Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ike Altgens/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 not promoted by Ian Rose 13:23, 28 March 2014 [1].

---

Ike Altgens

Nominator(s): —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 05:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC) (Nomination died at 1 month and 17 days)

This article is a former Featured article about Ike Altgens, one of the most famous accidental witnesses to history. For nearly one month I have been rewriting, adding, fleshing, reestablishing dead links, and finding better links. Undoubtedly, I'll find out presently if it's ready. My thanks in advance. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 05:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• Quick comment: First instance of Associated Press needs to be followed by the abbreviation in parentheses. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 19:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

*facepalm* Guh! Of course it does. Done, and thank you. xD —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 22:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment: This seems to be a good example of an article in which multiple non-free images will be justified. File:Altgens1.jpg is obviously justified, despite being an AP photo, and we may even have a reason to prefer a larger version (however, as this is a biography, perhaps you would consider an image of the subject to lead the article). File:Altgens.jpg is far too large, and, in any case, should not be used when we have a free image- that said, the licensing on the free image is unclear- that needs looking into. The use of File:Altgens2.jpg and the crop also seem to be justified. The one thing I would say is that the images were not "released" by the AP, as the rationales suggest- they were sold by the AP. These aren't publicity photographs; they're photographs sold to newspapers for money. As these are press agency photographs, which are almost never justified on Wikipedia, you really need a tip-top, carefully crafted rationale. J Milburn (talk) 19:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

"Released" changed to "sold" as suggested; File:Altgens.jpg reduced as suggested (I didn't realize I'd left it that bloody big xD). I can find no evidence after a meticulous search that File:Altgens with JFK photos-large.jpg was renewed; if you have ideas for additional search avenues (such as hoping someone at AP Dallas has that information and would actually respond to an e-mail), please let me know. I can't find anything that suggests anyone having termed these "publicity" images; care to point me there? :)

Meantime, I've re-read the rationales and I believe they pass muster. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 23:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Update: after perusing other historical bios (something I should have done already *facepalm*), I agree with your infobox assessment. Done. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 00:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Altgens.jpg is still much too large, and, in any case, should be deprecated in favour of the free image. The free image, though, still has the implausible "author died 70 years ago" claim. J Milburn (talk) 10:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

1: 385x600px is too big? 2: Guh! That was an incorrect tag; it's gone. :) —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 11:11, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Update: My understanding of expiration dates was wrong. Suggested change made. :) —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 12:58, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Update: AP confirms ownership of File:Altgens with JFK photos-large.jpg, now deleted. The source uploaded it under a different file name, which I failed to take into consideration during the copyright search. (Guh!) —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 01:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I've reduced the image size again- there's no need for the portrait to be much bigger than a thumbnail. As the "free" image was not free, the portrait is justified. Thanks for taking the image policies seriously! J Milburn (talk) 18:26, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Cool, thank you. :) —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 00:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Source for first para of Early life?

Same as graf 2; I've learned over the years to tend toward placing the <ref> at the end of the cited data in the spirit of avoiding clutter per WP:CITE.

• "the first snapped along Elm Street would receive the most scrutiny" and "The Warren Commission paid careful attention to the image, as did private researchers" - source?

Explained within the subsequent, cited text. Rewritten with further cites. :)

• "While these and other quotes have been cited in arguments that Kennedy was shot from somewhere other than the book depository, Altgens in all published interviews to follow would never waver from a belief that the gunfire came from "behind" the Presidential limousine" - source?

Explained in preceding and subsequent cited text. Update: Rewritten and further cited. :)

• What makes this a high-quality reliable source? IMDb?

First is a note, not a reference; second is non-controversial data (a very brief film career). Update: better refs found and used, both cases. :)

• FN20: what kind of source is this?

A published news article not available on the Internet, last I'd checked. I'll look into it. Wrong, it's a book. Fixed.

• FN31: page formatting

Fixed.

• External links should come after Further reading. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:57, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for your assistance. :) —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 23:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Update: A free image now leads this article. My inestimable thanks to Altgens' family and estate. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 23:44, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Closing comment -- I'm afraid that after more than six weeks there's not nearly enough commentary and support for promotion here, so I'll be archiving the review shortly. Just on a quick scan, there are still too many uncited statements, which I believe was one of the things noted when it was demoted from FA. As a rule of thumb, every paragraph should end with a citation, at the very least. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:08, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Nominator's comment: Any uncited statements were due, apparently, to me misreading WP:CITE#Avoiding_clutter. At the risk of repeating myself, I did an assload of work on this article. I listed it, read the concerns, addressed the concerns, and watched as nothing happened. Literally, nothing happened. Even after spamming a few reviewers, nothing happened. Then, it's closed and archived because nothing happened. This was such a profound disappointment that I shall not go through this process again, with this article or any other. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 18:58, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, 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. Ian Rose (talk) 11:08, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

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