Talk:Charles Graner/Archive 1

(Contested -- Jun 28) Charles Graner
Self-nomination. A truly fascinating person to write about. It's timely, relevant worldwide, and educational, since Lynndie England seems to be the only enlisted person that most people recognize. Neutrality 00:57, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Object. 1) Image caption is a little long (over two hundred words). 2) His early life and military career shouldn't be in the lead section. 3) The section numbering / depth isn't quite right (see the Table of Contents numbering). 4) "Considered by many to be a torturer, sadist, and war criminal, Graner held the rank of specialist in the 372nd Military Police company during his tour of duty in Iraq." -- the first clause doesn't really have any relation to the second. -- Matt 01:06, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Everything is fixed. I've shortened the image caption and added the copy to the article, separated the early life and military career into its own section, fixed the section numbering/depth, and taken care of that sentence. Neutrality 16:35, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the fixes. Maybe other people can comment on whether the extended caption is OK, I'm still unconvinced; (captioned images aren't intended to be a design element for constructing floating text boxes). Also, having a "biography" section seems a little redundant (any article about a person is going to be a biography); perhaps we could "bump up" the subsections to full sections? -- Matt 01:21, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Fixed. I've shortened the image caption, and renamed the "Biography" section to "Birth and early life." Also, the subsections are now full sections.
 * Neutral- I haven't read it all. But I think "Are you guys ____ing in there" is excessively coy. ;) Markalexander100 03:01, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * It is now "fucking." Neutrality 02:44, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * On the classic skin that I use, all the images are all piled together in a mess (no pun intended!) at the top of the page. Any way this could be fixed? Everyking 07:25, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Neutrality 16:35, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Objections:
 * NPOV: The extensive use of Abu Ghraib pictures borders on gratuitous, and with them collected at the top in the Cologne Blue skin on IE 6, it gives the impression that the page is either about an orgy or some sadomasochistic activities. Grainer must have been more than an Abu Ghraib torturer, as the article states - but the pictures tell a different story.  Put one picture at the top and others in the section about Abu Ghraib. ke4roh 15:44, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * Of course there is going to be extensive use of Abu Ghraib pictures. This individual has no other claim to fame. 172 02:22, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * With regard to NPOV: please explain how the pictures are NPOV. With regard to the pictures being collected at the top: I have fixed that. So it's not a problem on any of the skins. Neutrality 23:47, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * I suppose the best way to view the pictures (and text) as POV is to read it as if you were Graner's defense attorney. Are there any pictures (Library of Congress, for example) of the town where he grew up?  Captions must state Abu Ghraib or Iraq, particularly when they are in a section dealing with a different part of his life.  Does there exist a more flattering person of the man? -- ke4roh 03:14, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm not Charles Graner's defense attorney. It's a good article, and that's what matters. Neutrality 15:00, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm suggesting that the article reads like the list of charges against him and circumstantial evidence to back it up (history of prison abuse, etc). The pictures, with the exception of the one with just Graner and England, are all evidence against him.  Likewise, there are neutral facts (born in.., high school.., moved to...), but there's nothing redeeming - very little to balance against the allegations of atrocities.  "Grainer denies the allegations" and the neighbor who said he joined the reserves because Grainer was fulfilling his duty both help, but there's nothing else in support of the character.  Were I a juror reading the article, I'd certainly want to hear what the defense had to say before reaching a verdict.  As it stands, the article would better be titled "Case against Charles Graner."  For that purpose, the article is superb. -- ke4roh 16:02, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * Check the article now. I've made improvements you should like. Neutrality 20:13, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the new info. We're getting there.  The text still needs more good facts.  Did he win awards in high school or some recognition in the yearbook?  Any other accolades? Do we know if he volunteered somewhere? -- ke4roh 10:14, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)
 * It is much improved with the pictures spread out across the article rather than assaulting the reader at the top, though there are still too many pictures to tell the story (see below), and the story appears one-sided. Action: find out something good about the man in photo or prose. What is his legal defense? -- ke4roh 03:31, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * There are too many Abu Ghraib pictures to tell that part of the story. Select the most descriptive photos of the lot and use them. ke4roh 15:44, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you mean when you say "There are too many pictures to tell that part of the story." Please explain further. Neutrality 23:47, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * For the reader to understand the abuses at Abu Ghraib, there need only be a couple of pictures to accompany the prose. The one with the corpse and the one with the body pile and green hoods on prisoners are explanatory and expository of the types of events that occured. I suggest keeping them.  The picture of Graner hitting prisoners is not as helpful because a) we can't see movement and b) it's not that clear to the eye what's going on in the picture and who's doing it.  The picture of people with numbers on shirts and over heads conveys nothing.  The picture of a pile of Iraqis mooning the camera is a duplicate - we have already gotten that information from the picture with the green hoods. The picture with England is a good I.D. shot in the absence of a proper pose. -- ke4roh 03:14, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * Captions: Captions should help the reader understand the picture, tell something not obvious, and draw the reader into the article. Most of these captions are too long. If a section on the fate of Manadel al-Jamadi is relevant to Graner, put it there. (I do not think such a section would be relevant, but I would not object on that basis.)  See Wikipedia talk:Captions for a discussion.  -- ke4roh 15:44, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * I have also shortened the Manadel al-Jamadi caption and included the information in the article. I hope that solves your objection. Neutrality 17:04, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you -- ke4roh 03:14, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * It's a very article but I have to ask does this rather tawdry character deserve so much attention? All the discussion of his previous jobs and domestic situation seems a bit over the top for a person whose only claim to fame is to be accused (along with others) in a fairly vicious crime. I'm inclined to oppose the nomination. ~!Lisiate 23:25, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * He isn't a guy I'd like to have as my friend, but that's not what constitutes a good, featurable article. For me, it's important to have (and feature) articles of all matters. It's a serious subject, and it deserves all of our attention. Also, there is so much focus on Lynndie England that some focus on Charles Graner is necessary. Thanks for your feedback. Neutrality 23:40, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Object. Parts of this article are poorly written. For example, one sentence states, "...no displinary action was taken aganist Graner during his employment at the county jail except for refusing to work mandatory overtime one night to care for his children."  In addition to the misspellings of "disciplinary" and "against", this simply doesn't make sense.  Who refused to work overtime?  And how was this a punishment?  Another confusing sentence is, "..Yarris saw Graner and four other guards pull an inmate who purposefully flooded the toilet in his cell, dragging him."  Did Graner pull while dragging?  Where did he pull him from/to?  Another example is, "At the time his employment was terminated, Graner had been as disciplined six times along with three suspensions and three reprimands."  He had been as disciplined as whom?  Were the three suspensions and three reprimands the "six times" or were there a total of twelve disciplinary actions?  The first thing I look for in a FAC is good text, and I don't see it here.  I will reconsider my vote if these problems are addressed.  Acegikmo1 23:55, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Thanks for the feedback. Neutrality 00:11, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Only one of the three specific examples I brought up was addressed. Also, please don't strike through my comments.  I will do that if they no longer apply.  I hope I haven't come across as rude, because you've been polite and have clearly worked hard on the article, but the problems I see are still present in the article.  Thanks, Acegikmo1 17:29, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * Can you give any examples? If you do not, the objection is not actionable. Neutrality 20:13, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * "Actionable" shouldn't mean the person objecting has to provide a continuous stream of specific examples for a general problem -- that's not a peer reviewer's job. "Actionable" is defined (above) to mean that they must give a "specific rationale for the objection". A rationale of "poor writing" backed up by three examples seems specific and actionable to me. -- Matt 12:57, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. I have withdrawn my objection, as the problems I brough up were addressed since my initial objection (and the article has improved in other ways as well).  Acegikmo1 21:51, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Object. 1) I think there's too much quoting: there's rarely a need to quote more than a sentence-worth from a source, and, while "Wikipedia is not paper", we still have to be careful to present information concisely and encyclopedically. I think we should instead summarise the information ourselves in a sentence or two and provide the external link. 2) One part seems slightly "overwikified"; I don't think we need to bother linking every military rank. 3) One caption reads "Graner punches handcuffed Iraqi prisoner"; how can we be sure he's mid-punch, and not just posing for the camera? While I'm pretty sure this man has punched Iraqi prisoners, a featured article should be impeccibly accurate; perhaps an "appears to punch"? 4) The article has eight images, all aligned flush right. It might be a nicer layout to stick half on the left. -- Matt 13:24, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)