Wikipedia:Peer review/Oklahoma City bombing/archive2

Oklahoma City bombing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've expanded this article significantly a few months back, and after opening an A-class review with no reviews, I'd like to see what needs to be done prior to nominating at FAC. I have a goal of getting this on the main page on April 19, 2010, and want to get the ball rolling early. The article has a peer review in the past, and the article has changed quite a bit since then. I would appreciate any and all feedback. Thanks in advance for your time and efforts. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2009.

Hi, I have read over the article which is very good. It was good to find out more info on the subject as i am english and live in england so know very little about this attack and aslo this happened before i was born, so from a prospective on information for non knowers of the subject matter in much detail it certainly has given more knowledge of the incident.

In terms of the article it is very good as said before, it is extremely well detailed to the smallest of details. One thing though that could be said is where it is stated about the aftermath of the attack e.g. where testomy of victims i believe via use of previous legislation, i think it may be good if known if the law regarding the purchase of the bomb material like fertalizers was made stricter as a result due to the easy access of such a large quanity of the substances, are there limits now due to this i do not know but over in england there may be limits on the quanity able to be brought for this reason.

Overall brilliant article should be ok realistically for FA even though i have not got an FA or properly reviewed one before, sorry. Your response on my query would be apreciated. 02blythed (talk) 22:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look. I found a couple of sources that detail requests for legislation concerning the sales of ammonium nitrate and added them to the article. Although sales of it are not restricted, some states require identification. In addition, Congress passed a bill two months after the bombing requiring that small, traceable chemicals be included in commercial explosives so that, in the aftermath of a bombing, its makeup could be traced back to the original purchaser. Let me know if you notice any other issues or if you'd recommend any rewording. Thanks again for reviewing the article (I know it's a long one!), I appreciate it. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at the edits regarding the legislation and believe that it amounted to more than i expected i did not think as much info would be able to be generated on the subject, good research skills. I will be looking for this at FA and will immediately support the nomination due to the very high quality of the article. 02blythed (talk) 21:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments I agree this looks like it is ready for FAC - I read almost all of it and only had a few nitpicky concerns

The article uses {{cquote}} but according the documentation at Template:Cquote this is for pull quotes only, and this should probably use {{blockquote}} instead.

I never know when to use the different quote templates, but I replaced the two occurrences of "cquote" to "quote". --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence was a little confusing at first as it follows numbers of victims. Twenty-four people, including sixteen specialists, used full-body X-rays, dental examinations, fingerprinting, blood tests, and DNA testing to identify the bodies.[68][71][72] Would it make sense to recast it as To identify the bodies, twenty-four people, including sixteen specialists, used full-body X-rays, dental examinations, fingerprinting, blood tests, and DNA testing.

Much better. Changed as suggested. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Oklahoma City National Memorial viewed from the south showing the memorial chairs, Gate of Time, Reflecting Pool, and Survivor Tree.jpg is the art work copyrighted? If so it needs a free use rationale. I am not sure as it may be PD US Gov.

The chairs were designed by independent artists, so I added a non-free art tag to the the image along with a fair use rationale. Hopefully that is sufficient. If not, I may have to remove the image and look for one of the building instead. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to make sure all the images are OK before FAC - most looked OK to me on a spot check.

I made sure the images all have sources, details, and fair use rationales if necessary. Currently the article uses 5 non-free and 9 free images. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any official position / theory on the extra leg? Is there any chance it is from one of the other victims?

I thought I had added more details on the leg, but I guess it had been branched out with the conspiracy theories article. I added a paragraph to the trial section which details the history of the unmatched leg and how it applied to the trial. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps, well done. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this was very helpful, I appreciate it. Let me know if I didn't address these correctly. It will be interesting to see how the images work at the nomination. Thanks again. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of the changes look fine - thanks. I think all 4 or 5 fair use images are defensible under WP:NFCC. I had a few more thoughts / suggestions:

The more I think about it, since the monument is part of the National Park Service, my guess is that the art is work for hire for the US government and so free. User:Jappalang checks images at FAC and may be able to help with this.

I sent him a message to take a look at the image. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:FBIphoto04-19-93.JPG - I would see if a link to this image can be provided (seems as if it was originally online but no URL is provided)

I sent the editor who uploaded the image a message to see if he knows the source. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The St. Joseph's Church section needs a ref.

Added a few sources to the section. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:LEAD the lead should be no more than 4 paragraphs - I think the current 3rd and 4th paragraphs could be combined in one.

I merged the paragraphs together. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know when this is at FAC and I will be glad to support, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll be sure to do that. I'm going to wait for the conclusion of this peer review and get a few more editors to copyedit the article before giving it a try. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I saw your note on Malleus' talk page. Well done on this article. I'd support it, with the only suggestion of changing the word "opine". I hate that word, for some reason. --Moni3 (talk) 00:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. One of the other editors who had copyedited the article must of used it (I don't think it's in my vocab), but I changed it to "asserted". If you can think of a better alternative, let me know. Thanks again! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]