Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Assata Shakur


 * 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 User:SandyGeorgia 18:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC).

Assata Shakur
previous FAC (17:48, 22 May 2008)

Self-Nomination. This is an neutral, extremely thorough, and well-referenced biography of a living and controversial person. I can now say with a very high level of confidence (having read every single proquest and lexis hit for each of her names) that there is very little notable and source-able information that could be added to this article. In my opinion, the two late-breaking objections from the previous nomination have been resolved: the six other trials/dismissals (though only tersely remarked upon outside of contemporary news sources) have been comprehensively covered and the turnpike trial section has been beefed up to reflect the entirity of the case presented against Shakur. Exhaustive comments have also since been fielded on Talk:Assata Shakur. I hope that you will join me in supporting this nomination. Savidan 21:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Gary King ( talk ) 22:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments. It would appear that the above have been resolved. Savidan 23:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments


 * Comment, some of the images could use a more standardized fair use rationale. gren グレン 09:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have added {Non-free use rationale} to each fair use image. Savidan 15:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. I was probably the most vociferous objector during the first review; the article has been greatly expanded meeting my, and others', objections. It's quite thorough, and presents many sides of the story of this interesting and important person. --GRuban (talk) 13:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments regarding images -

If each of the points below is answered with either action or rebuttal, you may take it that I support. Thanks.
 * "her medical care during this period is generally alleged"—the one reference given may be written from what some might call a radical African-American perspective. So, "generally" may not be applicable here.
 * I have added three more refs and changed the qualifier to "often". Savidan 14:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Is the quote from Rodriguez (ref.93) accurate or should those i's be I's?
 * The current text is accurate. Savidan 14:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Three times the article says "see below", this is indicative of some structural problems. Information should ideally be presented with an intact logical flow.
 * I believe that these are justified. Basically, all of the information that was presented at her trial needs to be presented in the article in the form that it would have been apparent to jurors and those following the trial. However, there is also information that is relevant to the turnpike shooting that was not available in her trial (e.g. Harper's testimony at Acoli's trial after the cases were severed; state police statements that were not from witnesses of the event; etc.). Also, within the trial, there is certain information that is not reported in immediately contemporary news sources; thus, while it is possible to ascertain that such information was presented at her trial, it is not possible to present it within the chronological structure that works best for most of the information. Please let me know if this does not address your concern. Savidan 14:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Similarly, with regard to the pregnancy, after reading that she was arrested in May 1973 and incarcerated, we are then told she was pregnant in April 1974. The reader is left wondering, "Huh? How is that possible?". I would prefer the explanation of such a bizarre situation to come earlier.
 * I have moved the paternity information to a footnote and added it after each mention of Shakur's pregnancy. Savidan 14:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely convinced with the references claiming that Trooper Harper lied. Ref.121 is written by a defense lawyer who is also Shakur's aunt, and ref.95 is from the New York Times "Soapbox" section, which is a section for editorialising not accurate reportage. I admit, I don't have access to refs.45 or 123. Is it possible to use the actual record of the cross-examination to check that he admitted to lying?
 * One of the references is to an investigative reporter who went back and interviewed several eye witnesses to the trial; another is to a university professor; the follow up sentence with the details is just for good measure. The actual transcript of the trial is not publicly available (interestlingly, Williams writes in her autobiography that she had trouble getting it even for the planned appeal). Being as there is no source that specifically contradicts this account, I think that this is substantiated enough. This descirption is also compatible with Williams' description of the trial, but I have decided that an additional ref to her would not signficantly add to the other sources. Savidan 14:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not clear to me from ref.159 that the "7 international jurists" which included Shakur in "a class of victims of FBI misconduct" are officially associated with the United Nations. I am not entirely certain that they are "representing" the UN rather than merely sending an independent report to it (which anyone can do). Please check the printed sources. It should also be made clear in this paragraph that "A 1979 special UN investigation" and "An international panel of jurists representing the United Nations" is the same source and not two separate ones.
 * The two were indeed one in the same. I believe the latter description of their relationship to the UN ot be more accurate for obvious reasons. "representing the UNCHR" is how it is described in the source, which is reliable. I believe this has been remedied. Savidan 14:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Is "adduce" used correctly?
 * It wasn't. I have changed it to "ascertain". Savidan 14:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * While not entirely happy with the use of vaguely dubious sources (All Hip Hop News, Chronic Magazine, Langston University Gazette [this is a student blog not an academic journal], Revolutionary Worker, Covert Action Quarterly, Final Call News, Talking Drum and Shakur and her supporters themselves), I can accept that these are sufficiently balanced by independent sources, or are not used to justify particularly contentious points. Whenever possible, in the future, sources such as these should be replaced. However, action on this final point is not necessary, in my view, at this time. DrKiernan (talk) 08:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think student university newspaper would be a more accurate description of the Langston Gazette. I have made every effort possible to cite contemporary news articles or published books. Information from other sources was used only when it was not contradicted by or in some other way inconsistent with a source in the former category, or another source of comparable credibility to the source cited, and when excluding it would do undo damage to the comprehensiveness of the article. As more is published on this in the future, it may become possible to replace them. Savidan 14:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. My comments have been addressed. DrKiernan (talk) 07:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Support. The article has much improved since its last appearance at FAC and now presents a balanced view of a complex situation.  One little nitpick - "prosecution contended that Shakur shot and killed her companion, Zayd Shakur, and "executed" Trooper Harper with his own weapon" - shouldn't this be Trooper Foerster?  I also think that the article could be improved by changing the organization of the Turnpike trial section and moving some of the subsections up, but I don't think that should be a barrier to promotion, as it still reads well this way. Karanacs (talk) 18:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops! Thanks for catching that. Since your comment, the conviction and sentencing have been sectioned out. Please don't hesitate to comment if you had more in mind. Savidan 01:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If I were writing the article, I'd probably move the paragraph about jury deliberations into the new Conviction and sentencing section, and move the whole section below the Other evidence section. That way you'd have all the testimony together, before discussing the jury's conclusions.  I kind of see why you laid it out as it is, but the other way (with conviction at the end) makes more sense to my brain. Karanacs (talk) 01:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll move the conviction to the end. I suppose it makes a certain sense with the conviction being the conclusion and all. However, I don't think all the jury info can be moved into that section. Someone who clicked on conviction on the toc and started reading a bunch of info about the jury selection would feel a bit decieved, and I wouldn't blame them. Savidan 03:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Perfectly right; I didn't mean the jury selection, but the paragraph about the information that the jury asked to review again and the questions they asked the judge. That could do well in the conviction section, but could equally do well outside of the section.  Again, this is the whole "if karanacs were in charge of the world" vision, not a requirement for meeting the FAC criteria. Karanacs (talk) 03:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, that makes sense. I didn't see what you were saying earlier. Jury's still out on the rest of the world, though. Savidan 04:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.