Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Boys in Red accident/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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 18:13, 6 September 2009 [1].

Boys in Red accident edit

Nominator(s): Kuzwa (talk) 06:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that this is one of the best disaster related articles on Wikipedia and as such exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. If people disagree than I will quickly change minds. All comments are much appreciated. Thanks, Kuzwa (talk) 06:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The lead is lacking. It was the deadliest since 1989, but when was it? The lead can be expanded to summarize the article better. Reywas92 ^Talk 02:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Reywas I changed the lead slightly in order to make it more clear when the event occurred and it's consequences. It's a brief touch up tonight as I have some limited time right now. Tomorrow though I will try to fully fix the lead to make it more engaging. Thanks for your comment! --Kuzwa (talk) 04:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

::I have a general idea of two new possible leads. However the one I prefer does not meet the WP:Lead rule of putting the article subject as soon as possible, usually in the first sentence. I think a better opening can be made putting the subject in the second sentence but I'm not sure if that is common place or even allowed in FA's. If requested I could make a draft and link here. Does anyone know if I could do this? --Kuzwa (talk) 18:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind the above comment I've changed the lead and I hope it is now up to your satisfaction. --Kuzwa (talk) 05:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Done; thanks. Alt text is present; thanks. However, the alt text for the lead image, "Wrecked white van on snowy terrain" is a bit too terse, as it fails to capture useful info in that image that is not present in the caption or in nearby text. Please modify it to briefly describe the appearance of the wreck, e.g., the fact that the right side and rear of the van is sheared off. Eubulides (talk) 05:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Kuzwa (talk) 18:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks. Eubulides (talk) 22:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn support - Interesting read, only one small nitpick.

The civic centre could only contain 3,500 people, so many mourners filled the adjacent rink to observe the service on a widescreen television. - cite. ceranthor 12:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for your support. :) --Kuzwa (talk) 18:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't take this offensively, but I am withdrawing my support based on another read of this article. I think it could use a copyedit, so I'll run through. The reason I am withdrawing this support is the prose. ceranthor 16:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haha no problem, care to point out what needs an edit though? :) --Kuzwa (talk) 18:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sentences are a bit choppy, try to make them more varied in sentence structure. There is nothing wrong with the current prose, just that it is a little boring. ceranthor 21:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at it when I have time and am a bit more focused. Thanks for the suggestion. :) --Kuzwa (talk) 21:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have to Weak support - The prose flows well, I think, and gets the job done, so I'll give it a shot. Please ask a copyeditor to run through, particularly one who does work with FA's. ceranthor 21:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ceranthor I'm still a bit busy and am fearing I may be somewhat inactive until the weekend. I have placed a request to the Guild of Copyeditors so that hopefully one of the members reviews it. As soon as I'm fully back I will pursue any major issues. Shouldn't hinder my ability to combat minor ones however. :) --Kuzwa (talk) 00:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -
~~What makes http://www3.gendisasters.com/auto-accidents/8592/cappele-nb-truck-hay-wagon-collision-oct-1989 a reliable source?~~

Otherwise, sources look okay, links not checked with the link checker tool, as it was misbehaving. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. Thanks for your comments. --Kuzwa (talk) 21:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose. I did some copyediting, and found a couple of things that make me feel this isn't quite ready. A more detailed run through by a good copyeditor would address quite a few things. I found (and fixed) a statement in the lead that was cited but not supported by the source given, and I also tried to improve the precision of some of the statements. The content appears to be all here, and the structure is fine, but the writing is not quite there yet. If I have more time I will try to take a pass myself. Mike Christie (talk) 11:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike thanks for your time you put looking into the article. I have already requested a copy edit as mentioned above so I'm currently waiting on that. I'm currently busy getting ready for a rather hectic year in school so pardon for my inactivity! --Kuzwa (talk) 02:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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