Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Michael Brown Okinawa assault incident/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 not promoted 18:01, 19 June 2007.

Michael Brown Okinawa assault incident

[edit]

Respectfully self-nominate this article about an incident involving a crime by a U.S. servicemember in Okinawa as a featured article candidate. The article passed GA review, and I thank Deryck C. for his thorough review and helpful suggestions and Neutrality for the copyediting. CLA 00:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. The article seems to meet most formal criteria and is good writing, as far as I can tell. But it approaches the subject from a journalistic perspective. It looks like an article in magazine not an encyclopedia article. This is in conflict with Wikipedia is an encyclopedia from WP:5P and It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail from WP:FACR. Of course we have many article like this, but we shouldn't promote this approach by giving them FA status. --Pjacobi 14:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In order to be able to address this concern, I'll need some specific examples from the article to support your argument that, if I understand right, it isn't encyclopedic enough. CLA 21:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As this is about the general presentation, it is hard to find specific examples. But let's work out together the problem.
The central questions:
  • What constitutes the important knowledge related to this case which should be documented in an encyclopedia article?
  • What will be of value for a reader in 25 or 50 years reading about the case?
  • What makes this case distinct from the millions of cases of (alleged) rape not in the encyclopedia?
My (partial) answers to these are, that especially the "pre-trial" and "trial" timelines fail these tests and should be replaced by summary style. On the other side, if possible I'd like to see a short summary of previous cases very early in the article, which will make it clear, that we are not talking about an isolated incident. And as the notability of the case rests on the public percaption and media coverage, these point should be expanded. Instead of being hidden in timelines.
Pjacobi 08:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I understand now where you're coming from. What you're suggesting might entail a rewrite of the entire article, which I'm willing to do if necessary. I'd like to get more opinions on the article as is first, though, before I consider a rewrite. CLA 05:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I myself may be outside the majority opinion on enwiki. I mostly contribute at de:. --Pjacobi 09:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing, but it may take me a couple of days. CLA 00:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I went through the manual and fixed the date formats and linking in the article. By the way, thank you for deleting the empty parameters in the citations. CLA 03:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would fix this sentence, but I'm unsure what it means to say: Although the U.S.-Japan Status of Forces Agreement proved that servicemembers would only turned over to Japanese law enforcement if indicted, ... provided that? could only be ? Also, I saw some common terms linked that might not need wikilinking per WP:CONTEXT; I would give examples, but I prefer to leave this to your discretion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the sentence to read, "Although the U.S.-Japan Status of Forces Agreement stated that servicemembers would only be turned over to Japanese law enforcement if formally indicted..." and I removed a couple of wikilinks to words/phrases that were fairly self-explanatory. CLA 06:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking more of common words like "police" and "wallet", which I unlinked, since most English-speaking people should know those words. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural issue—Hello, Raul, it's not up to you to declare your support or objections, since you are the final judge, and there's necessarily a subjective side to that judgement. There's a clear conflict of interest when you interfere in the process. Natural justice demands that justice be seen to be done. Please desist from playing reviewer. I ask that you strike through your text here. I'll be interested to see whether the nominators now bother to address my objections below, since they can rest in peace that you're on-side and will probably promote this. Not good. Tony 09:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object—1a. It's not well-enough written yet. Get someone who's unfamiliar with the topic and good at copy-editing to go through it carefully.
    • Fails the requirement for "professional" formatting in its overlinking. We do speak English, did you realise. Please delink common dictionary terms such as "assault", "police", "media", "mobile phone". It's not Wiktionary, and these useless links dilute the high-value ones.
      • The link for "media" actually links to "Japanese media" and the one for "police" to the "Japanese National Police" so linkages there are appropriate. I did, however, remove the links to "bartender," "assault," and "mobile phone." CLA 12:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "sparked a public debate over the controversial issue of the U.S. military presence in Japan as well as the fairness of the Japanese legal system and the practices of the Japanese police." Try this defluffed version: "sparked a public debate over the U.S. military presence in Japan, the fairness of the Japanese legal system, and the practices of the Japanese police."
    • "The case also dealt with the Treaty of ...". No, "The case involved the Treaty of ...".
    • "a 19-month long trial"—spot the redundant word.
    • "ommitted by U.S. military personnel in Japan, the U.S. and Japan entered into negotiations aimed at ...". First word is misspelt. Why not avoid the repetition by writing ", both countries entered into ..."?
    • I believe I've addressed all of your concerns above and I appreciate the constructive feedback. CLA 12:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, didn't I make myself clear enough? I provided only examples of why the whole text needs close attention. Time to locate some new collaborators. Please let me know when you've had it worked on thoroughly. Tony 14:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All of your examples were from the article's intro. I write the intro, with help from other editors, after I write the main text of the article, and is usually my Achilles' heel, because I unfortunately, up to now, have regarded it as an afterthought, rightly or wrongly. I believe the main text to be tight and good to go. If the main text has problems, I hope you'll detail them, because the main text has been through a GA review plus review from members of the Japan project. CLA 15:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object until Tony's concerns are fully addressed. Once Tony's confirmed he no longer has any qualms with the article, feel free to then disregard my objection. LuciferMorgan 11:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral—nice article, but Tony's right about the main text needing a final pass. Here are a couple examples from the main text:
    • "According to Brown, these injuries prevented him from being able to do the physical actions with Nakamine described in her police report." "prevented him from being able to do the physical actions" can probably be shortened.
    • "21-year-Marine veteran" The hyphen before Marine is unnecessary.
    • "On July 2, 2003, Japan and the United States opened negotiations into modifying the SOFA but the negotiations failed to produce any change to the current agreement." Missing a comma before the conjunction.
    • "To many in Okinawa the incident involving Brown appeared to fall under this new provision in the SOFA." A comma after Okinawa is recommended because the phrase is more than five syllibles. I believe it's optional, though.
    • Some names are redlinked, but others are not.
  • Nice article; it just needs final tweaks in the body. — Deckiller 18:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comments. Not much has been done to it. MOS says put the final punctuation outside the quote marks. Do we need "US$" linked every time? "21-year Marine" --> "21-year-old marine". "Brown. Brown". "which dismissed the appeal in July 2004, letting the verdict stand."—Shouldn't the last phrase be removed?

These are just random things my eyes fell on. I'm certain there are good copy-editors out there who'd spend 40 mins on this. Needs someone different. Check out edit histories of similar articles, especially FA, for copy-editors. Tony 10:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The MOS says that punctuation should be outside the quotation marks unless the punctuation occurs naturally within the quotation, which is the case with most of the quotations contained in the article. I moved most of the punctuation, however, outside of the quotation marks in the article to try and comply with your concern. The MOS does say that every reference to currency should be linked. He's not a "21-year-old Marine", he's a 21-year Marine as the text currently and correctly points out. I fixed the "...Brown. Brown..." I removed the last phrase. CLA 16:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Michael_Brown_Okinawa_assault_incident/archive1&oldid=1078803283"