Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Death of Jeffrey Epstein/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23 October 2020 [1].

Death of Jeffrey Epstein

Nominator(s): ~ HAL333([2]) 07:43, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Although I'm pretty active over at FLCs, this is my first attempt at a FAC — trial by fire, I guess. This article concerns the 2019 death of reported finance billionaire and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. ~ HAL333([3]) 07:43, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

"Epstein's lawyers challenged that conclusion and opened their own investigation, hiring pathologist Michael Baden." - the text says Baden was hired prior to the conclusion
Direct quotes should be cited in the lead even if cited later
"Many public figures accused the Federal Bureau of Prisons of negligence and inefficiency" - I can derive negligence from what's in the text, but what accusations were made related to inefficiency?
What's the source for the coordinates given? They're different from what's in the correctional centre article
"This letter was written in ball point pen, despite the fact that no prisoners, especially those on suicide watch, were allowed to have one under jail protocol." - source?
"Ghislaine Maxwell, who was arrested and indicted in July 2020" - the text says charged not indicted, which is correct?
FN1 has the publisher and work reversed
Be consistent in when/if you wikilink work titles
Be consistent in when/if you provide ISSNs
FN2: authors listed don't match source. Ditto FN22, check for others
FN3: Reuters is a publisher not a work. Ditto CNBC, check for others
Be consistent in when you provide publication locations
WP:RSP lists the Washington Examiner as questionable - what leads you to believe it qualifies as a high-quality reliable source? Ditto The New York Post, Fox News for politics-related content, and others
What makes Heavy.com a high-quality reliable source?
Be consistent in when/if accessdate is included
Why NPR.org in FN11 but just NPR in FN1?
FN13 is incomplete. Ditto FN30, check for others

Stopping there and oppose pending citation cleanup. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:50, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I want to join Nikki's concerns on citations. Also, see my general advice at User:SandyGeorgia/Achieving excellence through featured content and the top of my userpage regarding the overuse of however, subsequently, and in this case, consequently as well. Subsequently is almost always apparent, and similar problems happen here with consequently. Consequently is misused here, for example (SAMPLE ONLY): Consequently, prison personnel also failed to photograph Epstein's body as it was found.[44]. Also is almost always redundant. The exercises at User:Tony1/How to improve your writing are helpful. A peer review first might have better prepared this article for FAC. Also, MOS:LQ adjustments needed. That's just based on a very quick glance. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:41, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to work. ~ HAL333([4]) 16:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this way too early to write a conclusive article about? I'm sure much illuminating info will be revealed in the coming years. FunkMonk (talk) 18:18, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This is not up to a good level for the front page.

1 "new" charges? There's no mention of "old" charges or what the "new" charges are. I'm confused about the situation within the first sentence.

2 What does CPR stand for?

3 It's not clear of the source that says "he was transported in cardiac arrest". That is not in the body and he was probably transported in an ambulance.

4 The final sentence of the paragraph is odd. It does not explain why the hiring the pathologist is relevant to their disbelieving the M.E.

5 Why are some abbreviations (like FBI and CPR) without periods and others (like a.m., and U.S.) with periods?

6 The fact that two bodies are conducting investigations suggest it's about five years to early to have this as an FA.

7 The final sentence of the second paragraph is grammatically awkward.

8 Investigations cannot "shift attention": they are inanimate processes. The investigators moved their focus (also note that "shift attention" is lax phrasing).

9 sex-trafficking needs a link.

10 Ghislaine Maxwell. Who she? That needs more background.

11 There is no point having reference 5 in the middle of the sentence – it can move to the end where it covers the meaning better.

If these errors are present in the lead alone, I dread to think what the rest of the article is like. It is clear this is not ready or right for FA.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.194.127 (talk • contribs) 22:40, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request for withdrawal

I am sorry that I wasn't able to address these concerns. Some personal stuff has come up and I'm really busy currently. I appreciate the comments and will continue to work on improving this article. Thanks! ~ HAL333([5]) 23:17, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 00:11, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.