Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Michael Brown Okinawa assault incident
- 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 00:00, 16 July 2007.
Respectfully re-submitting this article for FA consideration. Since the last nomination, the article has received copyediting support from WP:JAPAN [1], undergone a peer review with WP:MILHIST [2], and passed an A-class review [3]. CLA 00:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Image:MarineMichaelBrown.jpg is definitely a replaceable fair-use image; we don't need to use non-free images to show living people. The two pictures of his lawyer don't really seem to be particularly historically significant or really discussed in critical commentary, but I can see where those could go either way. (ESkog)(Talk) 05:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]- We need at least one picture of Michael Brown in the article, because he's at the center of this story. The image you specifically mention is most likely a public domain mugshot. Since the source of the image doesn't say that for sure I put the fair use rationale on it. What would you need done with the images in the article in order to change your opposition to the article? CLA 06:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on fair use grounds as above, but extending; Image:MarineMichaelBrown.jpg may or may not be a mugshot and we can not presume public domain just because it is a mugshot (even if it is). The source is copyrighted. Further, there's no fair use rationale for this particular use. Also, as he's living, it's replaceable fair use as noted above. Image:ToshimitsuTakaesu&MichaelGriffith.jpg lacks fair use rationale for this article. I also concur with the general comments regarding depiction of his lawyer. Why? There's nothing in the images that add to the article. The article discusses his lawyers, but a visual depiction of them does not add to the article significant, which is a requirement under our fair use policy. Image:MichaelBrownandToshimitsuTakaesu.jpg lacks fair use rationale for this article as well.--Durin 15:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Support
Weak OpposeNo infobox? I am sure there is one that can be used here.Lack of inline citations (not following the text you have written). The references in "Web" can probably be used in inline citations. (WP:CITE).Stubby paragraphs. Combine or remove.Some very long paragraphs. Reader will get lost.If you can explain to me what you mean with the Notes thing (that I think is very odd), I will strike it out. After you have finished, please message me.--trey 03:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Okay, I split some paragraphs and combined some paragraphs ([4], [5], [6], and [7]) and added an infobox: [8]. Instead of spreading the footnotes throughout the text, which I believe interrupts the flow of the article, I combined them all at the end of each paragraph (except in the case of direct quotations). In each citation is the author's name and the title of the article, which the reader can reference in the "Web" section. I've used this footnote style in the last four articles that I've successfully nominated for FA. See Battle of Edson's Ridge, Actions along the Matanikau, 1994 Fairchild Air Force Base B-52 crash, and Battle of Cape Esperance. Cla68 09:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A detailed, well written and well referenced article on an interesting topic. --Nick Dowling 01:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Under the trial section, the last three paragraphs all start with on and then a date, this repetition doesn't seem like professional writing. And for the citations, why aren't the sources inline? You have an inline section under what you call "notes", which are not notes, but just the names and titles of the sources in the web section below. By doing this you force the reader to look at your "notes" and then search the list below for the correct article. This is not necessary. The "notes" should be removed and the web sources and other sources should be done by inline citations. While you may have used this format for citations in previous FA's I think its redundant and should be changed. KnightLago 16:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Since the paragraphs in the trial section are divided by time sequence, I'm finding it hard to think of how the paragraphs should begin. Any suggestions you might have of how you think those paragraphs should begin would be very helpful. Yes, the "notes" section does force the reader to find the full reference below. I've seen it done this way in many history books that I read and in many other articles here in the project. Cla68 20:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have seen it done in books as well, but this is not a book. I think authors do that because they are going to continue to reference the source and don't want to put footnotes on every page. But I think we should be uniform in sources, and not force the reader to search for anything. I also think it would be easier for you as you write to just use inline citations throughout. It would certainly save you time. I tried to work on the sentences I talked about above, but I noticed something else. Paragraphs 2,3,4,5 under the trial section all start the same way. I think this needs to be changed also. KnightLago 14:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Since the paragraphs in the trial section are divided by time sequence, I'm finding it hard to think of how the paragraphs should begin. Any suggestions you might have of how you think those paragraphs should begin would be very helpful. Yes, the "notes" section does force the reader to find the full reference below. I've seen it done this way in many history books that I read and in many other articles here in the project. Cla68 20:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, per my comments at previous FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:43, 15 July 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.