Jump to content

Talk:Ike Altgens/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Location (talk · contribs) 23:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]


While I think the subject is worthy of a stand-alone article, there are various issues with sourcing that violate WP:FRINGE, WP:SYNTH, and WP:COPYVIO. First, there are a number of fringe sources that lend undue weight to an alleged controversy regarding his photograph (e.g. Trask, Fetzer, Groden, Marrs). Secondly, primary source material from the Warren Commission is used to synthesize support for the alleged controversy. Thirdly, there are a couple YouTube videos that appear to violate our copyright policy. - Location (talk) 23:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • COPYVIOs removed. Meantime, may I ask that you be more specific wrt what you feel lends "undue weight" to a controversy that has raged for more than 50 years? For example: "the controversial Associated Press photograph" was the exact phrase in WCH VII; and, as a witness to history, Altgens' statements in interviews and books—and the reactions thereto in decades-established research circles—are germane. As I look again, some of the sources may not be the most ideal, but they establish in a few words what would otherwise require links to dozens of books. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 00:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. The premise that a controversy has raged for more than 50 years is false. Wikipedia is to reflect primarily the mainstream view of an issue, and the mainstream view is that the person in the doorway is not Oswald; the HSCA concluded that "it appears highly improbable that the spectator is Oswald and highly probable that he is Lovelady."[1] The "controversy" that the person in doorway may be Oswald is only among those who believe Oswald did not shoot Kennedy (i.e. fringe sources). On what page of WCH VII does that quote appear? - Location (talk) 01:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The passage is here, p. 1 graf 1.
Meantime, if I may, I must disagree that anything not official is therefore not mainstream and is therefore "fringe". True, the "mainstream press" has mostly ignored the issue, with a notable exception here and there, but what you call "fringe" is a group comprising authors, journalists, professors and other experts with credentials ranging from solid to not so much, established over several decades. IMHO, "fringe" might have been an accurate dismissal four decades ago; not any more, and especially not with the emergent quality of the source material. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 02:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(←) After re-reading the section, I tend to agree it was fluffed a bit. Rewritten. :) —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 03:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That passage is from CE 1407, which is an FBI report by an unnamed source that appears in WCE XXII. It's ironic that our article references CE 1407 twice since the Warren Commission's only reference to it appears on page 149, citation 316; a citation that supports the statement: "The Commission has determined that the employee was in fact Billy Lovelady, who identified himself in the picture."[2] Like the HSCA, there is no indication from their report that they considered this controversial. Yet here we are giving weight to a passage that even the Warren Commission did not give any weight to.
The Huff Post reiterates the conspiracy viewpoint, but it is not a reliable source to characterize the issue as a controversy. - Location (talk) 04:31, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(←) I'm again compelled to argue the point. That the author of the FBI report does not identify himself is irrelevant; the term is used by the author (not a quote from anyone else) in the official FBI report of Altgens FBI interview. (In fact, whether the report is actually written by Altgens' interviewer is irrelevant.) Also, that the WC was compelled to investigate the issue and make a determination is in and of itself evidentiary of a controversy, defined by Merriam-Webster as "a discussion marked especially by the expression of opposing views" (read: "It's Oswald." "No, it's not."). Nevertheless, I'll keep looking for a corroborative, more mainstream source, even as I argue that the massive volume of books, treatises, articles, blogs, missives, etc., by the recognized and/or highly credentialed has to count for something. :) —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 05:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also from Merriam-Webster, "controversy" is an "argument that involves many people who strongly disagree about something" or "strong disagreement about something among a large group of people". There are literally thousands of items from the WC and HSCA reports with which conspiracy believers take issue, but very few of those things have generated substantial public discourse (e.g. single bullet theory, grassy knoll, Jim Garrison's investigation). Very few people are aware of this particular aspect of the Altgens photo and even fewer actually believe that Oswald was in the Altgens photo. Describing this as a "controversy" based on an anonymous FBI report from June of 1964 that the WC cited only once - and not even in reference to that point - instead of an allegation pushed by conspiracy theorists is a violation of WP:NPOV/WP:YESPOV. - Location (talk) 07:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite complete, and I respectfully disagree. :) —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 07:17, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
An alternative would be state that critics of the Warren Commission or lone gunman theory consider the image controversial. - Location (talk) 07:31, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did consider that, but: how much more powerful is it that the author of the FBI report on the interview of Altgens actually used the phrase? That's why I put it in the lede and let the sources do the talking in the rewrite. BTW, since I wasn't clear before, thank you for helping strengthen the article. :) (Edit: come to think of it, something to that effect is necessary since the lede notes the "decades-long debate".) —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 07:35, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Location: are your concerns addressed? Is there anything more I should be doing at this stage? —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 22:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. You've cherry-picked a Warren Commission exhibit that was cited only once in their massive report - and not even in reference to that point - and have given it a prominent spot in the second sentence of the article. Giving prominence to conspiracy theories in the lede fails WP:UNDUE, etc. - Location (talk) 06:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, following an additional rewrite and with every respect, we disagree and we disagree. For what it's worth, I've been the POV cop wrt to this article for years; in fact, it was the stunning mess of POV that this article had become that brought me back after an extended Wikibreak. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 09:58, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For what it is worth, I do not mean to demean the effort you've put into this article. I have noticed over the months that you have put a lot of work into this, and you've handled my criticism well. - Location (talk) 15:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Much obliged. I have to admit I was a bit baffled by any notion of cherry-picking; first, of the thousands of pages and hundreds of interviews cited by the Warren commission in reaching its forgone conclusion (oops, did I say that out loud? xD), Altgens' picture was brought up entirely because of the controversy, and Altgens himself was a literal afterthought. Second, I've been a student of the assassination (neither expert nor researcher) for some four decades and, if I've been taken by anything, it's how often both lone-nut supporters and conspiracy supporters have cherry-picked—or invented outright—that which supports their theories and dispatched that which does not. (The crackpots [I have to say it] who argue Altgens 6 must have been faked, in the smothering presence of evidence proving this false, are particularly galling. As a former journalist, I lose tooth enamel every time the media embraces the crackpot du jour, further tarnishing the necessary work of the serious.) With this article in particular, maintaining complete neutrality has been a regular exercise in something just north of futility. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 20:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: The moderator of the SMU panel in his introduction of Altgens does mention "it became very controversial" in regards to the photograph (~1:53:00). You may want to re-listen for context. I did not catch the name of the moderator. - Location (talk) 23:23, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now included. Thanks for the tip! —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 01:32, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the photo stirred controversy is a key part of the content and that the content treats the controversy as fringe, providing adequate presentation of Altgens' thoughts and statements and the mainstream consensus. Is there a suggestion for rephrasing the lead to reflect this content in a less objectionable way? - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:09, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Altgens 6 vs. Altgens 7

[edit]

A minor re-write may be in order as The New York Times obituary suggests that Altgens 7 is the more well known of the two. - Location (talk) 23:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 01:33, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article still puts more weight on the fringe claims around #6 than the mainstream notability of #7 (e.g. [3], [4], [5]). Even #4 may be more well known than #6. - Location (talk) 19:16, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly: your first link includes a paragraph starting with the fact that Ike "made two historic pictures. One showed the president's head falling forward with Mrs. Kennedy's white-gloved hand reaching out to support him. The other showed Clint Hill leaping onto the trunk ..." Your third link is a story about Clint Hill which, naturally, would lead with the picture of Clint Hill. Secondly: the article now makes the case that this is not a "fringe" theory, but a mostly-but-not-entirely-ignored-by-the-mainstream, legitimate controversy—in fact, virtually all traces of a theory of any kind are wiped from the article. Nevertheless, a rewrite (again) is forthcoming. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 21:57, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not asking you to wipe discussion of #6 from the article. The point I was attempting to illustrate with the first link is that the collage of front pages from November 22, 1963 all feature #7. The second link, a book about the AP's coverage of historic events, refers to #7... not #6. Regarding the third link about Clint Hill, why would they show the back side of him in #7 vs. the front side of him in #6? The point is that mainstream notability is with #7 and, thus, it should take precedence in the lead. - Location (talk) 00:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And precedence it now does. (... and because Hill is still on the SS car in #6, doing nothing but looking at the limo, while he's climbing thereon in #7.) —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 00:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That looks better. There are other issues that I will attempt to address over the next few days. - Location (talk) 01:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Much obliged. Please pass in the meantime. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 01:15, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite done. Any "theory" is now confined to two sentences, citing a press report (conspiracists' symposium), an adjunct university instructor, a professor emeritus, and an award-winning journalist. (Yes, Jim Marrs lives on the fringe. Yes, Crossfire, while otherwise strongly researched, made an entirely unconvincing case against LBJ. Still, on point, Marrs refreshingly gave the ongoing debate no more than its due–and it is due.) Please pass this article as twice recommended. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 23:20, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Altgens' initial comments

[edit]

FYI: Here is an AP report from November 22, 1963 commenting on Altgens first impressions: [6]. - Location (talk) 19:45, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good job inserting this into the article. - Location (talk) 01:09, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

[edit]

Here are some items for the time being:

  1. Regarding “...’two historic pictures’...”, I think it is OK to reword this without the quotes. Consider, for example, “...Altgens captured/shot two historic photographs during the assassination...” or something like that.
  2. In the same sentence, consider replacing “...and her Secret Service agent on the back...” with “...and Secret Service agent Clint Hill leaping on the back...” consistent with The Spokesman-Review news report. Although Hill may not have immediately been identified as the agent, he is notable enough himself - particularly in the context of Altgens #7 - to be mentioned at this point in the article.
  3. Regarding “soon to be ‘controversial’ photograph”, I think it is OK to remove the quotes and cite the passage only to Journalists Remember. I still object to citing CE1407 for the reasons stated previously. I think it is better to include a citation to May 24, 1964 issue of Sarasota Herald-Tribune in its stead; elaborate on that news report at the appropriate place (i.e. chronological order of the development of the Oswald v. Lovelady story) in the article. (With proper weight, Dom Bonafede's report could be integrated into the story, too.)
  4. Regarding “...led people in ‘this country and abroad’ to question...”, although it is accurate, it sounds weird. I do not think that it is even necessary in this part of the article but it would be better to reword this without the quotes. Maybe something like "...in the United States and overseas..." or "...domestically and internationally...".
  5. For the preceding material, citation 8 refers to a pdf of an “AP Dispatch”. It appears to be the same text noted in the newspapers also cited, but it is unclear to me how it is known that this piece of paper originated with the AP. Even if it did, it is a primary source document. It should be removed and one of the newspaper reports (whichever is most complete) cited.

- Location (talk) 06:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All done—and thank you. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 07:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Items to be addressed:
  1. Regarding "...’on the front pages of newspapers all over the world.’” While this is true, it is probably not a good idea to quote Hill in subject matter about Hill. Is there another source for this, or can we paraphrase in order to remove the quotes in line with WP:OVERQUOTE?
  2. Regarding “...’perhaps the most controversial photograph of the decade”. The Sarasota Herald-Tribune is not stating that it is “probably the most controversial photograph of the decade”, but is quoting The Herald Tribune as stating it. As it is not a mainstream view, the statement should be attributed to The Herald Tribune but later in the article within the section called “New interest”. As before, I would use Journalists Remember and the Sarasota Herald-Tribune to cite it as controversial. I would do this without quotes per WP:OVERQUOTE and because you have established that mainstream sources considered it controversial.
- Location (talk) 19:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Both fixed. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 00:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Items to be addressed:
  1. Regarding “note 1”, I’m not sure that this is necessary.
  2. Regarding “…reproduced ‘on page one of many of the world newspapers.’” It is clearly true, therefore, paraphrase to remove the quotes.
  3. Regarding “Altgens had made the soon-to-be ‘controversial’…” I think the quotes can be removed.
- Location (talk) 05:42, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Okay, but we're not bouncing back and forth between "make" and "take", either.
  2. and 3. Done. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 07:38, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Early life and career

[edit]

No major issues in this section:

  1. "Dallas native Ike Altgens already knew about death at a young age..." strikes me as a bit unencyclopedic.
  2. Is "make pictures" supposed to be "take pictures"? Although I "take pictures", "photograph" might be more appropriate for a professional photographer.

- Location (talk) 06:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Ike was a person; this is as matter-of-fact as human can be. (Edit: minor rewrite.)
  2. "Make" v. "take": see the article's accompanying invisible comment (like many professionals, Altgens tended to use "make", as per such quotes as "I should have made the picture I was set up to make"). (Edit: comment embellished and repeated.)
—ATinySliver/ATalkPage 09:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing that requires addressing at this time:
  1. “Dallas native Ike Altgens was familiar with death at a young age...” still strikes me as news style, but this is something that can be hammered out with additional opinions in the future.
  2. Regarding “make pictures” and similar usage elsewhere in the article, this may be parlance among photographers who attempt to convey that what they do is less passive and more active, but it is not common use usage. As above, this is something that should be brought up for additional opinions in the future.
- Location (talk) 19:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to minimize "make" in a rewrite, but bouncing back and forth between lay and professional terms struck me as jarring (it was part of the reason I had put "made two historic pictures" in quotes in the lede). —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 05:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Photojournalist

[edit]

Items to be addressed:

  1. Regarding “Altgens tried to find a good spot...” cited to CE1407. As I have mentioned previously, I am not a fan of using this as a source. If the same material is in his WC testimony (which I think it is), it would be better to use it as it is likely a more reliable source for what he said his movements were.
  2. Regarding “Though there were seven snapshots...”, I am not clear as to why the extended note is necessary. Altgens being unsure of how many photographs he took does not discount what others were able to verify. (I am aware that there is a conspiracy theory that twists Altgens uncertainty but it doesn’t matter if it hasn’t been discussed in reliable sources.)
  3. Regarding “Altgens later described to Commissioners...”, this may seem minor but his testimony was taken by Jim Liebeler in Dallas. As written, this gives the impression that he was questioned by Warren et al in Washington D.C. What he described in his testimony might also be better in the appropriate place in the section that follows. This should probably have a citation.
  4. Regarding “...he thought the sound came from firecrackers.” As above, I think it is preferable to cite to his WC testimony rather than CE1407.

- Location (talk) 19:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 00:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Witness to history

[edit]

Items to be addressed:

  1. ”Still, he would not accept that as an excuse.” This seems to be editorializing.
  2. Regarding “Altgens did make one more picture…” The statement is obvious to me, but a proper citation may be needed. It’s also worth seeking a second opinion regarding note 3 in that it appears to piece sources together outside the context of the Altgens photo to further analyze why Mrs. Kennedy was on the trunk.
  3. After the second paragraph in this section, the chronology of the Altgens story skips around which would make it difficult for those unfamiliar with it to follow. The first sentence of the third paragraph leaves out the reason why the Chicago American questioned why Altgens had not been interviewed… the Lovelady story in the New York Herald Tribune. It would require some adjustment to the prose in paragraphs 4 and 5, but I think it is better to place paragraph 3 later in the article. The chronology should flow like this: The AP’s “new interest” article was December 3, 1963; Dom Bonafede’s article in the New York Herald Tribune was May 24, 1964; and Maggie Daly’s article in the Chicago American was in response to that on May 25, 1964. The FBI investigation and report in early June 1964 was in response to the Chicago American article; and the FBI investigation and report led to the WC questioning on July 22, 1964.
  4. Altgens made statements regarding his observations during the assassination (including those pertaining to the number and/or origin of the shots) in his initial AP report, to the FBI prior to his WC testimony, in his testimony to the WC, and after his WC testimony to various sources. Those observations seem to jump around in the article.
  5. Regarding “Altgens testified that after the shots ended…” This is what someone with the FBI said that Altgens said. He certainly did not testify to it. As before, I think it is preferable to cite to his WC testimony rather than CE1407.

- Location (talk) 23:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 04:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Items to be addressed:
  1. Regarding “It was this picture and its placement ‘on the front pages of newspapers all over the world…”. Again, this is clearly true, so I think it is better to paraphrase to remove the quotes.
  2. Regarding “…Altgens saw ‘Secret Service men, uniformed policemen with drawn guns racing up this little incline’…” There were no Secret Service agents on the ground in Dealey Plaza, so this should read “Altgens said he saw” or “Altgens thought he saw”. I think it would be OK to paraphrase this to remove the quotes. He also described the scene as “utter confusion” which might be more descriptive to the reader. (I noticed in the citation for this that Liebeler referred to Altgens 6 as CE 203, so it might be useful to refer to the CE numbers with hyperlinks for his photographs in the article's captions.)
- Location (talk)
  1. Done.
  2. I'm running out of ways to say "would later testify" or "would later describe" without slamming the brakes on the narrative. Also, Ike's quote is there verbatim for a reason: it's not clear with no accompanying audio whether he meant SS agents and policemen or whether he was correcting himself. To paraphrase would constitute WP:OR. Meantime, CE 203 is technically not Altgens #6; it's a crop thereof. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 07:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

[edit]

Items to be addressed:

  1. Is there a more descriptive heading that could be used for this section?
  2. It is probably worth integrating this book from an academic into this section as it discusses how quickly the AP received information from Altgens and related material.

- Location (talk) 23:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. I have not integrated Zelizer's book because the text notes only that Altgens was "congratulated for the shot" with a footnote leading to Tom Wicker's Does JFK Conspire Against Reason?. I cannot find the text online to confirm by whom Altgens was "congratulated". —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 04:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The “pictured man” / The man resembling Lee Harvey Oswald

[edit]

Items to be addressed:

  1. I think titling the section "The man resembling Lee Harvey Oswald" without quotes [although it is a quote from the AP report in the Cumberland paper] might be more enticing to the reader.
  2. In the caption of the photograph, I don't believe "individual" is in quotes.
  3. Regarding “Ten days after Kennedy was assassinated…” If possible, try to paraphrase to remove quotes.
  4. Regarding “This would have placed Oswald…” The wording is bit awkward, but I’m not sure that I have anything better. Maybe: “If the man depicted was Oswald, this would have placed him ‘at ground level behind the motorcade’; thereby proving that he could not have been the assassin who shot Kennedy from the building’s sixth floor.” As before, it would be better to paraphrase to get the quotes out, if possible.
  5. Is the Frontline citation necessary?
  6. Regarding “note 5”, I don’t think we need to elaborate on where Oswald said he was or where the police officer placed him 90 seconds later. This could be construed as synthesis of material to support a conclusion.
  7. Much better presentation of the timeline and use of quotations here. I see the date of the New York Herald Tribune article in the note, but I’m wondering if it might be helpful to the reader to have it in the body of the article, too, especially since Altgens thought the Chicago American article was in response to it.
  8. Regarding “His supervisor signed an affidavit…”, try to paraphrase in order to remove quotes.
  9. Regarding “No witness was quoted as having seen Oswald.” Although this is true, I am wondering if it acceptable to use this without a quote (i.e. one has to read the report to make that [original] analysis).

- Location (talk) 05:51, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly done. Personally, I think the note re Oswald's statements was proper both in location and weight and should stay—without it, a conspiracy theorist could argue WP:SYNTH in that, by omitting where LHO said he was, the article leads the reader to conclude that he was the assassin merely because he's not in Altgens' picture. (Edit: I've restored the note; I feel very strongly about this one.) Also, I think the Herald Tribune passage is fine; it notes Lovelady being interviewed in May and Altgens also being contacted, so the exposition is unneeded, IMO. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 07:13, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Items to address:
  1. FYI: There is some interesting material in the Lovelady file, including Dom Bonafede’s full article. That article, in the second-to-last paragraph, indicates that Bonafede pointed out that Altgens hadn’t been questioned before the Chicago American did. There is also a copy of Altgens #6 in the Saturday Evening Post, but I’m not sure if that’s worth of inclusion.
  2. Chronologically, the “Trial of Clay Shaw” section should go before “In 1978, the House Select Committee on Assassinations…”; however, it does make sense to keep the Lovelady discussion together.
  3. Are you aware of any developments in the Lovelady story between the WC and HSCA?
- Location (talk) 02:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Fixed.
  2. Agreed, especially since the recollections section jumps back to 1963 and 1967. No changes.
  3. None that I've seen, or would be germane to Altgens' article. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 04:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of the gunshots / Recollections of a witness

[edit]

Items to be addressed:

  1. I do not think we need a section with this title. In the first paragraph, the first source refers to the number of shots he heard and the second source (of which I am unable to access) appears to refer to the origin of those shots. Both refer to his immediate observations of the assassination in attempt to convey to people what happened AND outside the context of a conspiracy theory. That is, this material should be placed closer to discussion about his immediate observations during the assassination.
  2. The pathway to the 1967 CBS interview is still in place which is a violation of WP:COPYVIO. The context of the interview appears to be whether or not Altgens thought there was a conspiracy. This is a legitimate topic for discussion, but it shouldn’t be placed in a subsection entitled “Origin of the gunshots”. It also should not be synthesized with the previous material in which he wasn’t reporting on that explicit topic.

- Location (talk) 23:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both fixed. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 04:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Item to address:
  1. The material in the first paragraph refers to his initial observations and report, not his recollections (i.e. process of thinking back on something).
- Location (talk) 02:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Title is intentional, especially considering brevity. Even his initial observations were made after he'd been back to the offices and roughly while his film was being developed, so they count as recollections. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 04:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This section may need additional attention in a FA review to ensure that this does not draw undue attention to a particular part of his observations. - Location (talk) 16:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trial of Clay Shaw

[edit]

Item to address:

  1. Regarding Note 8, is there away to make brief mention of Connally earlier in the article so that we don’t need the note?

- Location (talk) 02:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Not that I can see while still maintaining germaneness within Altgens' article. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 04:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures of the Pain

[edit]

Item to address:

  1. Dating the book would help the reader with the timeline.

- Location (talk) 02:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Done. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 04:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

It might worth placing this in there. - Location (talk) 05:17, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 07:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion

[edit]

I was asked by the nominator of this GAN to look at this article, as a fresh pair of eyes. This is not my area of expertise, so I'm not here to analyze the article's sources or make decisions wrt fringe theory issues. Both these issues seem to be addressed above, and I think that the nominator and the reviewer need to come to a consensus. My lack of expertise about the article's topic prevents me from coming on one side or the other. I have looked at past versions of this article, though, and agree that it has come far in being more neutral and less POV-y. I'm unable to say if it's gone far enough. The article doesn't violate the WP:BLP1E policy, even though Altgens is primarily known for one event; or rather, one photograph of one event.

That being said, I think that this article fulfills the GA criteria. It is reasonably well-written, and is MOS compliant. The references seem to be appropriate, although I'd bring it to someone with more expertise. It's broad in its coverage, and reasonably comprehensive for a GA. Its neutrality is good enough, although I'd suggest more eyes to look at it. It's stable, despite its controversial topic. The images, with its most recent changes, seem fine. Overall, if I were the reviewer, I'd pass it to GA with the recommendation that it be improved more and that it be accessed for neutrality, POV, and references if it were taken to FAC. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:47, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged, Christine. :) —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 00:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ready?

[edit]

@Location: ready to pass as recommended above? Anything else I should do? —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 00:36, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am of the opinion this article meets GA criteria and it should be passed unless there is still a clear objection. The need for defringing seems slight enough at this time to pass GA. If further objections are raised I will endeavor to help improve as needed. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With my continued thanks for your continued work. This is a much stronger article as a result. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 23:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I look forward to specific comments from the reviewer for any further improvements needed to pass GA. I'd urge patience to maintain an enjoyable collaborative experience for all. As I said I think the article meets GA but if some more work is needed several editors are contributing. It doesn't seem like synth to me to discuss the controversy about the "man in the doorway". I do understand the question of due weight and am interested to see how it can be handled in keeping with policy. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. When I read "There appear to be a number of primary source citations that are used to draw attention to points not explicitly discussed in mainstream sources. This could be a WP:OR violation." I jumped all the way to "he's going to find any excuse he can to fail this nom." I let my frustrations get the better of me, and that was wrong. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 03:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the conciliatory post. While I feel some of the reviewer's objections exceed what is needed to meet GA criteria, it is clear the reviewer has devoted considerable time and effort to the article. As all the items to be addressed have validity, working on them will improve the article and ATinySliver seems willing and able to continue working on the article, it seems the end result will be a tremendously improved article that will meet GA criteria without question. I am very pleased and impressed to see the level of effort devoted to making this a truly good article. - - MrBill3 (talk) 20:24, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Passed

[edit]

✓ Pass I think this article passes the GA guidelines. Any unresolved issues appear to be minor and can be discussed in a FA review. - Location (talk) 16:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My thanks to Location and MrBill3 for their hard work, diligence and dedication in getting this article passed! —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 21:44, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ike_Altgens/GA1&oldid=640709015"