Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Virginia Tech massacre/archive3

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 03:35, 30 December 2007.

Virginia Tech massacre

[edit]

previous FAC

check links —Preceding unsigned comment added by LuciferMorgan (talk • contribs) 04:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The primary reason for previous rejection was article instability. The article now seems to have settled down and the other minor issues (excessive footnotes in lede, etc.) have been addressed. Overall this is an excellent article and it has been cited in external publications as an example of excellence in WP. Ronnotel (talk) 12:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just went through tweaking the placement of a bunch of references.
Besides that point, there's an outstanding {{who}} tag in Gun politics debate, dated from September.
I removed the uncited statement, we'll see if others object and can provide a reference.--Sfmammamia (talk) 19:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, the image placement (left and right floated images) in sections like Responses from other educational institutions is usually frowned upon.
Next, you introduce the term "EMS" in West Ambler Johnston shootings without explaining it, while later in the article, you wikilink emergency medical services: WL and full spelling should occur first, then abbreviation at later iterations.
Consistency on "am" or "a.m." is needed.
The semi-automagic peer reviewer thinks there's a mix & match of AmE and BrE, but that could just be in quotes or references from places like the BBC - worth checking over for them though.
Finally for now, in Media response, the correct title for The Times is just that, not Times; however, changing it with the existing sentence would look odd, so perhaps it'd be worth considering changing it to something like "Gerard Baker, a columnist at/on/for The Times, ...". Carre (talk) 15:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No to FA status, at least for now. It's a very good article it may warrant FA status soon but not right now. Recent edit wars and an unfinished discussion about whether or not it's appropriate to include information about halloween costumes lampooning the incident. Let's get some consensus there before featuring it. Also, we should consider semi-protecting the article when it's featured. It's been the target of much vandalism in the past.--Rtphokie (talk) 23:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I dont mean to minimize your concern regarding this, but I don't see this particular issue as worth holding up FA status over. By all means let's find consensus phrasing on this, but the issues that held up FA before were, IMHO, much more substantive. Ronnotel (talk) 00:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
  • Can external links in the body of the article be removed?
Can't find an instance of this in the article. --Sfmammamia (talk) 06:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I found one Hokies United in the Campus Memorial Section. I could have removed it myself but I have left it to the lead editors to decide on how they want to link Hokies United. -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 07:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can the citations be made consistent by using a template like cite news or cite web wherever applicable. This will solve MoS issues.
  • Citation 77 seems to have a problem  Done
  • The links-checker tool indicates problems with some web-links as seen here. Please correct them -- ¿Amar៛
I have corrected the out-and-out broken links. Others that still need attention? --Sfmammamia (talk) 02:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk to me/My edits 08:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: it's okay. --Brískelly[citazione necessaria] 21:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The response section still includes unnecessary blather that does not directly relate to the incident. The costume incident and the professor re-enactment at Emmanuel College are some specific examples. I also still think that the gun politics debate belongs on a different page. On a different note, is it necessary to have multiple references for some sentences? There are several places where a sentence is followed by 2, 3, or even 4 citations. If we reduced this number down to one each, the page should become shorter as the list of references at the bottom would necessarily be shortened. I'm not sure on Wikipedia policy on this matter, but it seems to me to be overkill to have 3 citations that all discuss the mental health report that dismisses Cho's alleged autism. I think one citation to the report or to a secondary source summarizing the report would be enough. Also, why is there an external link to "Scientology at Virginia Tech?" Rooot (talk) 04:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That external link has been removed. In some cases, I think multiple cites are valuable or even necessary (better perhaps than interrupting sentences where separate cites support specific phrases). In others, multiple cites may be overkill, but pruning them requires care. Is too much citation really a critical criteria for featured articles? --Sfmammamia (talk) 06:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, that's why I asked. The reason I brought it up was because I think the article is too long and this would be a way to shorten it. I also think that having multiple sentences with 4 citations makes the article less aesthetically pleasing. But this isn't really a big concern for me. My opposition is based on the length of the response section. I just did a minor revision to it and now it looks better to me. I don't like the "Bones" show item as it seems to be trivia to me, but it's not that big of a deal. The article as a whole is looking much better than it did, but I still think it needs a little more time to stabilize. It seems that there are still a lot of emotional edits going on, which is why so much unnecessary information keeps being added. Rooot (talk) 06:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rooot's concerns about the response section have been addressed; it has been pruned. If the mention of "emotional edits" refers to the discussion last week, the two editors with the most adamant comments have not posted in 5 days. --Sfmammamia (talk) 20:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—mostly well-written and a fitting tribute to those who died. Chilling. Who wrote it? Well done. But a few quibbles:
  • Tell me, is that a massacre infobox, is it? I can't for my life see why you'd want to stratify and compartmentalise all of the information: it needs to be conveyed in the body of the text, and probably all is. This is infobox-mania.
  • " While it is unclear how Cho gained entrance to the facility, it is possible that he simply followed another authorized student in."—That's a WPian's opinion, is it?
  • "suffered enough."—Nope, logical punctuation require on WP (dot after the closing quote, unless the quote is not nested within one of WP's sentences. Please check throughout.
  • "Other responses"—why not merge the parastubs? In that section, I'm pleased to see a full date that is not tainted by the dysfunctional autoformatting system. But it must be consistent (both raw date format and whether autoformatted) throughout the article. Please consider removing all of them for a cleaner appearance and easier maintenance: you're allowed to now. Tony (talk) 13:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: About.com is not a reliable source, particularly for medical diagnoses, and the information there is based on a biased, non-medical source. New York Times archives are now available without login; please doublecheck the dead link listings. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: A few bits of MOS cleanup needed still. See WP:NBSP regarding non-breaking hard spaces between numerical and non-numerical elements to prevent line wrap, for example on times. There is still an external jump in the text (The bill, H.R. 2640, mandates improvements in state reporting to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System in order to ... ). All references should be fully completed and formatted; for example, the first reference I checked (number one) is missing the publication date (May 21, 2007). The third footnote, CNN, is also missing the date; please check that all sources include author and publication date when available. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. - Though I agree with SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) about fixing up some minor sourcing issues, for the most part it's incredibly well-sourced, well-done. In response to some above comments about multiple citations after a sentence - personally I think that's fine, and in some cases even appropriate to have more than one citation after a sentence. Cirt (talk) 20:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Now there are captions that need the final period: the football one, the students in class one. Please check through. Full sentences vs extended noun phrases (which don't have the period). Tony (talk) 07:11, 29 December 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/Virginia_Tech_massacre/archive3&oldid=1138475031"