Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article review
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:32, 1 October 2022 (UTC) [1].

Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy edit

Notified: nominator has retired from Wikipedia. Talk page notice 2021-11-16
Nutez, please notify anyways, and also other active editors and potentially interested WikiProjects. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:35, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nutez notifications have still not been done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:44, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Belated notifications on 2021-12-29; please hold in FAR for at least two weeks from this date. Fritzpoll, WP:BIO, WP California, WP Death, WP Elections, WP Politics, WP US, WP Crime SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:51, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Review section edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because I think it has prose and style issues. There are tags for {{colloquialism}} in the text, and many paragraphs have no citation whatsoever. The article does not reflect the most recent discourse surrounding the assassination. It does for instance not relay his son, RFK jr.'s thoughts on the murder, or the debate around Sirhan Sirhan's tentative parole by Gov. Newsom.[2] Nutez (talk) 23:30, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Additionally, I do not think that all of the sources here are high-quality.
    • I don't see why a PRNewswire press release should be used for anything related to this subject. There are guaranteed to be much better sources than that for basically any aspect of this event
    • " "The Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy ABC News Live Coverage". YouTube" - no evidence that WP:COPYLINK is met here
    • WP:RSP lists Democracy Now! as a bit of a marginal source, there should be better sourcing available for an FA on this topic
    • " Pruszynski recording & analysis by acoustic expert Philip Van Praag Archived " - published by rfkmustdie.blip.tv, any reason why this is high-quality RS?
    • "Levin, Robert E. (1992). Bill Clinton: The Inside Story. S.P.I. Books. p. 60. ISBN 978-1561711772." - anyone familiar with this author/publisher? If this is the right linkedin page for the publisher, then the publisher apparently has single-digit employees

There's also a goodly number of reference formatting problems, with one source being simply "California State Archives" and a number using "Archived copy" as the title. Hog Farm Talk 00:53, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can maybe try to improve the article, give me a day or two to begin assessing it/finding better sources/formatting references/fixing other issues. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:33, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anyone have thoughts on whether the caption "Robert Kennedy campaigns in Los Angeles, 1968 (photo by Evan Freed)" ought to have the parenthetical italicized? I'm always confused by {{xref}} and similar. (please use {{reply to|Sdkb}} on reply) {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:03, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, the article is salvageable! After taking a look, I think it can be saved. This a very important topic, and there are many sources which can be used. I did some minor copy-editing, and am in the process of re-arranging sources (separating books/journals/scholarly works from contemporary news sources). The main issues here is with the sourcing, there are few paragraphs poorly sourced/not sourced. Various YouTube citations and news articles can be replaced by more reliable works. I'll work on the article and will try to improve it to FA status by December 31. @Nutez, do let me know if there is something I'm missing. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:26, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update – January 2, 2022: I have re-organised and more importantly, expanded the "Background" section, using WP:HQRS. Broadly, these were my edits, (which includes edits by few other users as well, to whom, I am grateful!) Willing to work rest of the article, if it can be held in FAR till then. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:07, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nikkimaria : I am trying to get this to present FA status. I found this June 17, 1968 issue of Newsweek magazine. It has many images which may be useful for the article. It was published between 1926/77, and I don't see any indication of copyright on the magazine issue. Would {{PD-US-no notice}} apply? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Most of those images are credited to other sources - you would need to track those down in order to determine status. Some have a copyright notice in the caption. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:32, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:14, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Kavyansh last edited the article on 2 Feb. The article has improved considerably but I still see referencing issues, at a glance #59, 77, and 104 in this version of the article. (t · c) buidhe 04:37, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nikkimaria: Yeah, I am still interested in fixing the article. I'd say more than half work is done. I'll appreciate if you could hold it in FAR for few more days. I tried to add scholarly sources, and will replace the sources mentioned by Buidhe with better ones. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:26, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kavyansh.Singh: How are things going here? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:22, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Pretty well, but bit slow. This is now on my top priority list ... – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 02:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Kavyansh.Singh made significant edits to the article on March 15. Is work continuing? Z1720 (talk) 20:59, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Following on this and this, a thorough and independent source-to-text integrity check will be needed if this article heads towards Keep territory, in addition to a rigorous copyedit. That said, I don't see it heading for Keep territory. Here is the Background in the version that passed FAC; the current version is bloated, veering off-topic, and over-quoting. The prose is not at FA level: sample "In 1964, polls showed that various Democrats wanted Kennedy to be Johnson's running mate in the presidential election." Similar bloat and prose issues are found in the next section. Overquoting here, and this is not FA-level prose. Unless more editors plan to step in here to do address the original FAR concerns without bloat and marginal prose, I think we should be in Move to FARC territory, to keep this on target. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:40, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @SandyGeorgia. I'll again assume good faith on your comment that it was meant to be constructive criticism. But a few fundamental points:
  • The sources used in the article with associated page numbers are mostly from the FA version a decade ago (promoted by you). I don't know how the two FACs you link are important here to demand a "thorough and independent source-to-text integrity check". I have no objections at all with the check being conducted, but what significance does that example of FACs of 2021/22 have on a 2008 promoted article?
  • As for the prose, I very much appreciated anyone copyediting the prose. But for the off-topic background section, I disagree. That section now is not off-topic. Everything in the first sub-section is important:
    Visit to Palestine - important as Sirhan Sirhan was from Palestine and that visit made impact on Kennedy's views on Israel (later mentioned in the article)
    JFK's election and RFK as Attorney general, cuban missile crisis - important as to specify what led to RFK becoming, from President's brother to national leader and an influential figure which ultimately led to his presidential campaign.
    JFK assassination - important to mention as to specify, so called, "Kennedy curse"
    Johnson and RFK senatorial campaign - important as (1) to specify RFK's relations with LBJ (2) Kennedy mentioned his views on Israel in a speech in senatorial campaign.
    Vietnam War - important to specify why a Democrat would run against a Democrat president in primaries.
  • As for the second sub section, it specifies events that lead to RFK becoming the front runner and ultimately being assassinated. Please let me know what else is "veering off-topic", because in few political articles as this, background is very important. Suggesting to see Cross of Gold speech#Background.
  • I will still work on the article, but if others feel my work (from this version to this version) is not leading the article towards the "Keep" territory, feel free to move this to FARC.
– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:50, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The prose is not at FA level, and the article will need a copyedit by a fresh set of eyes. The relevance of two recent FACs, in similar territory (politicians)--supported in spite of copyedit and source-to-text issues--is that the person(s) undertaking a copyedit are advised that the task at hand is more than just prose smoothing; it is also assuring that the text is supported by the sources. It is frustrating, and not a good use of time and resources, for a copyeditor to smooth prose only to find out later the prose was unsupported by sources.
On the other hand, who promoted the article over a decade ago, and what was in it then, is unrelated to the purpose of this FAR. Standards have changed, sources evolve, and beyond even that, a given FAC could have received faulty or incomplete review, or could just be a bad promotion. To wit, you offer as a counterexample an article (Cross of Gold speech) promoted by Raul (five days after I resigned, unclear why he was promoting then, as that was rare) on three supports, one of which was from an editor who edited only briefly and never before or after reviewed any other FAC. Do you consider that a strong FAC? WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument in content review. Me promoting the article in 2008 has no relevance to what we accept and expect in FAs today.
All of this considered, I will not likely find myself entering a Keep declaration on this article unless independent collaborators work on the prose and analyze the source-to-text integrity. Again, not a criticism: my own writing is awful, so I know I always need collaborators to review it. I am suggesting the same applies here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: Thanks! I very much appreciate the feedback, and yes, I'll appreciate other editors collaborating, copy-editing, and spot-checking sources (preferable before ce). The only thing I still disagree is about the length of background section. I did offer a counterexample, not with intention of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but just to show the importance of occasionally long background section. I also provided reason why each thing in that section is important, for which I received no feedback. Just to specify, I had no intentions whatsoever to imply that your promotion was wrong. I humbly apologize if it was received that way. It was just an interesting fact I found (how you found out that Cross of Gold speech support). I still believe that the article is salvageable, and I will still continue to work. If the improvements (from this version to this version), covering sections till "Sirhan Sirhan" are not leading the article towards the "Keep" territory, be bold and help fix the issues. Because I don't think moving this to FARC would, in any way, help the article. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:46, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No apology is needed; of course I have some bad promotions (no comment whether this one is, as I haven't even looked closely enough to say). On the issue of whether there is too much background, removing text is easier than adding text, so I'll hold off on that until sourcing and prose is examined. Since you seem aware of the work still needed here, I will debold my declaration to move to FARC, and check in later. But when serious copyediting is needed, I'm not the best person to do that work; I am always willing to do some copyediting, but I recognize my own prose limitations. Perhaps when Z1720 is back up to speed, they will look in here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:02, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the article, I'll appreciate feedback on the following issues:

  • The FA promoted version of the article was very concise (around 16,500 characters). Since then, lot has been added about "Assassin's gun" which I feel is not much useful. Who brought the gun, who did he sell it, how did it reach Sirhan, what was the cost, who "paid the $6 balance" has nothing much to do with the assassination. I could just remove much of that section, but would that be seen as compromising with comprehensiveness?
  • I don't feel File:EMK eulogy of RFK.ogg in any ways contribute to the article. It is a non-free media (again, added after the 2008 promotion). Would that be fine to just remove it.
  • I need feedback on sources. For FAs, we need "high quality reliable sources". In my previous FACs, I have been told that contemporary reliable news reports are fine to use as long as they are not used to support any evaluative claim. Because the initial FA version uses few issues of Time magazine's 1968 articles, almost all used to support the events of the assassination. I don't think that would be an issue, but just to be sure, could anyone more experienced take a look at sources in the Works cited section (only), few cleanup is still needed in the "References"

Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:46, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My feedback:
  1. The "Assassin's gun" section is an example of the kind of off-topic bloat I mentioned above. There are some relevant bits (illegal for alien to own gun so bought it clandestinely), but there is an extreme amount of unnecessary background detail, like: "The Iver Johnson .22 caliber revolver that Sirhan used to shoot Kennedy was initially owned by Albert Leslie Hertz, a resident of Alhambra, California. Hertz initially bought the gun to protect his business during the 1965 Watts riots, but never used it and kept it in its wrapping paper and box. His wife decided the gun was too dangerous and gave it to her daughter, Dana Westlake. Westlake did not use it and gave the gun to her next-door neighbor, George Erhard. Erhard later sold the gun to Sirhan's brother, Munir Bishara Sirhan, known as "Joe", who George knew was working at Nash's department store at the corner of Arroyo and Colorado in Pasadena. At the time, Erhard was looking to seek more money from the gun sale to finance some work on his car." Holy moly, it goes on and on. It reads like a student editor was getting credit by the number of words added. I agree with you that much of it can be removed, but there are some relevant bits.
    Checking further, the entire section was added by one editor, and the "who Wrote That" tool indicates it has been relatively untouched in the three years since (including the whopping 11-sentence quote). In other words, no FA-level eyes were watching this article. The upshot seems to be to debunk conspiracy theories; that can be done without the blow-by-blow detail. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:26, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I am indifferent on that one; someone may find it relevant.
  3. On those contemporary sources, I believe they are typically OK unless (and this is the key) more recent scholarly sources cover the material better or differently. This is where knowledge of all sources comes in to play (survey of the relevant literature). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:12, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sandy, I have an internet archive account (if I can remember the password). I'm willing to spot-check things in a few days, but I'm out of town for the weekend. Hog Farm Talk 13:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah ha ... I also have an internet archive account, so we can split the work (if/as I find time, with Rowling heating up); how about if you start at the top of the book sources, I start at the bottom, and we'll see where we meet ? I'll do mine on the talk page here. But many of the books are not available at archive.org ... in a case like this, that is concerning. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:44, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Few are available at Google books and have preview. Rest journals can be accessed through WP:TWL. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:46, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so as of April 25, 2022, I feel that as long as content and source reliability is concerned, I have tried to fix most of the issues. It has also been updated with the most recent information. There may still be few prose issues and old verifiability issues. At this stage, I'd appreciate others commenting on the state of the article and what could be done to improve it. For comparison:

  • The FA promoted version — August 12, 2008 : this
  • The FAR nominated version — December 20, 2021 : this
  • Current version — April 26, 2022 : this
    • Changes since nominated for FAR : this

Pinging everyone associated with this FAR: @Nutez, Nikkimaria, SandyGeorgia, Hog Farm, Sdkb, Buidhe, and Z1720: – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is a long way from featured-quality prose and will need a lot of work; I haven't read beyond that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:03, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the FA version lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:05, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. A set of comments outlining issues from the lead with the changes you suggest would be much more helpful for me to improve the lead. And I think this is within the radar of the FAR process. Best regards, Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:53, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some source-text integrity checks on talk; I have a couple queries (one of which is pretty minor). Hog Farm Talk 04:13, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Those minor issues have been resolved. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:05, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:25, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure Nikkimaria. I have tried to resolve the issues mentioned by the nominator of this FAR and pinged all the people involved with this FAR on 18:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC). SandyGeorgia and Hog Farm volunteered to do some spot-checks; HF did it on the FAR talk page. The minor issues raised were resolved. Since then, there has been no progress. I appreciate comments from anyone. Can you check the reliability of the sources and let me know if anything stands problematic? Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720: Would you kindly be willing to give the article a review and let me know what issues to work on? It appears that this FAR has stalled from last 45 days or so. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:59, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Summoned here by the above ping: I did a copy edit of the article. Here's some notes:
  • File:Rfk assassination.jpg's caption identifies Kennedy, but does not identify the other person who is prominent in the photo. I suggest that the person is identified.
    • Done.
  • File:Sirhan Sirhan.gif: I assume this is Sirhan's mugshot after he was arrested for this incident? If so, I recommend that the caption mentions this as such
    • Done.
  • I suggest alt text, per MOS:ALT, though this is not necessary to implement for my support.
    • Done.
  • The Assassination section is a little long, at seven paragraphs. I think level 3 headings should be added to split up this section.
    • Done.
  • I suggest that Kennedy's funeral be given its own section, to be placed under "Assassination". I don't think the funeral information fits with the Legacy section, and the Legacy section might be expanded, per below.
    • Done.
  • The "See also" section contains links to additional things that might need to be mentioned in this article.
    • One is to Bobby (2006 film), which made me realise that there is no information about this event's depiction in popular culture. Should this be added?
      • Well, our article on the film says: "The screenplay is a fictionalized account of the hours leading up to the June 5, 1968, shooting of U.S. Senator Robert F. Kennedy". [emphasis added]. So it is not completely historically accurate. I think it should be in the "See also" section, but there is not much to write about the film in the article. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:58, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The other is the Kennedy curse. Does this deserve a mention in the article?
      • I don't think so ... it is just a selective list of premature deaths/accidents in the Kennedy family. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:55, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those are my thoughts. Source checks, spot checks and image copyright checks were not conducted. Please let me know if you have any questions. Z1720 (talk) 00:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: Thanks for taking a look. I have tried to address the concerns. How does it look now? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kavyansh.Singh: Additional comments below:

  • Re Bobby 2006 film: I think that depictions of this event in popular culture should be included in the article. One depiction is this film, and the fictionalised details should be mentioned. Perhaps a paragraph in the legacy section can talk about this event in popular culture? Z1720 (talk) 03:01, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Z1720, not an entire paragraph, but I tried to add some information regarding the film, as published in scholarly sources. Let me know if anything else if required. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:50, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nutez and Hog Farm: or anyone else: what remains outstanding here? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:25, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Will try to look soon, but I'm likely to be traveling about 600 miles around the Ozarks for work next week so it could be a bit until I get to this. Hog Farm Talk 03:41, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Hog Farm, apologies for the ping, but do you have any comments on comprehensiveness and prose (or perhaps anything), which I'll be glad to work on. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:32, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've been very busy for the last week and a half but things should be calming down now. I'll try to get to this soon. Hog Farm Talk 23:10, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
HF

All of the sources look okay enough. Democracy Now! isn't great for something adjacent to the Arab/Israeli conflict but what it's citing is acceptable.

  • "He turned his head and seemed to recognize her." - exact wording as found in the source, needs to be rephrased to avoid minor plagiarism
  • "but all the bullets had already been fired " - the fact that all bullets had been fired I couldn't find on the specified page, @Kavyansh.Singh: can you check your pagination because I had to fix the pagination on another ref?
  • "and repeatedly fired an eight-shot .22 Long Rifle caliber Iver Johnson Cadet 55-A revolver" - looks like pagination issues again, as the cited page only calls the weapon "a stub-nosed revolver"

I checked most of the Witcover refs and one of the news sources, my only real concern is if the pagination issues are more extensive than the two noted above and one I already fixed from Witcover. Hog Farm Talk 23:04, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I guess to make myself clearer, I don't intend to support keeping until I'm confident that the pagination errors have been cleaned up throughout the whole article, and would like an assurance that this has been thoroughly looked into before continuing reviewing. Hog Farm Talk 02:15, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I intend to check the pagination for all the sourced. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:35, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aaronovitch 2009 — [3] — checked the sole reference, no issues.
  • Ayton 2007 — [4] — checked all 10 references, no issues.
  • Ayton 2021 — [5] — checked the sole reference, no issues.
  • Bass 2003 — [6] — checked the two references, no issues.
  • Clarke 2008 — [7] — checked all 9 references, made these changes.
  • Coleman 2004 — [8] — checked the sole reference, no issues.
  • Davis 1992 — [9] — checked the sole reference, made this change.
  • Gabler 2020 — [10] — checked the sole reference, no issues.
  • Guide to U.S. Elections 2010 — can mail those two pages — checked the sole reference, no issues.
  • Heymann 1998 — [11] — checked the three references, no issues.
  • Kaiser 2008 — [12] — checked the sole reference, no issues.
  • Kotz 2005 — [13] — checked the sole reference, made this change.
  • Melanson 1994 — [14] — checked the sole reference, no issues.
  • Moldea 1995 — [15] — checked the seven references, made these changes.
  • Mossman & Stark 1972 — [16] — checked the sole reference, no issues.
  • Newfield 1988 — [17] — checked the two references, no issues.
  • Noguchi 1983 — [18] — checked the sole reference, and added a page in range.
  • O'Sullivan 2008 — [19] — checked three of the four references, added a page in the range.
  • Palermo 2001 — [20] — checked the five references, no issues.
  • Sanders 2000 — [21] — checked the sole reference, no issues.
  • Shahidullah 2008 — [22] — checked the sole reference, no issues.
  • Thomas 2002 — [23] — checked the three reverences, no issues.
  • Witcover 1988 — [24] — checked all 8 references, made these changes.
  • @Hog Farm: Above, I have checked all the 23 book sources used in the article, and have fixed the minor pagination issues wherever they were. I feel now the pagination issue had been thoroughly checked and cleaned up throughout the whole article. Let me know if there is anything else I have to address, which I'll be glad to consider. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:45, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having computer issues, will be middle of next week before I can get to this. Hog Farm Talk 23:29, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Should finally be able to get back to this soon. Hog Farm Talk 03:22, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since it looks like the book sourcing issues are addressed, I'll move onto the journal articles and other refs I can access.

  • Briley 2007 - single cite okay
  • Clarke 1981 - hard to tie anything down because the page range given is too broad, but I'm not sure that "The interpretation that Sirhan was motivated by Middle Eastern politics has been criticized as an oversimplification that ignores his psychological problems" is a good summary of an article that states on p. 99 "Five persons involved in four incidents were primarily motived by political rather than personal concerns. They are John Wilkes Booth [...] and Sirhan Sirhan" and then on p. 101 "Although the acts of Booth and Sirhan were extreme, it is less clear, given the circumstances of the time, that they were irrational". @Kavyansh.Singh:, which part of Clarke 1981 is this sentence drawing from?
  • Goldzwig 2003 - supports "On March 31, a few days before the Wisconsin primary, Johnson announced that he would not seek the presidency" but cited page doesn't mention the Wisconsin primary
  • Hayes 2019 - single cite is okay
  • Kurtz 1982 - single cite is okay, although you don't really need p. 9 in the range
  • Sieg 1996 - single cite is okay
  • Hodak 2012 - okay
  • Newsweek 1968 - article "Kennedy asked Romero, "Is everybody OK?"; Romero responded, "Yes, everybody's OK." Kennedy then turned away and said, "Everything's going to be OK" but the source gives the actual Kennedy quote as "Is everybody safe? Okay?", Romero's response is different in the source, and p. 29 of the source implies that Romero is actually the one saying "everything's going to be OK".
    • Changes nothing in the article, but changes the citation to Allen 2015. Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:08, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FAR coordinators: - I haven't checked anything besides the citations noted above, and while most are okay, I'm rather uncomfortable with the citation to Clarke 1981, as the source is vague to where in Clarke's ~25 pages this is found, and what I read in Clarke on pp. 99 and 101 would seem to contradict our article's statements. I'm also concerned by the misquoting and probable misattribution of a statement from Newsweek 1968. Kavyansh, I keep finding a few source-text issues every time I look at this, and as it's still my busy season with work, I don't think I can commit to checking every citation I can get ahold of. My inclination at this point is to delist so that FAR can remain more focused and then have this worked up outside of the FA-sphere and then eventually resubmitted to FAC once the source-text issues can be verified to be cleared. Hog Farm Talk 01:53, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to FARC; this article is not progressing and the source-to-text integrity issues keep coming. (Hog Farm, surprisingly, at this stage, we are still at FAR, so delist is premature. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:15, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Move to FARC I guess, then. Hog Farm Talk 03:29, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hog Farm and SandyGeorgia: I agree that at this point in the FAR, the source to text issues should not have existed. I am still committed to fix those issues, and have tried to check all the sources (except books, which have been done above):

Scholarly articles

  • Briley 2007 — [25] — checked the sole reference, no issues.
  • Clarke 1981 — [26] — checked the sole reference, it has few issues, made this change.
  • Curtin 2000 — [27] — checked the sole reference, made this minor change.
  • Gardner 2000 — [28] — checked the sole reference, no issues.
  • Goldzwig 2003 — [29] — checked the sole reference, made this change.
  • Hayes 2019 — [30] — checked the sole reference, no issues.
  • Hoogenboom 2000 — [31] — checked the sole reference, no issues.
  • Keene 2013 — [32] — checked the two references, no issues.
  • Kurtz 1982 — checked the sole reference, no issues; removed pg 9 from the range.
  • Meloy 2010 — [33] — Checked 4 references to pg 563, all fine, no issues.
  • O'Neill 2000 — [34] — Checked the six references, all fine, no issues.
  • Sieg 1996 — [35] — checked the sole reference, has minor closed paraphrasing, but it is a case of WP:LIMITED in my opinion. No issues with s-to-t integrity.
  • Socarides 1979 — Would be happy to mail the PFD, if required — Checked the two references, no issues.

Magazines

  • Hodak 2012 — [36] — checked two references, made this minor change, no issues.
  • Newsweek 1968 — [37] — Checked the three sources, made these changes.
  • "All" Time magazine references — checked, made few changes, and everything should be fixed now.

News sources

  • ABC — [38] — Video recording from the official website should be reliable enough for verification of the statement.
  • Allen 2015 — [39] — Checked two references, no issues.
  • ABC (Australia) 2022 — [40] — Checked the sole reference, no issues.
  • BBC News 2006 — [41] — Checked the two references, no issues.
  • Blankstein 2010 — [42] — Checked the sole reference, no issues.
  • CBS 2003 — [43] — checked the sole source, made this change.
  • CNN 2012 — [44] — checked the sole reference, no issues.
  • Daily Record 2011 — [45] — Checked the sole reference, no issues.
  • Dershowitz 1972 — [46] — Checked the sole reference, no issues.
  • Esty-Kendall 2018 — [47] — Checked the sole reference, no issues.
  • Hayes 2010 — [48] — Checked the sole reference, no issues.
  • Holley 2016 — [49] — Checked the sole reference, no issues.
  • Issenberg 2008 — [50] — Checked the sole reference, no issues.
  • Los Angeles Times 1995 — [51] — Checked the sole reference, no issues.
  • Lovett 2011 — [52] — checked the two references, no issues.
  • Newsom 2022 — [53] — Checked the sole reference, no issues.
  • Turner 1982 — [54] — Checked the sole reference, made this change.
  • Reynolds 2007 — [55] — Checked the sole reference, made this change.
  • Segalov 2018 — [56] — Checked the sole reference, no issues.
  • Reuters 2015 — [57] — Checked the sole reference, no issues.
  • The Guardian 2006 — [58] — Checked the sole reference, made very change, no issues.
  • The Guardian 2007 — [59] — Checked the sole reference, no issues.
  • The Guardian 2008 — [60] — Checked the two sources, made this change, no other issue.
  • The Guardian 2021 — [61] — Checked the sole reference, no issues.
  • The Independent 2007 — [62] — checked the two references, made this change, all fine now.
  • The New York Times 1968 — [63] — added a cite, all fine
  • The New York Times 1989 — [64] — Checked the sole reference, no issues.
  • Willon 2022 — [65] — Checked the sole reference, no issues.

Web sources

  • ANC — [66] — Checked the two references, made this change, no issues.
  • Claire T. Carney Library — [67] — Checked the sole reference, no issues.
  • Democracy Now! 2008 — [68] — Checked the sole reference, no issues.
  • FBI 1977 — [69] — Checked the two references, made these changes, all fine now.
  • Secret Service — [70] — Checked the sole reference, added some more detail, no issues
  • Wells 2018 — [71] — Checked the sole reference, no issues.
  • California Secretary of State — [72] — Checked the sole reference, no issues.

With that, all sources, top to bottom, have been verified and the few issues found (mostly minor, one major) have all been fixed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:11, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Close without FARC - I've been through a significant number of references since the last redoing by Kavyansh, and I didn't note any issues. The fact that those issues existed that late into the FAR are quite concerning, but they seem to have been addressed, given the spot checks I just did. Hog Farm Talk 02:09, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FAR break

I looked at one section only: Legacy. First, I found the section starting with a centered quote (oddly unencyclopedic, highlighting a statement by one worker on the scene). The first sentence in that paragraph isn't punctuated correctly:

  • Kennedy's assassination was one of the four major assassinations in the 1960s, the other three include the assassination of John F. Kennedy (1963), the assassination of Malcolm X (1965), and the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. (1968).

More problematic is the paragraph structure. What is the third paragraph about, and why does it start out about a movie, and then circle back to the topics in the second paragraph? What does "attempted to recreate the scene of the assassination through a fictional account" even mean? I suspect if I were to get drug in to this FAR, I'd continue to find more of same, so ... I won't. Still at Move. To. FARC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:06, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then move to farc, I guess. I'm not sure how this one is ever going to get resolved. Hog Farm Talk 01:21, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Someone has to take on an overhaul, not just of sourcing, but also of writing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:32, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What did you find unencyclopedic? The direct quotation, or it being center aligned? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:29, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another random sample: "In August 2021, two of Kennedy's children, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Douglas Harriman Kennedy, supported Sirhan's parole, while many others disagreed.[108] The same month, the California state parole panel recommended Sirhan's parole.[109] Gavin Newsom, the governor of California, denied the parole in January 2022, asserting in an opinion piece for Los Angeles Times that "Sirhan has not developed the accountability and insight required to support his safe release into the community."

  • Did RFK have dozens of children? (Or did six of them condemn the parole attempt?)
    • One less than a dozen, but I don't think that should be specified. Have now specified the fact that 'six' of them opposed the decision. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:29, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • When the California state parole panel recommended parole in August 2021, two of .. and six ...
  • Why do we need to know Newsom's decision was published "in an opinion piece in the Los Angeles Times" ... he's the governor, it doesn't matter where or how he denied it-- he did.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:47, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Have now removed the part about LA Times, but I do feel that the direct quotation is relevant to the article and of use to the reader. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:29, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another sample: "Kennedy's assassination was one of the four major assassinations in the 1960s, the other three include the assassination of John F. Kennedy (1963), the assassination of Malcolm X (1965), and the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. (1968)."

  • Three include three ??? Try something like:
    "Kennedy's assassination was one of the four major assassinations in the 1960s, including John F. Kennedy (1963), Malcolm X (1965), and Martin Luther King Jr. (1968)." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:53, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Thanks for the suggestion – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:29, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Plain vanilla grammatical issues: "During a re-examination of the case in 1975, experts examination of the possibility of a second gun having been used, and they concluded that there was little or no evidence to support this hypothesis.[117]" SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:06, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:29, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the flow in the Second gunman section.

  • "During a re-examination of the case in 1975, experts examination of the possibility of a second gun having been used, and they concluded that there was little or no evidence to support this hypothesis.[117] The Pruszynski recording was published in 2004 by CNN's Brad Johnson; its existence had been unknown to the general public previously.[118] In 2007, it was revealed that forensic expert Philip Van Praag had analyzed an audiotape of the shooting known as the Pruszynski recording in which Van Praag had discovered acoustic evidence that a second gun had been involved in the assassination."

Second gunman --> introduce Prusynski recording --> re-introduce the Prusynski recording --> re-introduce second gunman theory! This whole thing needs disentangling. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:18, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Have attempted to fix this by rewriting the article Is it better? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:29, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What can be done with this?

  • Some scholars view the assassination as one of the first major incidents of political violence in the United States stemming from the Arab–Israeli conflict in the Middle East.

First, it appears that "some scholar" = Dershowitz. Second, the way the sentence is put together leaves the idea that some don't, which begs the question, then what was? Fixing this requires reading the source and coming up with a sentence that makes sense of what the source says, which this sentence does not.

What we can do is either remove the scholar part, and rephrase it as 'The assassination is viewed as one of the first major incidents...', but it would be a bit less accurate. What would you suggest? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:29, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These samples are only from glancing at a few sections of the article. This is a short article whose prose should shine; the prose is nowhere near FA level, and I don't believe this star can be saved unless a new editor steps in to rewrite. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:36, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot, User:SandyGeorgia, for the findings! Comments like this are much more helpful than just stating that the article is not near FA standard. Please understand that I won't be able to fix the issues if I don't know what the issue is! I would appreciate if you could give the article another detailed read and list out all the issues you find with the article, be it prose, structure, anything. I'll try to fix the issues. I would further request that when you list an issue, also suggest what you think would be better phrasing or would be a better way to address the issue. We may have our differences at few places, but our motive is same: to improve the article. And as always, I am still willing to work on the article! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:40, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixing the issues is above my prose ability level, and I don't really have the time or energy for that type of rewrite anyway, so I'm going to have to bow out of working on this further unless I'm specifically needed to review something with this. Hog Farm Talk 15:10, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nutez are you following your nomination here? Feedback would be helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:33, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. Nutez (talk) 11:48, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Prose/style seem to be the remaining sticking points. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:51, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If prose is the only issue, perhaps we should suspend the nomination, put it up at GOCE/ get a good copyeditor, and reevaluate after that. (t · c) buidhe 06:12, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed, Buidhe. But if I understand SandyGeorgia correctly, the article does not needs just a copy-edit, but a rewrite from someone willing to access the sources. I have added it to the GOCE queue anyways. Buidhe, are you willing to give this a review? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:53, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I really do not have time. (t · c) buidhe 16:43, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      GOCE isn't going to fix this. The issues aren't surface prose issues. As Sandy notes above, this will need someone to dig deeply into the sources and rewrite parts. Hog Farm Talk 16:48, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I've been seriously tied up for two weeks with a fundraiser, but GOCE is the last thing I'd want in here ... a copyedit could end up just obscuring the issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:47, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree. I went in to repair an edit I made years ago, as someone had removed the full name of the person involved. Singh removed the confusing Bulova watch company bit, which had zero context. These things make it appear that intervening edits over the years have jumbled the article text, so meaning and chronology may already have been obfuscated, and an external copy edit may only further detach the text from the remnants of the source material. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:42, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist: Sadly, this nomination is going nowhere. When I took this project last year, I was optimistic to not only save the star, but improve this high page view article for millions of readers. There were many underlying issues discovered during the course of the FAR, including the various source to text integrity issues that precedes my involvement. I fixed most of the issues I identified, but respecting the consensus above, there are some issues which are beyond my abilities to fix. Since the nominator of the FAR has explicitly stated that they cannot help, and no other editor has stepped up to improve the article, I think we should really be focusing on other nominations. I'm still happy that I took article from this to this version. Outside the course of the FAR, I'll still try to take the article to GA level, and FAC if possible. Thank you all who helped at this nomination, especially Hog Farm! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:04, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I think the long road back may be the best way forward. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:18, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist; it now conclusively appears that no one is willing or able to take this on, and it has flaws deeper than the prose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:39, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per above. Hog Farm Talk 17:20, 18 September 2022 (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_review/Assassination_of_Robert_F._Kennedy/archive1&oldid=1118154851"