Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Federal Bureau of Investigation/archive1

Federal Bureau of Investigation
Self-nomination - This artilce has gone through two major Peer Reviews (fixed link) and has passed Good Article Status. Alot of work was put into this article to make it complete, but not "to large" that would make it a marraton to read. As a major contributer to the article, I am proud to nominate it to the FA board. (If it gets selected, may I suggest July 26? Marking the 98th year from BOI.)


 * This is not a voting process =Nichalp   «Talk»=  08:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Supporting Objections *Object Introduction is too short and the sentence structures vary too much. Also, 23 inlines aren't too many. 63.23.7.233 05:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support - per nominator --Shane (T - C - E) 20:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support It has references, good pictures, and is very informative without being too long. No article is perfect, but this one deserves to be a FA. -- Will Mak  050389  20:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support I found this article to be completly extraordinary. I saw it when it was unreadable garbage but now it has improved so much. This really should be a part of the FA. -ScotchMB
 * Some other things:
 * Can you please complete your references. If the link to a news article is gone in a month, I should be able to track the article down via another source.  For example, your LA times link needs date (March 8, 2006) and author (Allan M. Jalon).  Some of your references could use a better bibliographic style.
 * Can you describe each of your external links briefly (the FBI ones are obvious, the others aren't described). For example, why should I have to click on "The FBI ...Past, Present & Future" to know what it is.  Is it a news article, a book, what?
 * Ditto for further reading: provide complete bibliographic elements.  Also, alphabeticize them.
 * alphabetical interwikis
 * "See also" needs a template for navigation
 * Lead is a bit short, and doesn't seem to summarize the article
 * I went into the article for a random prose check, and found the FBI's official top priority is counterterrorism. "Official"?  Is that a redundancy, or is there something we don't know about extra-official top priorities?
 * I'll be glad to come back for another look, good start. Sandy 22:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Object. Sorry, but the article needs much better referencing, in terms of what references are used (for balance), inline citations, and thorough bibliographic entries.  The FA nomination does seem premature, and what passes peer review or GA might not meet FA criteria.  Sandy 01:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Object. Too short. Stub-sections (Crime statistics, Media portrayal). Organization is basically a list of directors and a little about personel. Are there no organizational diagrams and such? Does FBI personel has any ranks? Very large see also should be merged with main body. Need more inline references - for example in the 'criticism' section there are entire unreferenced paras. And a few more pics would not hurt. The 'media' section, when expanded, should probably mention something about FBI in ficiton, including the two most famous fictional FBI agents ever (do I need to say who? :)).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Object. I think this nomination is premature. My main objection relates to the selection of references.  Still, a vast majority of references are to the FBI's own website.  As such, I'm not confident that the history section represents WP:NPOV. Also, all are online sources.  This article would benefit from dead tree sources found at a library.  The organization section can also use improvement, such as explain more about Quantico, Clarksburg, the field offices, and legal attachés. I'll continue helping out with this article and try and address my own objections, as well as those above. --Aude ( talk contribs ) 23:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Object. Sorry, but not enough inline sourcing. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 00:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Object. Many issues I raised in the peer review (admittedly late in that game) have yet to be resolved, apart from the good Hoover picture. (You might also want to double check your link to the peer review!)--Monocrat 03:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I noticed them last night - a bit late yes. I will work on this, but it has yet to be corrected by anyone else. --Shane (T - C - E) 06:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reorganizing the history: it looks better. But, there are still a number of issues:
 * Stubby sections in "Organization." "Publications" and "Crime statistics" are stubby and could probably be combined;
 * Crime statistics is just a header of both the UCR and the NIBRS. Combining them would be very messy. That's like talking about one thing then going on about something else. That's why they are seperated. The main header of Publications (the text under this) I will expand, but your "Stubby" definision is unclear. --Shane (T - C - E) 17:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Lack of serious discussion of major divisions;
 * I think you missed this. It's right under Organization. --Shane (T - C - E) 17:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The copy needs a lot of work. Consider these sentences from "History:"
 * "This was just the start of modern violent crime as the FBI was again tasked to handle major violent crimes that happen within United States borders." "In the 1970s, the RICO act took effect and the FBI started investigating the former Prohibition organized groups, which had by now become fronts for crime in major cities and even small towns." "The 1980s was dubbed "the year of the spy" because of the large amount of spy-related cases bringing investigated and prosecuted."--Monocrat 17:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

And lots more. Tony 03:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC) Comments
 * Object—2a. Here are examples from the top.
 * "The FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives list has been used since 1949 to notify the public of wanted fugitives. Its most basic function is to defend the United States Constitution." Does "its" refer to the list or the organisation? Many readers will regard the second sentence as POV, no matter where your references are sourced.
 * "When it first started it was responsible for ..."—Surely there's a more elegant wording.
 * "The latest agent to be killed was Leonard W. Hatton who died of a result of the ..."—More commas required, as here after "Hatton". "Of a result"?
 * "To this date only 33 agents have been killed"—spot the three redundant words.
 * I just killed all those things because I could not think of other ways to fix it. I don't understand this... why can't you guys work ont he article yourself if there are some miss cues. I am all for corlaboration. --Shane (T - C - E) 04:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Some things:
 * Needs a better/slightly longer and more comprehensive lead (see WP:LEAD)
 * the "see also" section is a bit bloated. Along with the "other facts" section (a euphamism for "trivia"?) some of this should be integrated into prose, or just removed if it's too minute.
 * The "History" section seems very thin in places, particularly about the role of Hoover in dominating the agency for so long, it doesn't even properly introduce him and his role, the first mention of him in the article reads "After J. Edgar Hoover's death"... Also, doesn't really go into COINTELPRO in enough depth, this event was (as I understand it) a major turning point in the history of the FBI. The articles on Hoover and COINTELPRO seem to do a decent job of covering this, but I don't think summarizing it in the FBI article would hurt either. At any rate it needs to cover it a bit better than it does right now. --W.marsh 21:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I moved the trivia to Richard M. Nixon, where it fits better amongst all the other trivia there. --Aude ( talk contribs ) 21:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Just so it's out of the way. To answer some questions. A few things... there is no rank. There are Agents and Supavisors, but there is no "rank". I think --Aude has already fixed the See Also section, while I was taking a nap. The directors are now in another article. "provide complete bibliographic elements"? I can alphabeticize, I don't think I can expand them. I don't have these books and I would have to do some majjor looking. Thanks for the comments. I thought there was enough inline sources. :o --Shane (T - C - E) 00:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I worked on some of these "ojbects". I am going to finsh them up tonight. Keep me posted in what you think is completed. --Shane (T - C - E) 02:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keeping the article below the recommend "size" has been hard. usually once I been adding information, it gets to long and then it goes totally against the WP:FA critiera. I guess it's ok to go over it a little bit? --Shane (T - C - E) 06:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to note, images are not required for FA's. There are not alot of "FBI" related images to be used. Trust me... I have looked. --Shane (T - C - E) 08:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * (And more notes from me..) This website: http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fbi/ seems to have a lot of information. After this article is at the FA standered this page can serve as a guide to help expand the articles that come off the FBI Main page and the FBI template. --Shane (T - C - E) 08:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * When I looked for more history on the FBI to source it most of the sites were bascily the same thing, using the FBI website as their source. I think we have to overlook that this is where a majority of the information does come from. --Shane (T - C - E) 15:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * lets make a note, I am not an English major. I have always been bad at English. --Shane (T - C - E) 04:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, you need collaborators who are good at English, if you're going to nominate FACs. Reviewers in this room are under no obligation to edit articles. For some of us, our work is cut out just reviewing.

I note that this person has just plastered the following comment on my talkpage:
 * "I would like suggestions not misguided comments please".

Tony 04:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Refering to "And lots more." (Above) --Shane (T - C - E) 05:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Object -- needs to go through a spellcheck responsiable, couninting first. Having section 3.2.1 is considered bad style. Left aligned images causes some headings to be switched to the right. Title 28 of the United States Code (U.S. Code) ... to investigate specific crimes. -- Too specific to be in the lead. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  08:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Removed that section. spellcheck has been completed. Title 28 etc. has been moved it another location out of the lead. --Shane (T - C - E) 17:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I still think the text needs to go through a complete copyedit. 1. eg:  Now the FBI actively attacks potential threats before the can take place. --> ...FBI precludes (or forestalls) potential threats? 2. The mission of ... terrorist and foreign threats,... "foreign threats"? that's vague: I checked the source: It says "protect against foreign intelligence threats". 3. =Overall mission= --> =Mission= 4. The FBI's chief tool'' --> "tool"? needs more encyclopedic wording.  I've stopped here and not reviewed from the second section onwards.   =Nichalp   «Talk»=  21:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Will get to it later. Been up all night working on the WikiProject FBI :) --[[Image:FBISeal.png|15px]] Shane (talk/contrib) 11:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)