Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bath School disaster/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 29 March 2020 [1].

Bath School disaster[edit]

Nominator(s): Shearonink (talk) 04:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note on closing—listed at WP:FFA, if promoted, move to re-promoted at FFA, and increment re-promoted tally. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:41, 9 March 2020 (UTC) [reply]

This article is about the school bombing, farm bombing, and truck bombing, in and around the village of Bath, Michigan all of which were perpetrated by one man on May 18, 1927. A total of forty-five people died in what is generally known as the Bath School disaster. I have been working on and off on the article for over 7 years. I think I initially came upon it in the wake of Sandy Hook in December 2012 when the article looked like this. I have felt a responsibility to history as I have worked on this article, to the victims, the people of Bath Township, the rescuers, the heroes, even the perpetrator...that the verifiable truth should be told about the worst school attack in American history.
Bath School disaster is a former featured article, it was promoted in 2006 (see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bath School disaster and then demoted in 2010 (see Wikipedia:Featured article review/Bath School disaster/archive1). I worked to get the article to Good Article status and it was promoted in 2013, (see Talk:Bath School disaster/GA1).
I have asked for help in various Wiki-venues from many hardworking editors and they have all been wonderfully forthcoming on what needed to be fixed/adjusted/deleted/better-sourced/edited and just generally improved. These discussions can be found at:

I am looking forward to everyone's feedback. Shearonink (talk) 04:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[Above^^] Updated the link to the discussion about the article's images at the Media copyright questions noticeboard (that's now been archived). Shearonink (talk) 05:49, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

General note: Depending on how the FAC goes (yay or nay) I do hope to someday nominate Bath School disaster as the Wikipedia FA on its anniversary date of May 18. Shearonink (talk) 19:38, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from John M Wolfson[edit]

  • school board treasurer At least one of those should be delinked per MOS:SEAOFBLUE.
Done. Shearonink (talk) 03:20, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I think I caught all of them. Shearonink (talk) 03:20, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dates such as April 5, 1926, etc., need to be followed by a comma unless followed by other punctuation per the MoS, even when none is otherwise warranted.
Well ok...I had thought that it was the "April 5, 1926 township clerk election" not the "April 5, 1926, township clerk election" but yeah MoS etc. I think I've fixed all the comma-less dates now. Shearonink (talk) 03:20, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • thirty-one square miles ... an area of some five hundred and sixty-six square miles should be turned into numbers per the MoS.
I'm not sure how to do that using the Template:convert but I'll work on it. Shearonink (talk) 03:20, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Have been trying to fix this but am having trouble figuring out how to not make the template spell out the numbers... Will come back to this later today. Shearonink (talk) 15:08, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
John M Wolfson DONE. I figured it out - Yay!!! Shearonink (talk) 17:17, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We want to keep all numbers within a list of numbers consistent, so this. We wouldn't write out thirty-one, so we switch them all, including the ten, to digits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that times such as "8:45 a.m.", etc., should have conversions to UTC as well, but I might very well be mistaken in that regard. There probably isn't per further discussion.

The following are just comments on my end and do not affect the promotability of this article:

  • Consider moving the book sources in the References to a separate "Bibliography" or "Works cited" section and shortening the footnotes.
Oh. Wow. I hadn't thought of doing that...I'll consider it, but am interested in why you think the footnotes should be shortened. Shearonink (talk) 03:20, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Readability mostly. It's fine without them, but the footnotes are easier to read if you do shorten them. (See Michael Kenna for an example with {{sfn}}, or 1927 Chicago mayoral election for one without.)
  • Why aren't the "Further Reading" entries used as sources? Such sections aren't generally used in FAs, and this doesn't seem like that niche a topic to warrant one.
Actually the book version of "Mayday" is used as a source but "Mayday" is also very rare & out of print. Keeping accessibility and verifiability in mind the only way most people will be able to read it is through the Internet Archive so a link to the complete online copy made sense to me. I would hate to lose the scrapbook ref but it is a link to one of the few copies available at a library not to a complete online copy - you really think it should go? Shearonink (talk) 03:20, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. While most FAs don't have the sections, there's nothing against them so if you feel they are warranted I have no concerns either way.

Otherwise this looks good so far. I'll try to look into this some more and may or may not take WikiCup points for this. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:17, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughts John M Wolfson. Shearonink (talk) 03:20, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:33, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
UTC conversions are for ITN, not FAC
IF there is really a requirement to turn times into UTC, I haven't seen it, hope I never do see it, and suggest ignoring it. I can find nothing of that sort at WP:MOS SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:23, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair enough, I've just seen such things in articles on disasters and wrecks (something like "8:00 a.m. local time (14:00 UTC)") and thought that there was some sort of MoS requirement for it. Feel free to ignore it, then. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:55, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I"m guessing you are seeing that on current events, in the news sort of stuff ... ugh. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:33, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's precisely where I see it most often, which makes me think further that it's not FA material. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 07:03, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More comments:

  • and kill a generation of the area's schoolchildren. I don't doubt this, but it's not brought up explicitly in the body.
It's not? It's mentioned in the article that hundreds of pounds of unexploded dynamite & pyrotol and various explosive contraptions were found all over the school's basement - the perp intended to 1)destroy the entire building and 2)to kill everyone who in the building. I've adjusted the sentence - maybe it now is a little clearer. Shearonink (talk) 06:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC)\[reply]
The "generation" stuff wasn't, now it's to my satisfaction. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:25, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the road crew O. H. Bush the same as the fireman O. H. Bush? If so, you can just refer to him as "Bush" in his subsequent mentions.
I removed the descriptions of him as "road crew" or "fireman" but I think the 2 mentions of Bush are too separated to have the first mention be "OH Bush" and the subsequent mention be "Bush". Shearonink (talk) 06:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:25, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're misusing {{Inflation}}; set a specific end year and use |fmt=c instead of the magic word and parser expression. If you absolutely must have an auto-updating latest year use {{Inflation/year}}, which currently goes to 2019 for the US.
I don't understand all the niceties of this template but I'll try to fix it. Give me a day or two...I have to sign off for now, Shearonink (talk) 06:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the template documentation will tell you what you need to know. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:25, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Template:Inflation issue has been fixed. Shearonink (talk) 15:08, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for now. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:21, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John M Wolfson - What other items need to be edited/adjusted/fixed/deleted/sourced better/etc? Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 06:50, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking through this again I find that I can support this article for promotion. The FAR (which was from a decade ago) was based on insufficient citations, which has since been dealt with. While I didn't look too far into each individual image, the media seems appropriately licensed. The prose seems good, and there are no further coding or linking issues on my end. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks John M Wolfson. Appreciate all your comments & help. Shearonink (talk) 04:03, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kees08 comments[edit]

Drive by comments, probably will not perform a full review. Kees08 (Talk) 18:13, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are a lot more external links that is typical for a FA; could any of them be incorporated into the citations, and are all of them appropriate for the section? The answer could be that they are fine, just want to make sure you look into it.
Thanks Kees08. Yes, I am aware that there are perhaps more external links than the usual complement but in this case I think it it absolutely necessary. This subject, sadly, gets a lot of attention every time there's a school attack anywhere in the world but especially in the US - ranging from people who are simply interested to the vilest of trolls. The links to the good/great/verifiable sources about the event, the video & print interviews with survivors, that one newsreel (the only film of the destroyed building I am aware of), the online copies of the rare/out-of-print books (if you can even find a copy they're $300-$400 and if there are copies in libraries they're in rare book rooms etc.), the complete copy of the coroner's inquest (found on a website that was overseen by James Daggy from Michigan State) ...all the additional info that isn't used as a direct source in the article...the only way I know to preserve it is to include it here for safekeeping. Much of the info about the disaster was initially posted online on websites that have since gone defunct but whose information is preserved in the Wayback Machine. I ran down all the reliable sources I could find beyond the websites to use as direct references but overall I feel a responsibility to history to, in a way, preserve the chain of custody of the information. Hope that all explains my thoughts on the subject. Let me know if you'd like further discussion about it - Shearonink (talk) 19:15, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As long as reasons for exceptions to the WP:EL guideline and WP:NOTLINKFARM policy are reasonable, and the section is formatted and annotated per WP:ELMAYBE (Unusually large pages or ones that include file formats that will require plug-ins should be annotated as such.)(and other sections of the guideline), then it is fine. I trust that you can read and follow the guideline/policies linked there, just wanted to highlight them in case you need to make any changes. Specifically regarding ...the only way I know to preserve it is to include it here for safekeeping, as long as it follows the WP:NOTLINKFARM policy of Wikipedia is neither a mirror nor a repository of links, images, or media files then it is fine. I leave it to you to make that analysis and decision. Kees08 (Talk) 21:20, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kees08 I have removed 3 of the links, do you think that additional editing needs to be done to that section? I'm not sure if your opinion is a Support or not... Shearonink (talk) 15:03, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It was just a comment, I probably will not do a full review. Kees08 (Talk) 16:03, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kees08 I removed another link in External links - so that's 4 links in total that I've removed. Let me know if this is sufficient. Shearonink (talk) 18:42, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am a pretty straightforward individual, I really do mean that if you think it complies with EL, then we are good to go, and I don't mean to imply that I don't think it complies with EL. So if you think they are good, you are good to go on this point :). Kees08 (Talk) 20:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. To get rid of those 4 I had to think like a writer and "kill my darlings" lol. Shearonink (talk) 21:05, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 19:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • We usually require consistent hyphenation/non-hyphenation of ISBNs (either all hyphenated or all not hyphenated); right now there is a mix. I use the hyphenator tool to accomplish this. If you use it, make sure you preview and verify the edit is what you want.
Done. Shearonink (talk) 19:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As of this diff, refs 6 and 49 are to the same source but different page numbers; I have not seen this in any previous FACs but it might be okay. I am used to shortened citations like sfn or the citation style of rp.
Re: FA ref criteria I had always thought as long as the referencing is consistent is the main point. Shearonink (talk) 19:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This made me curious enough I looked up the relevant guideline, which is apparently at WP:IBID. It is a guideline and explicitly says that most editors combine them, but does not say it should or has to be done (most Wikipedia editors use one of three options). So I suppose it is your call on how you want them displayed, if you like it how it is, keep it like that. Kees08 (Talk) 20:15, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I finally broke down recently and bought myself a full Newspaper.com subscription but I don't know how to make clips. Am a little woozy atm from dental work so can't quite wrap my brain around how to do the clips. Just saw your offer below - YAY. Shearonink (talk) 21:05, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In citation 68, www.lansingstatejournal.com is not needed. Same goes for other citations that included the url, unless the url is the website's name, such as Spaceflight101.com
I think I've fixed all of those. Please let me know if I missed any. Shearonink (talk) 19:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The open access link is not needed in ref 65; links are assumed open by default
Fixed. Shearonink (talk) 19:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For ref 28, I usually use via=Google News instead of news.google.com
Fixed. Shearonink (talk) 19:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Am recovering from dental work - in these days of COVID-19 - so will go through the rest of your ref suggestions as soon as I am able - maybe later today. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 18:42, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, no rush. Looks like you got most of them. If you need someone to clip the Newspapers.com, just list the links here and I can clip them all in a couple of minutes. Kees08 (Talk) 20:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kees08 Oh! that would be awesome - THANK YOU. Just saw this post... 2 of the newspapers.com refs are already clips, so here are the other links:
Heart-rending Scenes Occur at Dynamited School The News-Herald (Franklin, Pennsylvania), Page 12, May 20, 1927
clip
38 Persons, Page 1, Greenville News, May 19, 1927
Page 1
Page 14 (this one ends oddly, but I can't find any more on the page)
I looked around that page and the succeeding pages and couldn't find the missing text. I think a few words were cut off in the original version and the proofreaders didn't catch it. Shearonink (talk) 23:04, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Friends Offer Aid, Baltimore Sun, Page 12, May 21, 1927
Clip
Forty-One Killed When Fiend BLowes Up School, Los Angeles Times, Page 1, May 19, 1927
Page 1
Page 2
Property of Maniac, Ironwood Daily Globe, Page 8, March 26 1930
This is the clip, so you are good here
43 Dead, 43 Hurt, United Press International in Brooklyn Daily Times/Times Union (Brooklyn, NY), Page 1, May 19, 1927
clip
I think this is all of them. Thank you again, this is a big help. Shearonink (talk) 21:05, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Should be all of them. Kees08 (Talk) 21:36, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kees08 I have a question. For all these newspapers.com refs I also have Wayback Machine URLs and am trying to do an archive-url for these clips...but am having trouble figuring out how to do that. Any ideas? Shearonink (talk) 22:55, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kees08 Got all the clips into the refs. Took out the one archive-url. Thanks again - Shearonink (talk) 00:40, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Davey2010[edit]

Unfortunately I never comment or work on FACs so am clueless as to the expectations but from here It looks a perfect article, Well written and very well detailed,
Shearonink you've done an amazing job with this article and should be proud of it, I'd support this being a featured article, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 18:42, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from 7&6=thirteen[edit]

Great article on one of the first acts of domestic (US) terrorism. I copy edited it, FWIW.
Interesting that you use the formatting you do. I would want to put in a bibliography, and use WP:SFN. See for example, S.W. Randall Toyes and Giftes. But under WP:CITEVAR that is your decision.
Other than that, I think this is a worthy candidate on an important subject. It should be a Wikipedia FA, IMO. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:51, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This copyedit introduced multiple problems, and changed the tone. I fixed some,[2] but there is more. There is also overlinking. My suggestion is to revert (and to remind editors to take care when ceing an article at FAC, as this is moving in the wrong direction ... most of these changes were personal preference, and some are not an improvement). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:39, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They were suggestions. I chose to be WP:Bold. Some will stay; some will go. Reasonable minds may differ. YMMV. Thanks for fixing those two typos. Best regards. 7&6=thirteen (☎)
I tweaked and wikified multiple references. I think they are now in good shape. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:51, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We should take the books, move them to a Bibliography section, and used Harvard citations with WP:SFN. This is very clearly good practice for the Grant Parker book. Per WP:CITEVAR, I am posting this on the talk page. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
7&6=thirteen - I appreciate your thoughts on this and thank you for posting here before possibly changing the established style. There's a reason that Bath School disaster doesn't use Harvard cites (besides any possible natural evolution in the life of the article)... Almost every single time I go to an article that uses them (and because I have "User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js" installed) I almost always see badly-mangled references with lots of Harv errors & Harv warnings. Most people who edit Wikipedia - not experienced editors, they "get" it - but most people who edit Wikipedia don't understand how to construct sfn/sfnm or harvnb or harvtxt and their relatives so when they wade into an article that uses them they end up mangling refs and breaking things, then someone else has to go in and clean up the mess. Since I seem to be the main editor who keeps an eye on this article I'd rather not deal with the constant updating and fixing that any of the various forms of parenthetical referencing will almost certainly entail. This article gets spurts of heavy editing and vandalism whenever there is a similar school attack, or near its anniversary date or around the anniversaries of any of the more well-known school attacks like Columbine or the Virginia Tech massacre or the Sandy Hill school shooting. Yes, I do know how to construct Harvard cites and they are easy to use but in my opinion they're a b*tch to maintain. The present referencing on this article is easy to maintain, easy to use, and easy to fix if any issues pop up. Shearonink (talk) 14:07, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I don't introduce Harvard errors. But since I don't get paid to edit, and have no vested interest in this, it was a suggestion. This article is unduly messy, but that is only my opinion. I've said what I've said; have it your way. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:13, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. All I was trying to speak to is the probability that many people who come to Wikipedia and are new/inexperienced/just passing through or maybe even are mostly only familiar with the cite web family don't understand the nomenclature or the coding that sfn et al entail. And my experience is anecdotal and not empirical in any sense. Shearonink (talk) 14:32, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from MarnetteD[edit]

I too find it well written and thorough. Shearonink is there more info about the 2011 documentary available? Specifically the the title and whether it was shown in theaters or aired on TV network like PBS or even a streaming service. Thanks for your and others for your work on this article. MarnetteD|Talk 21:44, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The 2011/2012 Matt/Matthew Martyn Bath School Disaster documentary had a screening at the 2012 Capital City Film Festival in Lansing, Michigan: [3], [4], & [5]., but the documentary is not listed on IMDb and I have been unable to find any other distribution. Mr. Martyn is a co-founder/co-owner of a film production business HQ'ed in the Chicago area.. Shearonink (talk) 22:39, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info S. If any of these details can be used in the article that might help a reader who has the same questions that I did. OTOH if it is too sketchy to pass muster than things can be left as they are. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 23:22, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Did MarnetteD read the version before the grammatical errors were introduced (above) or after? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:41, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I read this version. MarnetteD|Talk 01:44, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Grapple X[edit]

Sampling sources randomly; I'm checking these for close paraphrasing too—if I don't raise an issue with paraphrasing then I'm happy it's not a problem.

  • Ref 10: Both instances accurate to source. 10a supports "He complained about his taxes being too high" which is a little close to source's "Mr Kehoe began to complain about his taxes being so high"; it's only a minor piece of text but worth looking at.
Fixed. Shearonink (talk) 16:36, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 16: No issues
  • Ref 30: Used for an embedded quote, speaks for itself
  • Ref 60: Accurate both times used.
  • Ref 67: Doesn't mention the statue being displayed anywhere--it's a perfectly valid source for the existence of the museum in the middle school, which it's also used for, but there's no mention of its contents. Could we back this up with another source on the statue or reword the section accordingly?
Not a problem - Done. Shearonink (talk) 16:36, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 70: Going only on the quote provided; seems fine. Source says only "most" are named, is there an omission we should clarify or am I misreading this?
  • Ref 73: Used accurately in both instances.

By and large happy with sourcing here—have had to assume good faith on a lot of book sources as even the Google Books links were unavailable here. Reference formatting is perhaps unusual but is valid and uniform so no issues there; however there are just a few points to address above. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 14:39, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking the refs Grapple X - greatly appreciated. Shearonink (talk)

Qualified support from The Huhsz[edit]

I read it through and made some trifling edits, one of which was reverted. I am perfectly fine with this; on reflection I think it is ok to state in a footnote that a certain spelling is used "in this article". I am unhappy with the long sidebar list of the dead; what is the encyclopedic purpose of this? If we must have it, could it be collapsible? At present it slightly dominates and clutters the article. But that doesn't lead me to oppose. The article tells the story well and comprehensively, is well-written and well sourced. Nice work. --The Huhsz (talk) 22:07, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I suggest the list is distracting and should be collapsed. I tried to do that, but apparently put it somewhere in the wrong spot, and inflicted unintended collateral damage. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:32, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Remembering the dead is a large part of the Bath School disaster's history. With all the Wikipedia space that's devoted to the perpetrator - both in this article and in his own article, it doesn't seem untoward to also have a plainly-seen list of the people he killed in the article, the people whose deaths made him notable. All of the sources I have consulted go into detail about the victims...Hazel Weatherby the teacher who was found with a child under each arm, Cleo Clayton the boy who survived the school blast but was then killed by the truck explosion, etc. Monty Ellsworth, in Bath School Disaster (the first book written about the events), devoted a whole section to listing out the dead with paragraphs or even pages about each person, Grant Parker in his book Mayday listed out the dead and the injured and so did Arnie Bernstein in his book Bath Massacre. The Village of Bath put up a memorial stone with all the victim's names listed and the aftermath section in the article itself is about the deaths of the victims (and recovering survivors).
A plainly-seen list of the dead has been present in the article since 2006, I would be loath to hide it. Shearonink (talk) 14:25, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

:::I thought this was probably the motivation for the list. Wikipedia is not a memorial for the dead. Would it be acceptable to move this to a footnote or a collapsible table? I would, on the other hand, welcome more referenced material which actually tells the story of individual victims or survivors. But a list of names,especially such a long one, doesn't seem encyclopedic. --The Huhsz (talk) 16:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTMEMORIAL states:
Subjects [bolding mine] of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements.
So, it speaks to individual articles about deceased persons not to possibly including names of deceased persons in an article on a notable subject. Is "doesn't seem encyclopedic" a valid-enough reason? Shearonink (talk) 18:35, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

:::::::A valid enough reason to do what? I am not opposing this otherwise excellent article's promotion, merely registering that I am unhappy with the prominence of this list of people who, as you rightly say, are not (even close to) notable in their own right. As I say, I think it would be better to have this collapsible or less prominent. It's a big bit of the article at present, and it tells the reader what? That there were loads of deaths? But they already knew that, the number's in the infobox. That they had names? No, I'm not getting why this has to be such a prominent feature of the article. It's a matter of editorial judgement, with which at least one other editor concurs. Rather than being defensive, you should at least consider taking the suggestions on board. But it isn't a reason to oppose. --The Huhsz (talk) 20:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that my wording above came across as defensive, I thought I was just discussing the issue but apparently not reasonably enough. Apologies. OK, yes, of course I will think about it. I'll take another couple hard looks at the article today and tomorrow and see what I come up with. Heh, if you think it is too prominent now you should know that at one time at the top of the box it had a green background behind the "Killed in the disaster" and took up even more space. Thank you for your thoughts on the issue, greatly appreciated. - Shearonink (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I assume there is more information on individual victims. If there is, a separate article might be a good solution. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:04, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are you proposing a Wikipedia article only about the victims? The 38 grade-school/elementary-school children, the 2 young teachers, the school superintendent and the various townspeople? I doubt they fulfill WP:GNG enough on their own to be the subjects of a WP article or List, unlike Victims of the White Ship disaster and this event wasn't part of a shared national trauma unlike Emergency workers killed in the September 11 attacks. I don't think there is enough biographical material about these people to carry an article but I don't completely understand why their names shouldn't be included in an article that is ultimately about their deaths... Shearonink (talk) 18:35, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have not kept up lately with MOS, but collapsible side bars were once discouraged by MOS and in FAC; content should not be hidden. And I see nothing wrong with the list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:48, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, and your edit summary is noted. I withdraw my comment; you're right, it's not actionable and if I feel strongly enough about it (doubtful) I will take to the talk page after the article is promoted. As I said right at the top, it's a splendid article and I support its promotion. Even though I agree with 7&6 about Harvard referencing being neater. Congratulations on the article. --The Huhsz (talk) 21:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is fairly discrete, appearing at the lower right end of the article. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:31, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's probably "discreet" you mean there, User:7&6=thirteen. But it's a matter of taste and not a bar to promotion, as noted above. --The Huhsz (talk) 21:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord comment[edit]

Did we get an image review and I'm just being blind? --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:54, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ealdgyth I am pretty sure Nikkimaria was involved pre-FAC; checking with her. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:07, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
John M Wolfson commentated "While I didn't look too far into each individual image, the media seems appropriately licensed." above, which may have deterred potential reviewers, unsure whether this would be considered an image review or not. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:15, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone looking in on this FAC wants to know about the images (especially their permissions & sources) please refer to the extensive discussion about the images I had with Clindberg and SusunW - who were both the most awesome of helpers - which can be found at: Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2020/March#Need some help finding actual sources of images. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 15:26, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Shearonink, I feel better about having someone like Nikkimaria look into that. (Also, if this is promoted, she will help assure it is handled correctly at WP:FFA-- see my note at the top of this page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at images in late February; assuming nothing has changed since then (Shearonink?) they should be good to go. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:56, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Nikkimaria. Nothing has changed. All the sources/permissions/research into copyright & original sources still stand. Shearonink (talk) 16:22, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was of the opinion that the "I didn't look too far into each individual image" implied that it would not be considered an image review, but rather a simple screen pending a full review by someone like Nikkimaria. Per her, though, it appears that everything is in order, so all's well that ends well. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:19, 28 March 2020 (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/Bath_School_disaster/archive1&oldid=948068063"