Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Death on the Rock/archive2
- 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 GrahamColm via Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:59, 29 September 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]
Death on the Rock edit
- Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is my second attempt at FAC with this article; the first took longer than I expected and I ended up being unavailable, first while I underwent surgery and then I became heavily involved in organising Wikimania. Wikimania's over now and thankfully I'm fully recovered, so I can pick this up again. Having had a look at the previous FAC, I think I've addressed all the outstanding concerns as best I can, but I would welcome more eyes and any further comments. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support by Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC) I reviewed this article on its first run, and the only point I raised which was not addressed was the lead. THis has now been addressed, IMO, and I consider it now meets the FA criteria. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comment. I reviewed this last time, and all my concerns have been addressed except for the lead. My concern was that the first paragraph of the lead acted as a summary for the lead itself, giving information that appeared again at the end of the lead. It has been much improved, but I think the last two sentences of the first paragraph are unnecessary. I'd suggest either cutting them altogether, or possibly moving an abbreviated version of them to the last paragraph. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:30, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Mike, thanks for looking again. We shouldn't make people read to the end of three paragraphs to find out the end result, and that it was the first individual documentary to be subject to an independent inquiry is a significant part of its notability, so I think those two sentences are necessary and useful. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:15, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, that's not how I would do it, but I think it's a matter of opinion, and not an issue with the FA criteria, so I've switched to support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
- Caption that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
- Fixed.
- File:Geoffrey_Howe.jpg: according to original source this definitely isn't from 1974, and that licensing tag is questionable. The image from which it is derived has a different tag that makes a bit more sense. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- According to the file it's cropped from, the copyright holder released it into the public domain via Flickr. Where 1974 came from, I haven't the faintest. I've corrected the date on the file. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from Mr. Gonna Change My Name Forever The facts that "Death on the Rock" was accused of sensationalism and that Thames commissioned an independent inquiry are mentioned twice in the lead.
- First mention in the lead:
It was condemned by the British government, while tabloid newspapers denounced it as sensationalist. "Death on the Rock" subsequently became the first individual documentary to be the subject of an independent inquiry, in which it was ultimately largely vindicated.
- Remove the first mention.
- Second mention in the lead:
The morning after the broadcast, several tabloid newspapers attacked the documentary, accusing it of sensationalism and "trial by television". [...] As a result of the retraction, Thames commissioned an independent inquiry into the making of "Death on the Rock"—the first time an inquiry had been commissioned into the making of an individual documentary.
- Replace "Thames commissioned an independent inquiry into the making of "Death on the Rock"—the first time an inquiry had been commissioned into the making of an individual documentary" with ""Death on the Rock" became the first individual documentary to be the subject of an independent inquiry commissioned by Thames, in which it was ultimately largely vindicated.", because "commissioned", "inquiry", and "into the making of" are said twice in the second mention as blockquoted.
}IMr*|(60nna)I{21:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Replace "Thames commissioned an independent inquiry into the making of "Death on the Rock"—the first time an inquiry had been commissioned into the making of an individual documentary" with ""Death on the Rock" became the first individual documentary to be the subject of an independent inquiry commissioned by Thames, in which it was ultimately largely vindicated.", because "commissioned", "inquiry", and "into the making of" are said twice in the second mention as blockquoted.
- Thank you for your suggestion, but I don't think it would be an improvement. I've explained the 'duplication' above, and your suggested alteration would actually make the prose worse and change the meaning of the sentence. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comment -- Recusing myself from delegate duties, I reviewed, copyedited (a little) and supported at MilHist ACR so back for another look...
- The lead has changed a bit since ACR, so I re-read it from top to bottom and made what I hope are some improvements -- happy to discuss of course.
- Still in the lead, the words "many believed" are a bit weaselly. While I accept that they're supported by the conclusion in the main body, I wonder if something like "several involved parties speculated" (or "believed") might not be better.
- Other than that I've just reviewed the diffs in the main body since ACR, and see no issues with them, and the structure, level of detail, and density of referencing seems appropriate. As I said in ACR, I find the terminology for "specific" and "general" references (not to mentioned their order being the reverse of the norm) a bit off-putting, but to each their own... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm happy with the tweaks you made, so thanks for that, and I can see your point on "many people", so I've gone with you suggestion. Thanks for taking a look. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Exhaustive and definitive, yet not overwhelming or tiresome to go through. Everything checks out. An overall interesting read with a sound structure on a rather "touchy" subject. Great job. All the best, ProKro (talk) 23:20, 11 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 18:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.