Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Badge Man/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 SchroCat via FACBot (talk) 24 March 2023 [1].

Badge Man

edit
Nominator(s): ~ HAL333 20:19, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of the myriad figures spotted in Dealey Plaza during the assassination of John F. Kennedy —the Babushka Lady, the black dog man, the three tramps, and the umbrella man (we almost had Captain Kirk and Spock as well)—the Badge Man may be the least bizarre. With the 60th anniversary of the JFK assassination coming later this year, this could be the first of a small series of relevant articles. Cheers, ~ HAL333 20:19, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

edit
  • "with the Badge Man often firing the fatal head shot from the grassy knoll" - if he did exist and fire a fatal shot, he only did it once, so maybe "with the Badge Man often said to have fired the fatal head shot from the grassy knoll" would be better.....?
  • "which feature's White's work" - first comma should not be there
  • "Bugliosi also emphasized that Mack has stated the he" => "Bugliosi also emphasized that Mack has stated that he"
  • That's all I got :-) Thanks for an interesting read. As a Brit I didn't know about any of this (although I obviously knew that there are conspiracy theories about the assassination, I didn't know anything about all the various mystery people in the area.....) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:06, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All addressed. Yeah, the Kennedy assassination is absolutely tantalizing. ~ HAL333 22:18, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ian

edit

Recusing coord duties to review... As it happens I saw The Men Who Killed Kennedy on its Australian premiere, so quite familiar with this "character". I look forward to going over this in due course... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:30, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Copyedited so let me know if you feel I've misunderstood or -- as would be entirely appropriate in the JFK assassination area -- misrepresented anything.
  • Not really anything else to add re. prose aside from the tweak SC proposes below with which I've added my concurrence.
  • Seems appropriate detail for this alleged individual; despite its brevity I don't think it neglects any major facts but you could perhaps slightly expand on one point: In 1988, White also claimed that a person wearing a white shirt is visible behind the Badge Man -- in The Men Who Killed Kennedy our investigators posited a fellow wearing a hardhat behind/beside Badge Man; since you mention Arnold, also discussed in that show and also somewhat peripheral to the Badge Man claim, perhaps you could add a tiny bit on "Hardhat Man" or whatever they call him...

Nice work. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:21, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded on the "Back Up Man" a bit. ~ HAL333 19:28, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note that as the article has been stable for a while now I'm pretty well ready to support but will hold off till after the source review (I could do it but as I've done a fair bit of research into the assassination myself and have my opinions I'd prefer to see someone else take it). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:13, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, given the only outstanding ref points seem to be of a formatting nature. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:21, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit
  • Some images are missing alt text
  • File:Moorman_photo_of_JFK_assassination.jpg: the text says this was seen "in world media" - where was it first published? Was the copyright held by UPI or retained by Moorman?
  • File:Badgeman.jpg: where and when was this first published? Ditto File:Badgeman_coloured.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:02, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've added all missing alt text. Regarding the copyright of the Moorman photograph, I could find no mention of Moorman or the UPI registering for copyright anywhere. For instance, the National Gallery of Art makes no mention of copyright registry. Furthermore, according to the Library of Congress, prior to 1964, UPI rarely ever renewed copyright, let alone even registered for it in the first place. And since the other two images are simply derivatives of the first, I'm assuming that they don't have their own copyright registry, right?... ~ HAL333 04:03, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A separate registry, no; a separate copyright, potentially, if the changes meet the threshold of originality. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:20, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt the black and white image meets the threshold — it's just zoomed in and brightened. But I have no idea if the colored image is copyrighted... If you think it is, I think we can probably use it under a fair use license. ~ HAL333 05:41, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Location

edit
  • This article has been on my Watchlist and I've noticed your edits, but I haven't taken time to thoroughly review the article. My first action was to scan the sources and the only one that strikes me as possibly objectionable is the citation to Oliver Stone. As Stone has plunged head first into JFK conspiracy theories, I am hesitant to accept him as a source on anything related to the JFK assassination even when he happens to be correct on some fact. (I will also ping Canada Jack because he might have some feedback on this subject.) - Location (talk) 03:59, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair point. And especially since Stone sources that material from Jim Marrs, I'll find a replacement. ~ HAL333 04:12, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I sourced it to Lane, who isn't ideal but is preferable to Marrs. I also attributed it to him and I think his claim (whether right or wrong) is of historical pertinence. ~ HAL333 18:26, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article currently states: "The Warren Commission did not include the Moorman photograph in the volumes of its 1964 report. Mark Lane noted this in his 1966 work Rush to Judgment and claimed that the photo had been "suppressed"." I think Myers[2] is a reliable source for stating that Moorman did not testify before the WC and that her photograph did not appear in the WC report, however, Lane's claim of suppression fails WP:REDFLAG and should be removed unless we have a reliable secondary source reiterating his claim. We certain don't want to go with what Lane claimed without addressing what Moorman herself said: "The Warren Commission subpoenaed me, but I had my ankle turned and I couldn’t come. And they never called me again".[3] Larry Sabato is another reliable source who indicated that Moorman told him that she was invited to testify but asked for a postponement after the ankle injury.[4] (BTW: Here is Moorman's 2011 interview in which she said she turned her angle after being contacted by the WC, but she clarified that she was not actually subpoenaed. [See 11:05.]) Sabato also indicated that Moorman didn't see anything out of the ordinary behind the fence and that she was not convinced there is a second shooter in the photograph. As the person who captured the photo, her opinion is noteworthy and should be considered for inclusion. - Location (talk) 20:23, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Solid points. Give me a few days to tinker with it and see if I can dredge up some more RS. ~ HAL333 22:34, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realize that. Fixed. ~ HAL333 17:25, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I'm indifferent. But I can remove it if you want. ~ HAL333 17:29, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unless someone else has some insight on how to handle this, I guess I would just leave it in. - Location (talk) 06:33, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article in The Irish Times states "A detailed reconstruction of the photograph confirmed that, while 'Badge Man' would have had a clear shot on Kennedy, the figure would have measured 2.88ft (88cm) in height." I don't see that in the article nor do I see it in HSCA Appendix IV or the snippet of Bugliosi I can see, so I'm not sure if it is usable or if it can be backed up by another source. - Location (talk) 07:00, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I don't know where they're getting that from. It sounds like something from Dale Myers, but I couldn't find him saying that. Also, it just doesn't make any sense: the fence itself is five feet tall. ~ HAL333 17:29, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Myers has a page on this [5] which mentions the original 1982 claim by Mack and subsequent research which shows that the figure, to be of human size, needed to be well back of the fence and hovering over the ground. The specific height from The Irish Times isn't mentioned, but might be worth searching for the research Geoffrey Crawley did on this - as mentioned in Myers' article - as that may be where the height claim comes from. Canada Jack (talk) 19:26, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That Myers page is already cited in the article. I tried finding the original Crawley material, but to no avail.... ~ HAL333 20:37, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it might be worth adding that Turner/Mack/White said Crawley's findings confirmed theirs, but that he later said that they did not... and that he said that he thought Turner was ignoring what he actually reported. Crawley's obituary touches on Turner's documentary here. From GBooks there is likely more about this on page 4 of the 1988 issue of The British Journal of Photography, but it wouldn't be worth the $18 on Amazon to me. - Location (talk) 01:29, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I added it as a footnote, if that's all right. The Guardian obit presents Crawley as indifferent on the subject, which I don't think is accurate. And I unfortunately have the same stance on the BJP article (I really wish all journals were open-source). ~ HAL333 05:11, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the larger photo, is there any chance of getting a circle around or arrow pointing to the area of speculation? This version of Moorman's polaroid photo actually has better detail for this. - Location (talk) 20:30, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree -- I tried adding a red circle to the current image but it kept turning to greyscale when I tried to export it. I just made a request to the Graphics Lab. I've also actually thought about using that image. It is higher resolution, but holistically I think it's inferior. ~ HAL333 02:46, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding from reading the link to Dale Myers is that the one with the thumbprint is the original, but it was photographed before the thumbprint began to show and before the image faded. Apparently all of the images without the thumbprint are reproductions of the photographed photo, which explains the decrease in sharpness. Is it worth putting both with a note in the caption? - Location (talk) 06:33, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the same impression. I tinkered with having both versions of the Moorman photograph but it didn't work: it was too crowded and there were sandwiching issues. However, the degraded original polaroid has grown on me and I have added it in place of the UPI version. I ended up putting the details from Myers in another footnote, if that works. ~ HAL333 20:15, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Related to this, consider adding a note under the full photo that its actual size is 2.125 x 2.875 inches and that the head of the Badge Man measures only about 1/69 of an inch wide. - Location (talk) 07:22, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. ~ HAL333 07:46, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The skepticism voiced seems to only address the evaluation of the photograph, however, I think eyewitness accounts related to this should also be mentioned (e.g. see John C. McAdams here and Michel Jacques Gagné here) especially since the opening sentence does not really make clear that this is a fringe claim. - Location (talk) 20:30, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I already included that no shooter was found on the grassy knoll when the crowd rushed there, and that Lee Bowers (the best grassy knoll witness) did not see the Badge Man. However, I added a bit more and also mentioned the lack of any witnesses in the lead. I didn't mention any more names as I think Bowers is by far the most notable and don't want to get bogged down in too much detail. ~ HAL333 06:30, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would consider adding Abraham Zapruder, too, as he easily has more name recognition that Bowers. This article in Commentary states: "Well, if 'badge man' is an assassin, he fired from a spot right next to, at most fifteen feet below and to the right of, Zapruder and Sitzman. Again, they did not notice." The article also states: "Was Gordon Arnold there? He does not appear in photos, though some find him in the Moorman photo right next to 'badge man.' (Apparently Arnold did not notice the 'badge man' shooting the President.)" This only serves to show that Arnold was fabricating his story, so I'm not sure it would need to be worked into the article. - Location (talk) 17:13, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Zapruder has been added. ~ HAL333 20:22, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lede currently states: "Badge Man is a name given to an unknown figure that is purportedly visible within the Mary Moorman photograph of the assassination of United States President John F. Kennedy in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963. Conspiracy theorists have suggested that this figure is a sniper firing a weapon at the President from the grassy knoll." There is something that strikes me a bit odd about the wording of the first part of the first sentence. If "purportedly" means "allegedly", is it the presence of a figure that is alleged or is its visibility alleged? - Location (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure there's really a semantical difference... But I'm open to changes. Should I change it to "purportedly present" or something else? ~ HAL333 02:20, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should drop "a name give to". For example, we say "Red Rover is team game..." We don't say "Red Rover is the name of a team game..." Here are a couple ideas:
"Badge Man is a figure/a shooter/a sniper/an assassin purportedly present within Mary Moorman's photograph of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963."
"Badge Man is a figure/a shooter/a sniper/an assassin purported/claimed by some conspiracy theorists to be present within Mary Moorman's photograph of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963."
FWIW, Lisa Grunwald in the December 1991 issue of LIFE described the Badge Man this way: "One of the purported grassy knoll assailants. In a blowup of a tiny section of a Polaroid photograph, some researchers see the image of a man with a badge on one shoulder and a flash of light before him." UPI said Badge Man is "the name given to an image that some theorists say is a second shooter that can be seen in blowups of the photos".[6] - Location (talk) 07:48, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. I've reworded it mostly along the lines of your first suggestion. I went with figure in the very small chance that it may just be Arnold with a camera. ~ HAL333 20:19, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to come back to this. For those who think Badge Man is a person, AFAIK all of them think he is a shooter/sniper/assassin and none of them think it is Arnold. I think some CTs think Arnold was next to Badge Man, per this unreliable source. - Location (talk) 08:49, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No problem at all! I appreciate these thorough comments and hope you do this for the rest of my JFK assassination candidates (John F. Kennedy autopsy is in the pipeline). According to the Dallas Morning News, Mack's first theory about the Badge Man was that he was Arnold (i.e. the police uniform is an army uniform and the muzzle flare is a glinting metal camera). Even ignoring that, I just prefer "figure". Is there any chance I could stick with it? ~ HAL333 17:07, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see your rational. Ironically it looks like I had added that bit to the article with this edit in May 2013, but it was eventually removed by another editor with this edit in November 2017 stating that it was not in the citation given. It looks like I had added a hidden note that a citation was needed for the date, so that may have prompted the removal. - Location (talk) 19:35, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider including something regarding alleged identity of the alleged assassin: "Some conspiracy theorists believe/speculate that J. D. Tippit, the Dallas Police Department office shot and killed by Oswald 45 minutes after the assassination of Kennedy, is the Badge Man."[7][8] According to Bugliosi, The Men Who Killed Kennedy suggest Lucien Sarti is Badge Man.[9] Of course there are a million people named as a grassy knoll shooter, but most reliable sources don't link them in name to Badge Man. - Location (talk) 07:48, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Butting in, well done Location, if any RSs mention Tippett as a possible Badge Man it'd certainly be worth adding -- makes perfect sense of course, he wouldn't even have had to disguise himself...! OTOH I think the way Sarti is mentioned in the article already is fine, don't think "According to Bugliosi" is really needed... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:01, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ooops. I didn't even see that Sarti had already been noted! (FWIW: here and here are two UPI articles reporting that The Men Who Killed Kennedy claims Sarti was disguised as a police officer when he fired a fatal rifle shot. The article doesn't explicitly mention Badge Man, but it does refer to the photo.) - Location (talk) 16:47, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added the Tippit claim -- that's a great point and had never occured to me. Although the J.D. Tippit website linked above is a little rickety (I actually sort of miss the times when all websites looked like that.), I think it's an RS as it was put out by Myers. ~ HAL333 20:35, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild Per my earlier comments in this section, I don't think we should include fringe views without a rebuttal (i.e. "Mark Lane noted this in his 1966 work Rush to Judgment and claimed that the photo had been 'suppressed'."). While I feel that much good work has been done, I have difficulty allowing Wikipedia to put that on its front page. Perhaps I am the outlier here so I can bring this up to WP:FTN. -Location (talk) 14:38, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed this issue, including removing the bit about Lane. Lane's claims about suppression, cited directly to Lane, violate WP:FRIND. -Location (talk) 21:02, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Location and HAL333: have these concerns been resolved? Hog Farm Talk 02:40, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SC

edit
Moorman photograph
  • "where some witnesses believed the shots had originated": I'm not sure about AmEng, but in BrEng it should be "from where": I leave it to your judgement
  • "which concluded that there was a second assassin on the grassy knoll based on discredited acoustic evidence": I think this is a bit garbled and/or unclear. Maybe it would work better as "which concluded that there was a second assassin on the grassy knoll based on what is now discredited acoustic evidence" (or "based on what was later discredited")?
Gary Mack
  • " In the mid-1980s, White put": "he put"
Skepticism
  • "It has been proposed": are there any names that can be put to this – it's a bit weasely other wise – even if it is along the lines of "Bugliosi states ..."

That's it. A short and nicely put together article. – SchroCat (talk) 13:34, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed. I appreciate the comments. ~ HAL333 19:12, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

edit

Recusing to review.

  • "The Badge Man is an unknown figure that is purportedly present". That reads oddly. Should it not be 'The Badge Man is an unknown figure who is purportedly present'? If you don't want to personalise it, then I think "unknown" needs to either go or be changed.
  • Image caption: "Enlargement of the Badge Man". From the original or the higher quality photograph?
  • "whether or not the Badge Man is a genuine human figure." Why use the word "genuine"? Is there such a thing as a non-genuine human figure? Similarly in the main article.
  • "the figure is actually an optical distortion from a Coca-Cola bottle or simply different background elements." To mean what I think you want it to, I suggest a comma after "bottle".

Nice. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:30, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

'Preciate the comments. All addressed. ~ HAL333 00:19, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

I'm going to start taking a look over this now. Harrias (he/him) • talk 18:39, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ref #1 – what is the year 2004 based on? It doesn't appear on the webpage in question at all. The copyright notice at the bottom of the page gives 1995-2008. (This differs from ref #10, which does specify 2004.) Also, link Dale K. Myers.
I assumed it was the same as the other. Removed. ~ HAL333 02:22, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #5 – the short description is "Warren Report", but "Warren" isn't used at all in the long description, which is quite confusing.
It's not officially called the Warren Report, but that's it's WP:COMMONNAME. Is it okay if I leave it? ~ HAL333 02:22, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My problem is that if someone, say, prints this off, so the highlighting feature isn't available, it wouldn't be obvious to a non-expert what the short citation was referring to. Harrias (he/him) • talk 12:27, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bugliosi, Vincent (2007) – the MOS prefers spaced initials, so the publisher should be "W. W." rather than "W.W." (And link to W. W. Norton & Company.)
  • HSCA Final Assassination Report – Add the publisher, "United States Government Printing Office", expand out HSCA to "House Select Committee on Assassinations" and change "Hearings and Appendix Volumes" to "Appendix to Hearings" per the actual report.
  • Lane, Mark (1966) – Pipe publisher to Holt McDougal.
  • Report of the President's Commission on the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy (Report). 1964. – I would recommend linking to https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report and add the publisher as listed there: "United States Government Printing Office".
  • Testimony of Clyde A. Haygood. Warren Commission Hearings (Report) – Again, add "United States Government Printing Office" as publisher. The actual title appears to be "Hearings Before the President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy".
  • All sources appear to be to high-quality, reliable sources. Although refs #1, 10 and 20 are self-published sources, Dale K. Myers is clearly an established subject-matter expert, and so these are fine.
  • Searches in all the usual places did not reveal any glaring omissions.
  • Spotchecks reveal no evidence of copyvio or close para-phrasing, and on each check the source was accurately reflected in the article text. Note that I was unable to access the main source used, Bugliosi (2007), but I am content based on the checks I was able to carry out.

Overall, the sourcing on this seems good. My quibbles are mostly related to formatting and consistency. Harrias (he/him) • talk 20:07, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HAL333 ? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for my lacuna. I'll get at it. ~ HAL333 04:41, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
HAL333 *cough* Gog the Mild (talk) 15:55, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added one reply above. It also looks like some additional sources have been added since my previous review. Working through them now.

  • Ref #6 – Can "Sabato, Larry J. (2013)" be added to the "Works cited" section, and a short citation be provided, per the other book sources. A publisher location also needs adding, and hyphens added to the isbn for consistency. No access-date needed.
  • Ref #7 – The hyphen in the title needs to be an endash.
  • Ref #8 – YouTube is generally not considered a reliable source, what are the credentials that make this video/podcast meet our criteria? Also, some formatting issues with the citation: should be "Last, First" for the host.

@HAL333: Thanks for your work so far, now some more for you! Harrias (he/him) • talk 12:27, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: I am responsible for adding those sources, so I attempted to fix those issues with this edit and this one. Although the subject of the YouTube interview is undoubtably Mary Ann Moorman, I am not clear on what the criteria are for including a source of that nature so I removed it. (It was provided as direct confirmation of what Sabato wrote.) Not sure if WP:ABOUTSELF is applicable. -Location (talk)
One other thing: The citation to Myers that I added (currently #7) does not include "Archived from the original..." in it as do the other three (#1, #11, #21). I am not sure why that is necessary, but I'm noting it here for review. -Location (talk) 17:03, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from S#

edit
  • Before and during the assassination
  • I wonder if Zapruder film would be a better target that the man himself; can't do both, of course, per WP:SEA.
The film itself is linked in the final sentence of that paragraph. ~ HAL333 04:40, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "or the nearby Zapruder".
Fixed.
  • Why was this "an impossible position to fire a weapon at the motorcade"? Prsumably because there was no such steep incline at the knoll?
Clarified.
  • Would be cool to extract the img of the infamous cola bottle from somewhere  :)
I wish I could - I can't even find a photo of it, let alone a licensable one. ~ HAL333 04:40, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nice article! Cheers! SN54129 14:25, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. All addressed. ~ HAL333 04:40, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Serial Number 54129, just noting that as a first time nominator at FAC, this article will need to pass a source to text integrity spot check to be considered for promotion. Good luck with the nomination. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:14, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: "Spotchecks reveal no evidence of copyvio or close para-phrasing, and on each check the source was accurately reflected in the article text. Note that I was unable to access the main source used, Bugliosi (2007), but I am content based on the checks I was able to carry out." Like the one I carried out in the source review? Harrias (he/him) • talk 13:18, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please all ignore that complete nonsense. (More haste, less speed.) Gog the Mild (talk) 13:21, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Duly ignored, but updated too  :) @Gog the Mild: SN54129 13:56, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Harrias: coincidentally I've got an epub of Bugliosi's Reclaiming History if you'd ;like to borrow it? SN54129 13:56, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and support from Gerda

edit

Interested in a topic I know nothing about. The lead, that I normally skip until the end, makes sense. I'll comment as I read. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:02, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • The link to the photograph takes to the person who took it, - could the photograph be bold in the woman's article, as a redirect, to explain that at a glance?

I read through the article without any problems, thank you and those who reviewed before me! Support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:15, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gerda! I wasn't confident about whether I could bold "Badge Man" in Moorman's article, but I did add a mention in that article's lead. ~ HAL333 02:23, 26 February 2023 (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/Badge_Man/archive1&oldid=1146361389"