Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Death of Ian Tomlinson/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 promoted by SandyGeorgia 20:21, 28 February 2010 [1].

---

Death of Ian Tomlinson

Death of Ian Tomlinson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nominator(s): SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 02:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• Featured article candidates/Death of Ian Tomlinson/archive1

This is a self-nom, 6,300 words readable prose, about a newspaper vendor who died in London last April 1 during the G-20 protests after being hit by a police officer. That he had been hit only emerged a week after his death when an anonymous American investment banker passed footage of the incident to The Guardian, at which point it became a major issue in the UK. I'm bringing it to FAC so that I can perhaps nominate it for the main page around the anniversary. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 02:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment On one of the Alt|Images, the description says there are five figures in yellow jackets. But clearly, you can see two more. It should be maybe re-worded to say 7. Its the image that starts with the text: 7:20pm Moments before he was struck ... Mike Tompsonn (talk) 02:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. [2] SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 02:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comments. No dab links or dead external links. Alt text seems generally good, but at times you seem to be going into unnecessary detail (such as the traffic light in the third and the text of the street sign in the second image). Also, I am not happy with the use of "figures" throughout the alt text—wouldn't "people" generally be clearer and more appropriate? Ucucha 03:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• Ucucha, I regard ALT text as one of the tortures of the FAC process, and have to drag myself through it. I worry that if I leave anything out, I'll be told off, and if I add too much, I'll be told off, so I just do them as fast as I can in a haze of misery and uncertainty. :) SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 03:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• I like writing it, actually—it makes one thing more clearly of the content and purpose of the images. I take it from what you wrote that you don't mind me going ahead and carrying out those changes, so I did that. Ucucha 03:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. :) SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 03:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• additional comment Everything is good with that pic, but just one minor note. One of those 2 extra officers appears to be frisking or trying to grab something from Mr. Tomlinson. Should that be included in the text? I'm not sure how important it looks. Mike Tompsonn (talk) 03:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see that myself. I think what you're seeing may be the officer getting ready to strike him, though I'm not certain. We would need a source before we could say exactly what he was doing. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 03:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this detail is best omitted, since it is ambiguous what exactly the officer is doing. Ucucha 03:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, good call. Mike Tompsonn (talk) 03:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC

Support (subject to satisfactory media and source reviews) - a very well written, very comprehensive article. All my comments below have been addressed other than one minor query left unstruck which does not affect my support. PL290 (talk) 23:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 01:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments - looks promising; nicely detailed background to the story and depth of detail about the numerous parties and events involved. Some detailed points: *scaffolder or roofer - why the doubt? What's the source?

• The sources say different things. I've clarified in the footnote. [3] He probably did both; it sounds as though he was a casual labourer.

• His friends told reporters he was a keen Millwall F.C. fan; he can be seen on the day of his death wearing a blue Millwall shirt underneath a grey "Neil Harris all-time leading goal scorer" T-shirt, along with black tracksuit trousers and black trainers. - can we omit the tracksuit trousers and trainers, or is there some relevance?

• Have removed them. [4]

• the officer had faced a misconduct hearing early in his career with the Met, but had retired before being disciplined, then had re-applied to join the force. He had became involved in a road-rage incident while on sick leave with a shoulder injury, and reportedly tried to arrest the other driver, who complained that the officer had used unnecessary force. Before the misconduct case was heard, the officer retired from the Met on medical grounds and was awarded a pension. Several years later, he rejoined the Met - it's not clear until the third sentence that the second refers to the subject matter of the first.

• Clarified. [5]

• Davies writes ... Davies asks ... Davies cites ... Davies alleges - four consecutive sentences. Some variation would be welcome.

• Fixed. [6]

• why the IPCC were involved had they not realized there had been police contact - unless this is an idiom I haven't come across, shouldn't it be "involved when they had not realized"?

• Tweaked, [7] though I think it was okay as it was, with "if" understood, but I could be wrong. :)

• At that point, at 2 am on 7 April, he passed his footage to The Guardian, which published it that afternoon, then passed a copy to the IPCC - it's unclear which party passed a copy to the IPCC

• Clarified. [8]

• Thomson was doing a live broadcast when something happened that caused the camera to be broken; he wouldn't say what - "wouldn't" is proscribed by WP:CONTRACTION

• I think "wouldn't" is fine, but I've tweaked it. [9]

• The newspaper writes that, 56 seconds into the video, three officers can be seen with their face masks pulled halfway up their faces - the implication of this fact, and hence the reason for stating it here, is left unclear

• The newspaper doesn't elaborate, so I didn't, but they're not supposed to hide their faces, which is why the newspaper mentioned it.

• Is the reader presumed to know they're not supposed to? Can we elaborate without introducing a sourcing issue? PL290 (talk) 23:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• I've been looking around, and can't find anyone who addresses it specifically. Most of the newspapers mention it as part of the ID issue: officers on the streets of London uniformed but unidentifable, but no one explicitly says covering their faces is against the dress code or illegal. It's just assumed that they shouldn't do it. I'll keep on looking. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 01:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

*A head injury was recorded by the pathologists, but was not thought to have been the cause of death, according to Sky News - unclear whether Sky News offered this opinion about the cause of death, or other news agencies reported a conflicting version of the pathologists' report

• Clarified. [10]

• ... though a report on 10 April cited the IPCC as saying that no bruising or scratches to the head and shoulders had been found by the first pathologist - unclear whether Sky News or another party are the source of the 10 April report

• Clarified. [11]

• the British police used to act with the sanction of the public, but tactics changed after a series of violent assaults in the 1990s - this should make clear whether these were violent assaults by the public on the police or by the police on the public

• Added that the assaults were on officers. [12]

• Tomlinson's death prompted an examination of the police-public relationship - shouldn't that be an en-dash? :) Not sure. That said:
• Tomlinson's death prompted an examination of the police-public relationship; the relationship between the police and the media; and the relationship between the police and the IPCC - "relationship" three times in a row could perhaps be reworded, e.g., "Tomlinson's death prompted an examination of police relationships with the public, the media and the IPCC."

Yes, ndash. :) But now rewritten. [13]

• The organization has been criticized before for not being responsive to public concerns - not sure that "has been critcized" is encyclopedic here; should this use the past tense ("had previously been criticized")?

• Fixed the tense. [14]

• According to The Guardian, Smellie's badge number was concealed - given that the article has already established that visible IDs are not required, this statement is unnecessary and provocative

• The November 2009 report pointed out that visible IDs are not a legal requirement, but they shouldn't have been hiding them according to the Met's own dress code.

• (a very picky one to end with) - he had been married twice, the first producing five children and the second four - "the first" implies "marriage" not "married", so perhaps "first union" etc would be more natural.

• Added the first marriage. [15]

Looks good. PL290 (talk) 21:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, and thanks for these fixes. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 23:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support – with regard to Criterion 1a. I would prefer a consistent usage of "postmortem" and "postmortem examination", but this is a minor point. The sources are predominantly reputable, quality British newspapers. I am very impressed with this FAC; it is one the the best prepared I seen so far this year and sets an excellent standard. Graham Colm (talk) 16:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• Many thanks, Graham. And I'll sort out the postmortem issue. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 17:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• Graham, my preference would be to use "autopsy" because it's more succinct, but some editors objected saying it's not used much in the UK, so I've used postmortem examination on first reference, [16] and postmortem thereafter, except in the section about the postmortems, where in both the header and on first reference, it's postmortem examination again. I hope that's a little more consistent. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 04:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. The main reason is that I think that the heavy use of external links in the body of the article is inappropriate. Readers may not have access to the external links, because they aren't reading Wikipedia on the internet. Particularly, I don't think the prose of the article should specifically refer to those links (as in "this photo"). Granted, I don't think this practice is explicitly prohibited by the Wikipedia guidelines. However, the first sentence of WP:EL does say: "Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia, but they should not normally be used in the body of an article." Moving these links to the footnotes would be more appropriate in my opinion. The article also appears to go into too much detail that isn't relevant to the topic (the description of other cases the coroner involved in the case also worked, for example). Two further minor issues:
  • "Known as "Tommo" to his friends, he had been married twice, the first marriage producing five children and the second four—five girls and four boys in all, aged 15 to 32." When were they aged 15 to 32? I'm assuming it was at the time of his death. Also, I don't see the connection between his nickname and his family status.
  • "His friends told reporters he was a keen Millwall F.C. fan; he can be seen on the day of his death wearing a blue Millwall shirt underneath a grey "Neil Harris all-time leading goal scorer" T-shirt.[7]" I don't understand why the second part of that sentence is in present tense. The rest of the article isn't.--Carabinieri (talk) 00:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• Hi Carabinieri, I'm posting my replies to you again here in case you missed them below, then I'll leave a note on your talk page.

• Regarding the external links, Wikipedia:CITE#Embedded_links does allow embedded links as source material, though it prefers them as [17] rather than this. There are nine or so embedded links to images/video in the text itself i.e. inside sentences, then there are four links to videos embedded in subheads. I did this because the images and video are vital to this story. It's likely that what happened to Tomlinson would not have emerged had it not been for the citizens' journalism or "sousveillance"—showing how the images and video tracked his movements that day, and the movements of the police, and how the story emerged bit by bit as the videos were published, is essential. Placing the links to the images inside footnotes wouldn't change the fact that people need to be reading this online to see them. It would just make it harder for everyone to find them.

• Regarding the present tense about the Millwall shirt, it's because it can still be seen in the video. I've clarified that sentence. [18]

• I've removed Tommo; see the diff above.

• I've fixed the sentence about the children; also in the diff above.

SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 17:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Have you pinged Carbinieri for followup? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, SlimVirgin has. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 21:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I pinged him today, [19] and he has edited since then, so hopefully he's seen it. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 21:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Carabinieri, I'm adding here that I've removed the embedded links that were inside the text, and the image links are now between ref tags instead. See here. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 17:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support - interesting article; I followed the story at the time but had all but forgotten about it lately. Some comments:
  • Some of the references (eg ref 5) are like several references bundled together. I'm not sure if that's a problem per se but it does seem unusual compared to other articles I've seen.
  • In the bit headed 1st April: First Police Statement, at the end of where the statement is quoted there appears to be a dangling reference tag of some sort, because you can see written "|source" with the pipe on display. --bodnotbod (talk) 11:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• Hi Bodnot, in case you missed the reply to this below, thanks for the support. I've fixed the dangling thing (thank you), and the references are bundled together wherever reasonable to avoid having multiple refs after every paragraph or even sentence. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 10:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Support Leaning to support: In most respect this article is first-class – well-organised, compellingly written, excellent use of source material. I have just a few issues:-

• Map: although this is captioned "Tomlinson's route that day", I see no route marked between points 1, 2 and 3. Also the coloured streets are confusing, because the natural assumption is that these are parts of the route, which they are not. Can a clear route line be added to show how Tomlinson got from 1 to 2?
• Neutrality: I have no major issues with the article's neutrality but there are a few niggles, mainly the inclusion of personal details on Tomlinson. It's OK to give his background and family details, but the mention of a nickname is marginal, and the information that he supported Millwall FC and was wearing a team shirt seems irrelevant, and perhaps affects readers' ability to look at the case objectively.
• In-text links: I am divided in my view on this. Normally I would say that bare links in text are not acceptable, but in this case the convenience of being able to follow the story pictorially while reading the text is a strong argument, and if Wikipedia rules allow these to stay then I won't object.
• Where is the copyright status of the in-text images established?
• Point of detail: "...the first marriage producing five children and the second four—five girls and four boys in all, aged 15 to 32." Tomlinson was 47 when he died; did he become a father at 15? And can the "child" of 32 really be described as from his first marriage?

All in all, however, commendable work. Brianboulton (talk) 12:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Further comments with regard to those external links. I fully understand the reservations held by other reviewers, but the way these links are used in this article is dramatic, innovative and quite extraordinary (in a good way). I am lucky enough to have a extremely fast internet connection, and the way these external images add to the narrative is engrossing. The editors have challenged the FA standards in a novel way. The questions I think we have to ask are; is Wikipedia an internet encyclopedia or a surrogate paper one, and should we deny FA status to this remarkable contribution because its style, in this regard alone, goes against that of "conventional" featured articles? Perhaps we should be brave? If this article were to appear on the Main Page, I think the reputation of the project would be enhanced beyond belief. I know, most of our readers do not have fast connections, but this is not a valid reason, in my view, for not allowing this one FAC to be promoted. This is a mould-breaking contribution, we might not wish it to set a precedent, but if we aspire to be forward thinking, we have to back this one IMHO. Graham, Graham Colm (talk) 22:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I mentioned this before, but I really disagree with that. I don't see how the article's use of external links is innovative. Most Wikipedian's first article, which usually isn't very good, does this pretty much the same way. I do have a fast internet connection, but I also don't want to be forced to click on links several times per paragraph in order to really understand the article. This is an encyclopedia, it should be able to stand on its own without relying on people looking at The Guardian every couple of sentences.--Carabinieri (talk) 23:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• Some responses. Thanks for the input, everyone. I'm listing some fixes or replies below.

• The bio section. Fixes here. I've removed Tommo (though it was what he was known by, so I can't really see a problem with including it). I've removed that the nine children were the product of the two marriages and made the sentence more ambiguous: "married twice with nine children". I've added that they were 15-32 "at the time of his death". Also note that he needn't have been 15 when one of them was born; some are, I believe, stepchildren, but I didn't think it worth going into that level of detail. I've made it clear that he can be seen "in the footage" on the day of his death wearing the grey T-shirt etc: the reason for the present tense (this is for Carabinieri) is that we can still see him wearing it. The reason I go into detail about what he was wearing is that it makes him easy to identify in the various videos, some of which only recorded him from a distance. Also, most of the sources discuss him in terms of his being a Millwall fan. Not that much is known about him, so the newspapers, and this article, tend to include most of the details that became available.

• If you are mentioning that he had nine children, then for accuracy's sake you have to add, parenthetically, "(including stepchildren)". Why leave an ambiguity, and have people for ever after asking if he was a father at 15? On the Millwall fan business, it's not a major issue and I'm happy to leave that to you. Brianboulton (talk) 23:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• Okay, I'll go through the sources and see if I can find one that's clear about the issue. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 10:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• I can't find a source that clarifies this much, but I added one that makes clear at least one of the older boys is a stepson, and I've added "including stepchildren" to the sentence. [20] I'll add more detail if can find any. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 10:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• The reason for the external links to images: there are nine or so embedded links to images/video in the text itself i.e. inside sentences, then there are four links to videos embedded in subheads. I did this because the images and video are vital to this story: they are the story, in many ways. It's likely that what happened to Tomlinson would not have emerged had it not been for the citizens' journalism or "sousveillance"—showing how the images and video tracked his movements that day, and the movements of the police, and how the story emerged bit by bit as the videos were published, is essential. Placing the links to the images inside footnotes wouldn't change the fact that people need to be reading this online to see them. It would just make it harder for everyone to find them.

• On balance I agree with you; I believe (though with slightly less brio than Graham, above) that the circumstances in this case justify something which is normally discouraged or forbidden. Brianboulton (talk) 23:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• Brian, thanks for the support. You asked about copyright status. There are two fair-use images in the article: the Evening Standard headline, and the front page of the Inspector of Constabulary's report. All of the other images are PD. The images of Tomlinson are from two of the videos taken anonymously and released into the public domain, then published by the Guardian; the Guardian confirmed this in writing and the images have OTRS tickets. The map of London is from an open-source map project. The riot police image is from Flickr and released cc-by-sharealike. The mounted police officer was released by the Wikipedian who took it.

• Brian, you also asked about the map. There are two problems with plotting his route. The first is that I'm not sure how to do it myself, so I'd either have to ask someone or else learn how to use the software. The other issue, I think insurmountable, is that he kept doubling back on himself to avoid the cordons, so it would make an exact route quite complex-looking—needing different colours and arrows going in various directions—and we don't know everything he did, only part of it. So for example I don't know how he first got from his workplace to Lombard Street. Parts of it would therefore be missing entirely, and parts of it would be overly detailed. Regarding the map itself, there's nothing I can do about the colours (not that I know how to do anyway); this is the only free street map of that area I could find.

• I sympathise with your difficulties with map manipulation, something we have in common. Given the difficulties of changing the map, and the complications arising from Tomlinson's to-ing and fro-ing, I'd be happy if you simply changed the word "route" in the caption to "movements", which I think is a fairer description of the map. Brianboulton (talk) 23:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• Done. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 10:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Fine. With that, and other adjustments discussed above, I have moved to full support. Brianboulton (talk) 10:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 11:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• Bodnot, thanks for the support. Regarding ref tags, I combine references between one set of ref tags (where it makes sense to do it) to avoid having a footnote after every sentence, and sometimes multiple ones. Thanks for pointing out the dangling thing; fixed here.

• Carabinieri, you mentioned unnecessary details. We don't give details now of previous cases the second coroner dealt with. You may have seen that in an earlier version of the article; I'd added it because he's a well-known coroner in the UK, but I removed it when I was getting the article ready for this nomination. The previous cases where the first coroner was criticized are important because they raise the question of why he was picked to perform the first autopsy. Is there anything else you see as unnecessary?

SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 02:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comments -
• Current note 47, 50 and 68 (INQUEST) all have the publisher as the link title. You use elsewhere the title "Briefing on the death.." to link to that, can we be consistent here in references to this source?
• Current note 76 - "Adapting.." is listed in the references as by O'Connor, which makes finding further details on it difficult. Needs to be consistent with the full listing to make it easier to find.
• On the external links embedded, the relevant guideline is WP:EL which comes down pretty hard against using embedded links in the article body text. I myself am not going to even touch this one with a ten-foot pole, but I point it out for other reviewers to have the relevant guideline at hand. (I will tweak SV's nose a hair (gently and with humour) about how at Carucage it was all about putting the surrounding stuff IN that article, but this seems a bit like the shoe is on the other foot here. (Granted, it's media instead of text, which makes it a bit more difficult)).

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Consider my nose tweaked, Ealdgyth. :) I think the relevant guideline for the embedded links issue would be Wikipedia:CITE#Embedded_links, which does allow embedded links for source material, though it prefers them as this [21] rather than this. Regarding your other points, INQUEST ref fixed, [22] O'Connor fixed. [23] SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 09:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Very well written, as always, very comprehensive, and quite interesting too. I'm not sure why reviewers have asked for some details to be removed, though; if the sources mentioned his nickname was "Tommo", for example, why insist that SV remove that fact? It adds a bit of color to the article, which isn't a bad thing. Anyway, excellent, FA quality. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• Many thanks. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 09:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Interesting article, very well-written, thorough, and well-referenced. Clearly meets FA criteria IMO. Krakatoa (talk) 21:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you, Krakatoa. :) SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 15:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't particularly like the embedded external links, but that's been discussed at some length already and it seems fair enough to use them. But one point does occur to me... where's the (first) video? We use several stills from it. We refer to it regularly in the article, and we've established to our satisfaction that it's in the public domain. Given this, and that it's presumably helpful to understanding the events to see it, is there a reason not to host a copy on Commons and include it in the article proper? Should we consider it? Shimgray | talk | 15:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• Hi Shimgray, the first video is linked to in the infobox and again in this section: the first one, 7 April, Guardian/American businessman video. It's on YouTube here. The only reason I didn't upload and include it that way in the article is that I don't know how to, and I also wasn't sure about the Guardian logo being burned into it, and whether that matters. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 15:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• I haven't looked yet (but do have the FAC watchlisted); imbedded external links? Ugh ... those belong in WP:EL or other appendices. Can't they be converted to notes or citations? Imbedding external links is not a precedent I want to establish in Featured articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• I'd like to keep them, Sandy, because it's important to show how the story developed. It was entirely image-propelled. It's therefore important to say "the police said X at 6 pm, but this image published the next morning showed otherwise," with a link. Not doing that means having to write around the issue, and have the reader search in footnotes. CITE does allow embedded links as source, though it prefers them as numbers rather than with a text. This sentence in particular would be difficult to rewrite and retain the same degree of ease for the reader and clarity (this is just an example; there are other sentences that would suffer too if the links were removed):

This image published by the Daily Mail shows Tomlinson smoking a cigarette in front of a police van in Lombard Street. The time was 6:07 pm, according to the newspaper. The Mail writes that an eyewitness, IT worker Ross Hardy, said Tomlinson was drunk and refusing to move; a police van tried to nudge Tomlinson out of the way, and when that didn't work, he was moved by four riot officers. The Daily Mail published this image of him apparently being pushed by the police at 6:09 pm. On 16 April, The Guardian published three new images of Tomlinson, clearly taken at the same time as the Daily Mail images, though The Guardian says they were taken at 7:08 and 7:10 pm, an hour later than the time given by the Mail.

SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 15:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Can they be switched to a Notes section something like this (I don't quickly know how to format notes, so this is an approximation, using refs)?

An image published by the Daily Mail shows Tomlinson smoking a cigarette in front of a police van in Lombard Street. The time was 6:07 pm, according to the newspaper. The Mail writes that an eyewitness, IT worker Ross Hardy, said Tomlinson was drunk and refusing to move; a police van tried to nudge Tomlinson out of the way, and when that didn't work, he was moved by four riot officers. The Daily Mail published an image of him apparently being pushed by the police at 6:09 pm. On 16 April, The Guardian published three new images of Tomlinson, clearly taken at the same time as the Daily Mail images, though The Guardian says they were taken at 7:08 and 7:10 pm, an hour later than the time given by the Mail.

(Also, don't forget to add WP:NBSPs between between times and am or pm.) I understand the difficulty (that you keep writing articles that depend on images and videos :), but I really would like to avoid setting a precedent of imbedding external links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Or, an alternate suggestion just occurred to me. Other editors argued that Tourette syndrome really needed a sample of tics, to benefit reader understanding. I quarantined those in a box (see Tourette_syndrome#Characteristics) to get them out of the text. There is some precedent for this, since infoboxes in leads do include external links. Can you set up a template as I did on TS, and include all the images there? At least that way, we don't have external jumps within the text, but they will be all in once place, easily located by our readers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'd fixed it before I saw your post. I've just added them between ref tags instead, though it makes them slightly less useful because the reader has to click twice; and less immediate -- it's the immediacy of the embedded links that I like. The purpose of cautioning against external links was to make sure editors didn't write sentences like, "Apple last night announced ..." CITE says, "Embedded links should not be used to place external links to websites in the body of an article where they are not used to verify article content ..." But anyway, I wouldn't want that point alone to hold up the FA, so I've fixed it and will shut up now. :) I'll think about creating a template for images separately, which is a good idea. Will do non-breaking spaces shortly. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 16:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Non-breaking spaces done. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 17:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you did all that work before my other idea occurred to me: I like it better, as it places the images near the text. You should be able to copy and alter the TS template if you decide to go that way. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'll do that, thanks. It's a great idea. I was thinking of having both: the way it is now with the refs near the text, and then in addition a template with them all in the order they were published. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 17:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Very interesting! But yes, moving the pictures to citations causes them to be lost, hard to locate, and since the images have no page titles, they can't be "cited" correctly as citations, should probably be in notes if that's how it's to be done. They would be more effective in a box, or as notes. Also, we still have numerous links to videos, that might also be more effective if all in a box in that section, as in the TS article. Carabiniera hasn't weighted in yet, and we still have external jumps to videos. At any rate, beautiful article that should clear hurdles in time for March 31. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Sandy. I just remembered that I had linked some videos in subheads too, in the section about how the videos emerged. I've removed those too. [24] SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 20:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Something is goofed up here, but I don't know how to fix it.

• Hidden categories: PDFlink without a parameter

I think the PDFLINK template is being used incorrectly? I don't know what it does ... I just type (PDF) manually to avoid excess templates chunking up the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• I didn't add the PDF templates and I'm not a fan, so I think I'll just remove them rather than fight with them. :) SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 19:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 19:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

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