Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Robert F. Kennedy assassination

< 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 User:SandyGeorgia 19:31, 12 August 2008 [1].

Robert F. Kennedy assassination edit

Nominator(s): Fritzpoll (talk)


I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has been extensively rewritten since it was listed as being in urgent need of cleanup. Since then, I've taken it through to GA, and the article has been peer-reviewed and copyedited by several other editors. I believe that this article represents the fullest possible account of the topic without going into irrelevant information, and that it is well-written, per the copyediting performed by independent editors. I look forward to any constructive feedback that arises out of this process. Fritzpoll (talk) 23:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "The assassination of Robert F. Kennedy," – remove the link or the bold; linked text can't also be bold, per WP:BOLDTITLE
  • Some of the web references are missing access dates, such as ""Sirhan Sirhan Kept Behind Bars". CBS (March 6, 2003)." and "Warren Kozak (March 17, 2006). "One Common Link". NY Sun."

Gary King (talk) 00:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing it out - corrected these and one or two other citation formatting errors Fritzpoll (talk) 00:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 20:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • http://www.citizinemag.com/politics/politics_0506_rfk_twhite.htm while probably okay, it looks like this is a freely distributed magazine newspaper in Austin? Some might feel that this isn't the best source for information on something like this subject. I do note that it's covered by another book, so I'm not sure why it's needed.
  • What makes http://crimemagazine.com/index.html a reliable source?
  • Current ref 50 is lacking a publisher. (James Randerson "New Evidence challenges...")
  • Same for current ref 52 (FBI Robert F. Kennedy ...)
  • Same for current ref 53 (Democracy Now Special ...)
  • Same for current ref 54 (Robert F Kennedy Assassination...
  • Same for current ref 57, 58 and 59.
Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just got in - this an acknowledgement that I'm looking into these, and will post back here once I've sorted them out. Fritzpoll (talk) 15:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All fixed' except for the crimemagazine.com reference, which I'm still working on. I believe I'm able to replace it, since, although I believe it to be a reliable source, I cannot provide the necessary proof that it is. Fritzpoll (talk) 19:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update - removed the crime magazine source, as the book covers it. Also refactored the following two sentences into one, and added a new source for balance. You may wish to check the formatting of the new source, number 38 at the time of writing. Otherwise, I believe I have addressed all your comments. Fritzpoll (talk) 19:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Very good work here. I would take out both the conspiracy theory para in the lead, and the "see also" section (you already have categories). I've only read about half yet, so a more substantial review to follow... ( Ceoil sláinte 00:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Going off what Ceoil said, I think you should mention Bobby (2006 film) somewhere in the article (there's a legacy section...). I think you could remove the see also section after that. I also think some stuff from the legacy/aftermath section should be mentioned in the last paragraph of the lead, as opposed to removing it. —Giggy 00:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll look into it in the morning (later today, actually) - would a one-liner acknowledging the existence and content of the film be sufficient? I'm wary about removing the last paragraph of the lead because I believed the lead was to summarise each major section of the article. Some of the legacy/aftermath section is already covered by the penultimate paragraph of the lead. Fritzpoll (talk) 01:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I said on my talk page, a mention of the film in the lead would probably be OK. —Giggy 23:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support very nice work. However (this might be just me) the lead looks a bit short. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 17:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The lead says that "the shooting was recorded on audio", however this is not confirmed in the article body which says only that the immediate aftermath of the shooting was recorded. Which is correct? Kaldari (talk) 19:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is mentioned in the "Second gunman section" that there was a recording of the shootings. Is this not enough? (genuine question that I can't word any other way to sound less snarky - just assume it's not! :) )Fritzpoll (talk) 19:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, sorry. I actually skipped the Alternative theories section (being a wikipedia editor tends to make one weary of conspiracy theories). I expected the information on the recordings would have been in the Media coverage section, but I see I was wrong. Sorry about that. Carry on :) Kaldari (talk) 20:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's alright. The conspiracy theory section used to be about 20K, so you're lucky it's this small! Fritzpoll (talk) 20:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support as per all of my comments have been discussed and answered, and I can say that, before a thorough reread, I am most likely to support. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Alternate images per MoS. When alternating, try not to have any images on the left situated right below a heading, which would violate MoS. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey - we've had a go at that, and it didn't look right. MOS allows it, but doesn't require it, if I've read WP:MOSIMAGES correctly... Fritzpoll (talk) 21:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see that they added "can" in there. Thats odd. I was wondering - why have media coverage after the shooting. It just seems like it would be part of the "assassination". I also think that the assassin could have more info on him drawn from the other page. Also, the aftermath section could have a little more. It is a draw of interest for me and it seemed to end to quickly. Over all, it seems fine. I will wait to see what others say. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good questions: the media coverage section follows the assassination itself, because it is not solely descriptive of the event. It actually covers events after Kennedy's assassination as well, so it was generally felt to warrant a separate section. The info on Sirhan is, I believe, an acceptable summary of the main article for the purposes of this article, and the section here is adequately sourced, unlike the main article (which will be one of my next projects). I'm not sure what else could be added to the aftermath section, but I am open to suggestions. Fritzpoll (talk) 21:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, tough tough tough. I almost think that the whole information from the Sirhan Sirhan page on the assassination should be moved to RFK and the summary moved there. Why? Because of the flow - assassination and trial should be linked, unless the trial is placed on its own page. If that is possible? And I don't know what can be added to the aftermath section either, it just feels like there might be something more (as this was a big assassination). :) Ottava Rima (talk) 22:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What material from the main article is missing from the summary? I see some material from his parole hearing is gone, but I'm not sure this particular article should duplicate the contents of another one. Unless you're suggesting that Sirhan shouldn't have his own article? :) I'll let other editors weigh i on this one. Fritzpoll (talk) 22:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant to swap them - put the "person" article trial information in the "assassination" page, and the trial summary in the "person" page. Why? Because the individual is notable as an assassin, but the assassination is notable for who was killed. To put it quickly - When I look for info on RFK's assassination and the trial afterwards, I'd look on RFK's page, and then the assassination page. Going to a third page on a guy that didn't have any other notable information seems to be three steps removed. I think Sirhan should have his own article, but the assassination/trial section should be only a summary. Its just a priority thing. Either way. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, all my comments after a complte review of the article were addressed, and I have no concerns with any changes made since then. —Giggy 23:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object The references need to be formatted properly with ndashes, and the periods (or lack thereof) need to be consistent. Repeated refs need to be merged. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi - I'll look at the dashes and the periods. What references are repeated? Fritzpoll (talk) 08:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I looked through and as well as fixing some minor formatting stuff, found one duplicated ref, which I fixed: [2]. —Giggy 08:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed it myself. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a nice little article. One thing I'd like to see though is a closer examination of the background. I believe a lot more could be written in that section. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 21:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any thoughts as to what's missing? I wanted to keep it relevant to the assassination, and everything else I could come up with wasn't relevant to the assassination, but more to Kennedy himself. Open to suggestions though :) Fritzpoll (talk) 21:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When I meant background I meant the Alternative theories section. I'm sure I've have seen numerous reports on the web and journals discussing possible motives and theories for the assassination, probably enough for an article of its own. I just wondered if there was anything missing that might add to the evaluation of his death. As it stands the paragraph and article is very concise which is a good thing but just thinking about the possibility that something has been left out. I'll check it out later and give the article a reread and then make my decision. OK? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 10:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see what you mean. Actually, I got started on this article because its conspiracy section was about 30K long and it was posted at the Fringe theories noticeboard. What's in the article is thus delibrately small per WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT and also because this is as sourced as this section could be from reliable sources! Anyway, I'll let you do your thing, because I may well have missed something. Cheers Fritzpoll (talk) 11:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, as the comments and suggestions above have been seen to. A small one from me: The caption of the image of the page from Sirhan's notebook might be better if it provided some context for the picture. Beyond that, nice work. Cliff smith (talk) 03:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, Cliff - I'll ponder the caption over lunch. Presumably you mean to contextualise it with the text...hmmm Fritzpoll (talk) 11:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commments by Blofeld

  • You need to mention place of death in the intro. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 19:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed. Keeper ǀ 76 21:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hubert Humphrey is overlinked
    Fixed. Keeper ǀ 76 21:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sirhan was convicted on April 17, 1969 and six days later was sentenced to death.[37] The sentence was commuted to life in prison in 1972 after the California Supreme Court". What happened in those three years?? He was sentenced to death in 1969. What happened in those three years? Could you explain briefly?
    • I can perhaps take a stab (no pun intended) on the third question. Probably nothing happened. When someone is "sentenced" to death in the US it generally takes several years (I think I read that the average duration is 7 or 8 years, I'll be damned if I could find a source for that though, please don't ask for one:). He likely was sitting in prison, waiting for doomsday, probably riding out the appeals process (that's a question perhaps that needs clarifying. Did SS ever attempt to appeal his conviction?) Keeper ǀ 76 21:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see an appeal to commute the sentence in '72, rendered moot by the supreme court decision mentioned in the article, but nothing worth mentioning, really... Fritzpoll (talk) 21:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7-8 years is ridiculous. During that time the offendant costs how much to feed and house from tax money??. Want happneed to the good old days when crminals were hung in the public the following day after conviction? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 11:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not that this is anywhere near relevant to the discussion about a FAC, but I'd much rather have due process and a jury if someone decides "I've committed a crime" than the "good old days" of a lynch mob with a rope. Reminds me of this, which was unfortunately, not that long ago. 7 or 8 years isn't that long to "wait" before killin' someone off for a crime. It has been proven to be too hard to unkill them in light of new evidence </digression> Keeper ǀ 76 15:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It would be helpful if the fair use image, Image:Rfk assasination.jpg, had a more informative description. In particular, it should credit the photographer, whoever that is, and link to a more relevant source than rrstar.com, which appears to be rather sloppy with image credits and is undoubtedly not original source (and the image is not CC-nc licensed, as the fair use rational previously stated). The other images are all fine copyright-wise.--ragesoss (talk) 00:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Now those small issues have been cleared up. A prime example of how to write a concise article that is to the point and highlights all the main points in a good summary. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 11:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments regaridng images:
    • Image:Robert F. Kennedy.jpg is using a bogus copyright tag (see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 June 30) whose deletion is imminent pending re-tagging of so licensed images. Please re-license as appropriate.
    • Image:Sirhan3.jpg has a misleading copyright tag (being released to and being the authorship of are entirely different notions). The federal government can hold copyrights if they are transfered. Does the source confirm the image is PD, or just that it was "transfered" (if the latter, it needs to be established that IP rights were indeed forfeited). Please re-license as appropriate.
    • Image:RFK Cross.jpg does not have a verifiable source or summary, as required per WP:IUP
    • Image:Rfk assasination.jpg: concerns above are valid. WP:NFCC#10A requires attribution of the copyright holder if different from the source (which certainly appears to be the case here). ЭLСОВВОLД talk 12:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Progress on the images ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll be checking on those at lunchtime today (UK time) - sorry for the delay, I've been dragged around other parts of the wiki these past few days and missed elcobbola's comments. I'll seek to resolve them shortly Fritzpoll (talk) 08:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Right, I'm not good on these image problems (will probably go ask someone for help). My solutions will probably be a) switch to a fair use rationale since I can't establish a PD release b) I'm not sure on this one - will seek clarification about what this means c) I can't find the part of WP:IUP that you mean - the image was released by the person taking the photograph. I don't doubt that there needs to be an additional tag, but I don't know which one d) I'll track down the copyright holder. Fritzpoll (talk) 16:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1) The first image, Robert F Kennedy, is from Wikicommons, so falls under fair use per them. If this image is to be challenged, it must be taken up there, and the pages here are not affected unless that challenge results in the deletion of the picture. 2) The Sirhan3.jpg falls under this same regard. 3) The RFK Cross.jpg image is now on Wikicommons and cannot be challenged here. These three images should not be used as a justification against promotion unless Wikicommons moves to delete the images. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"WP:NFCC#10A requires attribution of the copyright holder if different from the source (which certainly appears to be the case here)" On looking at the photo, you see the link to this, which is the source for the image, plus marks the copy right at the bottom: "Copyright © 2008 GateHouse Media, Inc. Some Rights Reserved." Thus, copyright holder and source are the same. There is no image concern here. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Commons is an archival site. Usage of images hosted therein subjects them to the aforementioned Wikipedia policies. The Commons does not allow or host fair use (i.e. nothing can "[fall] under fair use per them". This image was not taken in 2008; "Copyright © 2008 GateHouse Media, Inc. Some Rights Reserved." is not germane and/or correct. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 18:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3lcobbola, as I stated before, if you have a complaint with the rationale tags, you have to take them up to commons. This is not the appropriate place (i.e. Wikipedia). As long as commons hosts it, it falls under GFDL and cannot be argued here. Please go there and report back with the progress. Secondly, the copyright of the final image (2008) shows the most current copyright, as many books are copyrighted in the original publication and later publications, so too can images hosted on websites. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC) Struck because its now being reviewed at Commons. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 19:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was the one who wrote the initial fair use rationale for Image:Rfk assasination.jpg, and my apologies mis-sourcing it to Gatehouse Media. My initial reading of the Gathouse site was that they owned the photo, but further examination seems to show that I was incorrect. I did a bit of sleuthing, and according to a profile of Boris Yaro in the University of Southern California's alumni magazine, he's the photographer of that image and it was taken for the LA Times. I've updated the image page accordingly. I think this should now meet the sourcing requirements of WP:NFCC#10A. Does it look good to others? Vickser (talk) 19:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect! ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The image issues have now been resolved with my final edit removing the page of Sirhan's diary and replacing it with a link to Wikisource. Fritzpoll (talk) 21:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes indeed, no remaining image issues. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 21:29, 11 August 2008 (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/Robert_F._Kennedy_assassination&oldid=1141484877"