera recording the truck driving by (as well as it recording Nichols' pickup truck a few days before when the getaway car was dropped off). Along with this commentary in the text, the image serves as the only released image of the truck in the city, and at that, also just five minutes before the bombing. It was at this minute when the first fuse was lit to detonate the bomb. The image also illustrates the size of the truck used, how the driver can not be identified due to the quality of the image, as well as how nearby pedestrians were oblivious as to what was in the truck. I'm not sure what you mean "not likely people are remembering images from this security video". The article is used to educate people who may know little to nothing on the bombing and the image provides the details explained above and in the FUR. With the new commentary in the article, does the FUR need to be expanded further? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify, what I meant is that the screen capture shows no security measures in place and an unawareness or pre-caution (no one taking notice of the truck). I note that the "Building security and construction" had mentioned about tightening security. Was there any reported criticisms about lax security or "taken for granted" attitude towards security? Those could add the significance of the image. Statements of the truck pulling up next to the building can be readily envisaged. Lax security could be illustrated as residents of some countries could find it hard to believe no one in the federal building did not bother with the probable threat. As a non-US resident, reports of the bombing come in the form of the building and aftermath (hence the Pulitzer winning photo). I think none of us over here would associate a security video sceenshot with the event (if the video had been extensively broadcasted throughout US during the coverage of the investigations and trial, I apologize). Jappalang (talk) 03:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I see what you're saying. The image of the truck does not show it parked in front of the Murray building. The apartment building is a few blocks from the Murray building, and as a result the building itself (plus any security/lack of security) can't be seen. If there was an image of the truck parked in front of the federal building, I would have definitely used that instead. The reason that people in the image don't seem to take notice of the vehicle is that it just appears to be a moving truck driving through the city. There was no exterior signs of what was included inside the interior. The image, as I recall, was used in newscasts (or at least documentaries afterwards) and was one of 22 images (I think that's the right number) used from the security camera for the trial. Let me know if you need further clarification. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for explaining and clearing things up. I apologise for my misconceptions but have to still disagree with the rationale presented. As the image is to depict the passing of a vehicle on the road, it seems to be of no significance (normal passing vehicle on the street, and the truck is nothing special—a similar Ryder truck is shown in File:MurrahBuildingDemolitionMay1995.jpg). In my view, the only pertinence is the timestamp. I think the sequence of events, which the picture is supposed to help clarify, would be better represented with a self-constructed map, detailing the movements of the vehicle in question. Jappalang (talk) 14:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the image is not that special, and the truck looks like an ordinary moving truck. Except in this case, it is the only documented image of the truck used in the bombing. Like I said before, I would prefer to have an image of the truck in front of the building or a higher quality image. Unfortunately none are available, and this is the only image to illustrate to readers that a truck was used (again illustrating the size of the vehicle) and the short amount of time that was needed to detonate the bomb. I would say that is the equivalent of File:Story.crash.sequence.jpg used in the September 11 attacks article. Now, obviously it doesn't have the actual recorded explosion like this image, but shows it shortly before the explosion. Looking over the sources, the image (or one of the others) from the security camera shows the truck parked across the street. McVeigh had pulled over to the side of the road to light the first fuse, which was in front of this building. I would like to have a well-drawn out map to better convey the information, and if one is added down the line, this image could possibly be removed. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    How about File:Timothy McVeigh's movements during Oklahoma City bombing.svg? Jappalang (talk) 03:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well where has this been this entire time, this looks great! I replaced the non-free image with this one. Thank you for taking the time to create it. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Mcveighmugshot.jpg: McVeigh is already identified in File:TimothyMcVeighPerryOKApr2195.jpg. Anything else described in this image can be done so clearly with words.
    I removed the image from the article. I was very fortunate to get permission from a Flickr user for the other image, and I probably should have removed this one earlier. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other Images are verifiably in public domain or appropriately licensed, or qualifies for fair use with the rationales provided. Jappalang (talk) 10:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to review the images (as well as prior to FAC), and I'm glad that the majority of the images are free. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I feel the "See also" section is indiscriminate in its links. What similar circumstances or causes did Bath School disaster and 1993 Bishopsgate bombing have with the Oklahoma City bombing? What has structural failure and collapse (List of structural failures and collapses) got to do with the bombed building (which did not collapse)? Generally, if those links in "See also" are of value to the subject, then they could be placed in relevant sections with {{See also}} or {{Further}} (WP:HATNOTE), or worked as links into the article itself. If they are to be retained, at least give a brief explanation of relevance per WP:SEEALSO. Jappalang (talk) 15:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the majority of the links only leaving List of terrorist incidents and Lone wolf (terrorism). The other single events are likely covered in these links (and other links in the article) if the readers want to pursue further information. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • "He declined to steal any of the 40,000 pounds of ANFO he found at the scene," does not sound right... "decline" by definition is "politely refuse". Suggest changing the sentence to "He ignored the 40,000 pounds of ANFO at the scene,".
    This was already changed from a suggestion above. I somehow forgot to change it. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the next sub-section, however, we find that McVeigh and gang loaded "seventeen bags of ANFO". I thought he did not steal ANFO (or thought it was weak)? Jappalang (talk) 14:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    He could have figured the pre-assembled ANFO at the quarry was too weak and that's why he made his own out of the ammonium nitrate and fuel that he collected. The fact that it is only 17 bags appears to be that it was already stolen before the robbery, or was picked up afterwards to make up for some missing ingredients. That's several options (but also my guess), and since I don't want to risk OR, that shouldn't be added. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps a statement or footnote to denote the change of plans? Basically, "However, McVeigh later used ANFO from another source to construct his bomb." or something like that after the first mention. It is a bit jarring to read the events as is: the first mention of ANFO is that he chose not to steal it, then the next mention is that he used ANFO in the bomb. A sort of disclaimer to disassociate the 17 bags with the 40,000 tons would help to avoid confusion. Jappalang (talk) 03:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw the potential confusion, but didn't want to use OR in attempting to explain it. Your suggestion works well in conveying the ANFO's use. I added a sentence after the first occurrence, let me know if it should be reworded. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I did some copyediting and peer review before the article was nominated, and satisfied with the copyedits and changes by others since my review. I don't have any more suggestions to improve the article. --Aude (talk) 02:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Oppose Some of your links are showing up as dead, check here. If you have a second, please review my FAC at Hawaii hotspot which has not had any comments for four days. Thanks. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 22:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I fixed all of the dead links except for one. I hid the link until I can use the Internet Archive to resurrect the link. In addition if you re-check the links again, the article "The British Waco survivors" still is labeled as a dead link, but if you click it, it works fine. For some reason, The Times articles always come up as dead links even when they work fine. I find it strange that all of these links went dead just two days ago when they are all fine before. Let me know if you spot anything else. As for your FAC, I'm not at the FAC reviewer level to oppose/support yet (I'm still at GAN level!) but I may leave some comments later. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - all of those links have stopped working since Ealdgyth checked the refs and links above on June 12. All but one stopped working only two days ago which hardly seems ground for an oppose. Furthermore, the implied quid pro quo (Oppose, please review my FAC, and what then???) seems to me to at least give the impression of impropriety. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just trying to help out, what harm is there in fixing them? --ErgoSum•talk•trib 00:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing the problem links out. I am going to assume good faith on the request for comments on the other FAC, which is what I found objectionable, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter who last checked the links or when, how am I supposed to check the sources when the links are not working? I would be remiss if I didn't check whether the facts are supported by the sources. As far as requesting comments, I'd like to think that most of us here are impartial enough to evaluate an article based on the facts, not based whether or not someone is our friend, or whether they supported our FAC... that may make me naive but it is common practice for editors to request comments from interested parties, at least I'm being transparent about it. Moving on...
  • Images I like the use of descriptive captions, but the first photo in the body needs a different one, it doesn't really describe what we are seeing and I mistakenly assumed it was another photo of the Murrah building.
    I added a note pointing out that the image is of the Waco Siege. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images Is the lead photo the best photo we have of the bombed-out building? If it wasn't so blurry, I'd say it was Featured Picture quality. Of course this whole point of mine is ironic considering " McVeigh believed that the open space around the building would provide better photo opportunities".
    I believe it's the best free image that we have on the bombing. It shows the destruction of the building as well as to the surrounding area. There are other images that show the entire building, but I figure the overhead view image in the body of the text would cover that. A lot of the free images came from federal agencies/rescue workers, who are probably not professional photographers. I'm sure that some news agencies have better quality images, but this is currently the best we have of available free images. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arrests This section is missing a little detail. Perhaps some dates of these events would help, as it is not really clear that it was only two days later when McVeigh was about to be released when police realized who he was. It also does not mention if the business card that was found with the words "TNT" on it was instrumental in the investigation, or if it was initially ignored.
    I added a few dates as well as mentioned that the card was used as evidence in the trial. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't had time to read the whole thing yet, but these are the issues I have so far. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 14:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Arrests - "James was also arrested, but he was released after 32 days for lack of evidence. McVeigh's sister Jennifer was accused of illegally mailing bullets to McVeigh, but she was granted immunity in exchange for testifying against him."
    Added sources. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Children terrorized - "On the Saturday after the bombing, April 22, the Clintons gathered children of employees of federal agencies that had offices in the Murrah Building, and in a live nationwide television and radio broadcast, addressed their concerns."
    Added sources and reworded sentence. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These two statements are the ends of paragraphs lacking a citation. There were others, but they were ok, IMO, as one was basically a recap of the sections below it, and another was geographic claim which could be verified by looking at a non-specialized map. But citing the latter wouldn't hurt. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 18:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wrestlinglover
Resolved comments from Wrestlinglover
  • Stay tuned for comments. I've been planning to review this since it was nominated and had it on my watchlist. Been too busy to or just not in the mood. As long as nothing comes up today I'll review it. Something I've been wanting to learn about so expect a review, but no telling what could stop me.--WillC 19:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I don't review articles much. So in the cases I do, I try to be very hard on the article to make sure it is the best it can be. I at one point was too lenient on articles, including ones I've written, when it came to certain sentences not reading well, etc. So since I would actually like to see this article become an FA, I'm going to be as hard as I can to make sure it passes the criteria to the letter. I will only vote support if I feel it does. If not, then sorry.--WillC 02:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I actually prefer these types of reviews as I would like the article to be as informative and accurate as possible. You're not going to hurt my feelings, and hopefully I address the points you raise. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise.--WillC 05:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead
    • The opening does not roll off the tongue to me. "The Oklahoma City bombing of April 19, 1995, carried out by American militia movement sympathizer Timothy McVeigh with the assistance of Terry Nichols, destroyed the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in downtown Oklahoma City, Oklahoma." The sentence being spilt doesn't help. Hard to describe what I see wrong, and that will come up a lot during my review. But IMO I believe it would be better written as such: "The '''Oklahoma City bombing''' occurred on April 19, 1995 when American [[militia movement]] sympathizer [[Timothy McVeigh]] with the assistance of [[Terry Nichols]] destroyed the [[Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building]] in [[Downtown Oklahoma City|downtown]] [[Oklahoma City|Oklahoma City, Oklahoma]]." or "The '''Oklahoma City bombing''' occurred on Wednesday April 19, 1995 at 9:02 a.m when American [[militia movement]] sympathizer [[Timothy McVeigh]] with the assistance of [[Terry Nichols]] destroyed the [[Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building]] in [[Downtown Oklahoma City|downtown]] [[Oklahoma City|Oklahoma City, Oklahoma]]."--WillC 02:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      I reworded it to the second alternative listed, with some minor changes. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Looks good.--WillC 05:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not a big deal but add "individuals" at the end of this: "It was the most significant act of terrorism on American soil until the September 11 attacks in 2001, claiming the lives of 168 victims and injuring more than 680." Also do you have a source for this statement? I would add the word but thought to let you do it since you may have a problem with it. If you don't have a source that is alright. I can see it is true, though you have a few in-line citations in the lead, but not one for this statement. I feel it should have one.--WillC 02:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think that "individuals" is necessary. The injured would still be considered victims and I think it would be redundant to reword otherwise. Sources were added for the death toll and injury count. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Okay, it just kind of read weird to me. But that is fine.--WillC 05:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Michael and Lori Fortier were shortly afterwards identified as accomplices." → "Michael and Lori Fortier were later identified as accomplices." Flows better.--WillC 02:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Reworded. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Looks good.--WillC 05:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't believe the conspiracy theories statement is really needed in the lead, but that is just my opinion. As long as it is mentioned later on in the article, I feel it would be better to just remove it, unless you feel otherwise.--WillC 02:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      To best summarize the article, I think the sentence should remain. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Fair enough.--WillC 05:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have a few template questions. As you can tell by my user name I like wrestling, and in that project we only use dates in parenthesis as a disambiguity in titles. This one has no reason to my knowledge to need to differ itself from another article. So in that thought, why does the template have "(1995)" in the title section? Maybe a dumb question, but one that I've been wondering about. Another is: The lead says that Michael and Lori Fortier were accomplices, but in the perpetrator section, they aren't listed. Maybe you can clear up the reason why.--WillC 02:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      That's something I've never noticed (don't know if I was the one that added it or not), but I removed it. The perpetrators field is for the people that committed the crime. The Fortiers did not help plan the bombing or build the bomb, and as a result should not be listed in that section. They were considered accomplices for knowing about the bombing in advance and for not warning the authorities. I added additional details throughout the article about the couple. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Okay, fair enough. Was wondering. Wasn't sure how much they knew or did.--WillC 05:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Prelude
  • Planning
    • "Waco Siege, a 1993 51-day standoff between the FBI and Branch Davidian members which ended with the deaths of David Koresh and 75 others." Instead of a comma after Waco Siege use an em dash. I believe that would be better suited. I may be wrong, but then again my opinion. Incase you don't know the code, since at points I forget it, then here: &m dash; (remove the dash). Also speaking, well writing, of em dashes. I was contemplating the idea of changing the commas to em dashes when you mention McVeigh and Nichols in the opening sentence. It would look like this: "The chief conspirators—Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols—met in 1988 at Fort Benning during basic training for the U.S. Army." --WillC 05:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      I added the dash after the Waco siege. I'm more of a comma guy (see the rest of the article) instead of using dashes, so I think that the conspirators clause should remain as is. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Okay, cool.--WillC 06:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The bombing was planned over several years" Okay he started planning the bombing after the siege was over. So that is at most 2 years. That isn't several. Would be best to just remove that part of the entire sentence or rewrite it. --WillC 05:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      I removed the first part of the sentence. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Okay, cool.--WillC 06:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "and ignited the devices with Nichols outside Nichols' home in Herington, Kansas." The word ignited makes it sound like that were detonated then. If this isn't the case, which I don't believe it is or I just misread the statement, then it would be best to find a better term for their activities.--WillC 05:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      The devices were detonated next to Nichols' house. I believe they were learning how to use explosives themselves (outside of the military) and were testing it there. I don't know how it should be reworded further. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Okay, cool. The rest is fine. I'll finish the review tomorrow. I need to get some sleep.--WillC 06:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Target selection
    • Change "McVeigh initially intended only to destroy a federal building, but he later decided that his message would be better received if many people also died" to one of the following: "McVeigh initially intended only to destroy a federal building, but he later decided that his message would be better received if several people were murdered.", "McVeigh initially intended only to destroy a federal building, but he later decided that his message would be better received if several people were killer.", "McVeigh initially intended only to destroy a federal building, but he later decided that his message would be better received if several people died.", or "McVeigh initially intended only to destroy a federal building, but he later decided that his message would be better received if there human casualties." Preferably the last one.--WillC 13:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Reworded the statement. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The nine-story building, built in 1977, was named for a federal judge and housed fourteen federal agencies." I don't believe the year it was built is important at this point. Unless that was apart of their final decision. I would change the sentence to "The nine-story building was named after federal judge Alfred P. Murrah and housed fourteen federal agencies." Plus link federal agencies to an appropriate article, if there is one of course.--WillC 13:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      I see no harm in including the year. It may provide some perspective to the reader who may want to know if it was a recently built building or if it was perhaps one of the first buildings in the city. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Okay, good point.--WillC 18:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • English was never my best subject in school, yeah irony is weird, but I do not believe the comma is needed here: "occupants of nearby, non-federal buildings". I may be mistaken. But it is worth bringing up.--WillC 13:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Comma removed. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "In addition, McVeigh believed that the open space around the building would provide better photo opportunities for propaganda purposes." Maybe you can go more into detail on the propaganda purposes. If you can that is.--WillC 13:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      There was no additional information in the source. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Okay, it is fine then.--WillC 18:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early preparations
  • Building the bomb
    • "On April 17 and 18" → On April 17–18
      Fixed. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delink nitromethane. Been linked before and mentioned many many times already.
      Since this section details all of the materials used in the manufacturing of the bomb, I think it should remain linked. Readers may jump to this section and not now what nitromethane is. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Good point, very good point.--WillC 18:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Two holes were drilled in the cab of the truck and under the seat; two holes were drilled in the van of the truck." This is an odd sentence. First it feels incomplete. Second it makes it sound like four holes were drilled in the cap. I would change it to: "McVeigh and Nichols drilled two holes in the cab of the truck under the seat, while two holes were also drilled in the van of the truck."--WillC 15:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Reworded. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "through plastic fish-tank tubing conduit (painted yellow to blend in with the truck, and duct-taped in place to the wall to make them harder to disable by yanking from the outside),[47] to two sets of non-electric blasting caps." → "through a plastic fish-tank tubing conduit—painted yellow to blend in with the truck, and duct-taped in place to the wall to make them harder to disable by yanking from the outside—to two sets of non-electric blasting caps.[47]" Best for such a long sentence that is borderline run-on.--WillC 15:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      I split the statement into two sentences. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "After finishing the truck bomb, the two men separated; Nichols returned to Herington and McVeigh to Junction City." → "After finishing the truck bomb, the two men separated; Nichols attempting to returned to Herington and McVeigh attempting to return to Junction City." I know Tim didn't make it home. So this sentence makes it sound like he got away. Not sure about Nichols though.--WillC 15:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      The bomb making took place on April 18. Nichols did return home. McVeigh went to Junction City where he stayed at a motel before driving to Oklahoma City the next morning. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      My bad, I misunderstood again. Maybe you should go into more detail, just in case I'm not the only one who reads it and does not understand fully.--WillC 18:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Clarified a bit more. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bombing
    • "The Turner Diaries, a fictional account of modern-day revolutionary activists who rise up against the government and create a full-scale race war." I feel it should be an emdash instead of a comma, but your choice. Or maybe a colon but I forget how to use certain punctuation marks, so that may be incorrect in this case.
      Changed to emdash. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "which had recorded Nichols' truck three days earlier" There is either alot of contradictions or I'm not understanding alot of things. Shouldn't it be "which had recorded McVeigh's truck three days earlier" or "which had recorded the Ryder truck three days earlier"?
      I clarified this above and in the article. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Also at 8:57 a.m." → "At 8:57 a.m."
      Also is used due to it occurring at the same time as when the truck was captured on camera. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      True, but it makes the sentence sound wordy and not straight forward in my interpretation.--WillC 18:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think an additional word would make it sound wordy, and I'd rather it not sound redundant with the prior sentence. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "buildings (the broken glass alone accounted for 5% of the death total and 69% of the injuries outside the Murrah Federal Building)." I feel instead of parenthesis you should place a semi-colon after buildings. That may be incorrect according to the subject of grammar, but I don't know. I'm throwing thoughts out there. Your choice.
      I just made it a new sentence since the pre-existing sentence had a lot of content for the reader to absorb. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I love the richter scale note.--WillC 16:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      It's surprising how far away the explosion was felt. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, it is.--WillC 18:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Arrests
    • "The first was that it was international terrorism, possibly by the same group who had carried out the World Trade Center bombing two years earlier. The FBI also thought that a drug cartel may have been acting out of vengeance against DEA agents, as the building held a DEA office." refs for both please.
      The citation at the end of the paragraph covers all of the theories. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Alright.--WillC 20:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The last theory about the Christian fascists, which I didn't even knew exist though I'm a part of the Christian faith, I believe should be explained a bit more. What possible theory would have motivated this is what I'm asking to be included if that is possible or a link to an article about it.
      The source doesn't go into too much detail. I provided a link for Christian fascists, although that article would benefit with expansion. If this had been the actual cause of the bombing, then indeed there would have been more details on it. It's likely that the FBI gathered everybody, said make a list of possible suspects, and this was one of the suggestions. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Alright.--WillC 20:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Perry in Noble County." → "Perry in Noble County, Oklahoma." Noble county could be in any state and I don't even know where I-35 is.
      I had figured that the Oklahoma State Trooper mention in the next sentence would indicate this, but it's better to clarify in the prior sentence. Added OK after the county. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      It does, but better to be safe.--WillC 20:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "McVeigh falsely claimed he resided at James Nichols' (the brother of Terry Nichols) house in Michigan." → "McVeigh falsely claimed he resided at Terry Nichols' brother James' house in Michigan." An idea.
      Reworded. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Alright.--WillC 20:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "began their search for the Nichols brothers, Terry and James." typo; began should be begin.--WillC 18:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Fixed. Must have written that incorrectly when I expanded that a week ago. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Alright.--WillC 20:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casualties
    • "Those killed included 163 who were in the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, one person in the Athenian Building, one woman in a parking lot across the street, a man and woman in the Oklahoma Water Resources building, and a rescue worker struck on the head by debris. The victims ranged in age from three months to seventy-three, not including the fetuses of three pregnant women." For a section called "Casualties", a ref is really needed for all claims. So please place a ref for these.
      Citations added. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Glass causing injuries was mentioned before in the article, but in this section it states "Over 680 people were injured; the majority of the injuries were caused by abrasions, severe burns, and bone fractures." I'm guessing the abrasions were caused by the glass. That should be mentioned.--WillC 19:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't want to risk OR with that. Abrasions could have also been caused by falling debris, sharp objects, or other causes. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response and relief
  • Rescue efforts
  • Humanitarian aid
  • Federal and state government aid
  • International reaction
  • Children terrorized
  • Media coverage
Trials and sentencing of the conspirators
  • Timothy McVeigh
  • Terry Nichols
  • Michael Fortier
  • Others
Legacy
  • Legislation
  • Building security and construction
  • Discussion of the nature of dissent
Memorial observances
  • Oklahoma City National Memorial
  • St. Joseph's Old Cathedral
  • Remembrance observance
Conspiracy theories
See also
References
Further reading
External links

Support You can literally see that years of work and gradual improvement has gone into this article and evidence of wide reading on the topic which all featured article should have. This is a very informative and detailed article which covers all the aspects of the event. Nice work! Dr. Blofeld White cat 19:20, 28 June 2009 (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/Oklahoma_City_bombing/archive1&oldid=1088285522"