Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Columbine High School massacre/Archive1

Columbine High School massacre

Self Nomination. I have been working on this article for eight months now, with the help of countless contributors. I believe this article now exemplifies the qualities for featured article status. It has been peer reviewed twice, and was a featured article candidate two weeks ago. Almost every portion of the article can be supported with facts and information found through official investigations and several sources around the internet. It is comprehensive, concise, and should be featured as one of wikipedia's best works. - PRueda29 - 15:08 21 August 2005 (UTC)

• Neutral - I haven't read all of the article yet, I'll read that when i'm not studing. I looked quickly at the pictures. You need to expand the fair use rationale for pictures with the fairuse tag. Guidelines can be found here. Furthermore, the pd domain pictures, don't seem like they are taged right to me, please elaborate why they are pd. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 18:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

• Srong Object. This article was a featured article candidate just last week and was rejected (see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Columbine High School massacre/archive one). While the article has been improved since then, it still has not addressed several of the issues I raised, such as listing references for the sections Long-term impact and Aftershock (although this last section now has two of them). The reason these sections need plenty of references is they contain possible POV issues and interpretations that would have to have outside sources. For example, this paragraph: "In the weeks following the shootings, media reports about the two killers portrayed them as part of a "goth cult" known as the "Trenchcoat Mafia." They were portrayed as outcast "nerds" who were unpopular and ostracized by much of the school's population; later such characterizations were revised as both Harris and Klebold were documented to have both a close circle of friends and a wider informal social group. (However, they were not "popular" and could best be described as being members of the school's "rejects", although by no means were they isolated.)"

This paragraph contains several items that need referencing, such as saying "they were not "popular" and could best be described as being members of the school's "rejects", although by no means were they isolated." Who said this? If the editor said it, it is POV. If an outside source said it, it needs a reference. Finally, in its previous FAC, the article was recommended for Peer Review. According to the date tags on Wikipedia:Peer review/Columbine High School massacre, this was done on Aug. 14, but all of the review comments came on Aug 21. One day is too short for peer review comments, especially when it is renominated for FAC that same day. The article's talk page also needs a links and template tags for the old FAC comments. My suggestion is to take the time to let this article be improved by references, especially more in-line one. --Alabamaboy 19:12, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support. After the recent edits and the addition of inline references, I fully support this article. I know I was initially hard on the article, but that was b/c the subject matter had to be fully researched and sourced to avoid future trouble with reverts and edits. In response to concerns raised , PRueda29 has done some amazing work on this article over the last day and it fully deserves to be a FA at this point.--Alabamaboy 12:53, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment Several peer reviwes were done to the article starting on August 14th, but I accidentally deleted them.

That's good to know. I still feel uneasy, though, with renominating an article for FAC so soon after the previous nomination. However, others don't have a problem with this then I won't worry about it too much. Also, if references are inserted for those two sections, that will remove my major objection to the article.--Alabamaboy 21:54, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The image copyrights are probably the worst mess I have ever seen pass through FAC:
  1. The image Image:Columbine High School.jpg is claimed under fair use, but has no fair use rationale. Further, it is unlikely that the image copyright is held by http://www.chsmemories.org/, as it looks like a screen capture of a news helicopter's imagery.
  2. The image Image:ColumbineHighHarrisKlebold.gif is claimed as public domain, but I see no evidence of that.
  3. The image Image:ColumbineLibrary.jpg is claimed as fair use. However, it is quite possible for a replacement for this image to be created by a Wikipedia: there is no reason to use a fair use image here.
  4. The image Image:Eric harris dylan klebold.jpg is claimed as "public domain under a fair use agreement". What the heck is that supposed to mean?
  5. The image Image:Evacuating Columbine.jpg is claimed as fair use, but has no source or fair use rationale.
  6. The image Image:Columbine Breaking News Photography.GIF is claimed as fair use, but has no fair-use rationale.

  --Carnildo 03:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Object - Good points. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 11:57, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment - "public domain under a fair use agreement". What the heck is that supposed to mean? - This comment has made me laugh, a lot. I'm sorry, I'm new at posting pictures and had no clue how to do it, but I've had some help from experienced users. I hope they're tagged correctly now.