Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gun violence in the United States/archive1

Gun violence in the United States
This is a self-nom. I have worked on this a great deal in the past couple weeks, with significant help from others. One reason for my involvement on Wikipedia is to work on criminology-related articles. The goal with this article is to rise above politics, providing a general overview of the topic, and summarize what research says. The article is well-referenced, with the highest standards for reliable sources (mainly scholarly peer reviewed sources). I think that NPOV concerns have been resolved, and the article is now stable. It's also gone through extensive copyedits, and peer review. While the article is 68 kb, the large number of references account for much of this. I have copied the article over to my sandbox; With references, headers, TOC, etc. stripped out, the article is ~32 kb in prose size. I'll be around on Wikipedia in the next week(s) to address any concerns. --Aude (talk) 02:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comments Well-researched.
 * I'm not a fan of the multiple sources per sentence that's present throughout this article. Is there a reason why one source per sentence won't suffice in most of the cases? I understand that some of the sentences might necessitate more than one, but why do statements like Most sales to youths and convicted felons take place in the "secondary market". need four citations?
 * First caption needs more context. Ideally, it would read something like: "This (year) drawing by (name) depicts the 1901 assassination of President William McKinley by Leon Czolgosz. Czolgosz shot McKinley with a revolver, and the President died from his wounds eight days later."
 * Gun violence, though, is not a new problem in the United States... The "though" is unnecessary.
 * ...and the Beltway sniper attacks, additionally have helped fuel debate over gun policies. "Additionally" is awkwardly placed there. "...attacks, have also helped fuel..." might be better.
 * ...while Boston's Operation Ceasefire is an example of an effective intervention strategy. Operation Ceasefire isn't wikilinked, and no context is provided, so readers have no idea what that is. In any case, why is a specific example given here?
 * Reference 21 is missing :(.
 * Crime rates section sheds little light on what was going on before the 1980s. All the article states is that it surged afterwards, but surely there is some data on gun violence/homicides prior to the 80s, no?
 * Suicides involving guns section is stubby.
 * Philip J. Cook hypothesizes... As this is where he is introduced in the article, give some context as to who he is here, rather than later.
 * Public policy section jumps right to a what Professor Cook suggests should be done instead of first summarizing (as is done in the next two paragraphs).
 * ...with the remainder taking place in the "secondary market". Define secondary markets.
 * Access to "secondary markets" is generally less convenient and involves greater risks, including such risks as the gun perhaps having been used previously in a homicide. Repetition of word "risks".
 * During the ATF's Youth Crime Gun Interdiction Initiative (YCGII) in 1998... I'm assuming this was a gun buyback program. If so, might want to explain.
 * A short-term evaluation of the ban by Christopher S. Koper and Jeffrey A. Roth... Who are they? Give context whenever you cite names of people conducting studies.
 * ...passage of a CCW law in Texas in 1995. CCW needs to be defined here, where it is first used, not later.
 * John Lott has argued... Again, context.
 * Lott's study has been criticized for not adequately controlling for other factors. Such as?
 * STOP was superceded by STOP 2 in 1998. Just a renaming, or was it something different?
 * With data aggregation, such as the Duggan study which aggregated to the state level,[133] it is difficult to make inferences about individual behavior. Huh? Seems to infer that readers should be familiar with the Duggan study, but I can't find it anywhere else in the article. Gzkn 09:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I have gone through and removed extra sources that are not needed. For this topic, no one reference (except maybe the NAS review) is the definitive study or source. For many points, multiple studies have addressed it and repeatedly found/confirmed some particular finding.  Collectively looking at these references (and providing them), it's easier to say something with confidence.  Gun violence (and related politics) is obviously a controversial topic, so I prefer to err on the side of providing one too many references than the other way around.  In a couple instances (#51 and #116), I have tried altering how the "multiple references" are formatted.  Is that something you think works okay? --Aude (talk) 15:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * First caption has been copyedited to provide more context, and the introduction has been copyedited per your other points. --Aude (talk) 15:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ref #21 has been fixed. --Aude (talk) 15:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * We could add more about pre-1980s rates of gun violence; though, two graphs on the right depict this. I've added reference to the graphs. --Aude (talk) 15:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I have added a little bit more to the suicides section. --Aude (talk) 15:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Copyedits, re: Philip J. Cook, have been done, and clarifications/edits regarding "secondary markets". --Aude (talk) 15:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Clarifications made regarding the Youth Crime Gun Interdiction Initiative. It's not a gun buy-back program, but an initiative to increase tracing of firearms used in crimes and recovered by police.  Have made this clear in the article, and created a stub article on the program (to be expanded). --Aude (talk) 18:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Made clarifications regarding Jeffrey A. Roth and Christopher S. Koper, and created stub bios for both. They meet WP:PROF and will most likely be cited in other criminology articles. --Aude (talk) 18:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Also created stub articles on Operation Ceasefire, as well as Project Safe Neighborhoods. Operation Ceasefire in Boston can be considered a pilot project, which has been replicated and its strategies incorporated into the national Project Safe Neighborhoods program. --Aude (talk) 18:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As for the last point, regarding the Duggan study, it is not referenced in the article because of the very flaws of his study that are cited. These issues were pointed out by the NAS.  I tried to reword it, but instead just cut the sentence.  It's not essential to convey the point. --Aude (talk) 18:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I have added slight clarification about who John Lott is. He is fairly well-known, and we have a detailed article on him.  So I don't think a lot of clarification is needed.  Also, have made clarifications on the Black & Nagin study, which re-analyzed Lott's data.  I think this addresses all your points, but please let me know if any of these need further clarification, or if you have any other concerns. --Aude (talk) 18:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Fixed the CCW use before being defined issue. Yaf 05:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Fixed the "Gun violence, though, is not a new problem in the United States... The "though" is unnecessary." issue. Yaf 05:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Fixed the Access to "secondary markets" is generally less convenient and involves greater risks, including such risks as the gun perhaps having been used previously in a homicide. Repetition of word "risks". issue. Yaf 13:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Support I can't believe this article was started on November 5th and is already one of the best referenced articles I have seen on wiki. I contributed a few edits and a couple thoughts myself at the peer review and it appears there is no reason that this article shouldn't be featured.--MONGO 17:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support I just went through the lead and a few sections, and it appears to be well-written and well-referenced. Although there is an excessive use of short sections, I suggest merging these. Oh and a few external links would be nice as well.  Michaelas10   (Talk)   19:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I did inquire Wikipedia_talk:External_links about whether or not external links are required. I can think of one or two "official" government links   to include if we must, but have concerns about the section becoming too long like Gun politics in the United States. I would appreciate more thoughts on this. --Aude (talk) 19:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I would recommend against external links in this case. They always seem to deteriorate into a free-for-all soon enough, as random editors shove more and more stuff in there. Perhaps the current Notes and References section should be renamed Notes, and a separate References section should be created. This would list the most important sources used to create the article and would provide users an easy list of further reading so they won't have to sift through the entire Notes section. See, for example, the bottom of Ahmose I (disregard that external links section...). Gzkn 00:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As for short sections, I'm open to combining them if everyone thinks it's best. My personal opinion is that more headings help improve readability of text on the web.  Most people are not going to read the entire article, word for word, but will scan the page to find specific sections that interest them.  Headings help facilitate skimming and scanning.   But if general consensus disagrees with me, then we can change this. --Aude (talk) 19:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose It is very well referenced yet appears to be trying to advocate a point of view. It's missing at least two major components of gun violence: 1) Urban vs. Rural and 2) it's corollary poverty/race and Gun Violence. Also, most of pro-gun ownership studies are effectively criticized yet anti-gun ownership studies are not criticised. For example, compare the articles treatment of the John Lott studies on CCW vs. the articles treatment of the assault weapons ban studies. Simple question also not answered: How manyguns in the U.S.? How many of those used in crimes? Needs work. --Tbeatty 06:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This last question is answered: "Also, the number of handguns used in crime (approximately 7,500 per year) is very small compared to the approximately 70 million handguns in the United States (i.e., 0.011%)."; this is under the Gun "Buy-Back" section.  Also, I have been looking for statistics on rural gun violence, and have failed to find any studies; it doesn't appear to be a major issue. Yaf 13:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think we can add something on urban vs. rural, and socio-economic factors. As for treatment of pro-gun ownership studies, these along with the entire body of literature and research, were evaluated by a National Academy of Sciences panel of top experts.  They looked at everything with a critical eye, with heavy criticism of an "anti-gun ownership" study by Mark Duggan (More Guns, More Crime) for its methodological problems.  Methodological problems are such, that his study is not at all used as a reference here and not mentioned.  I had mentioned this study and criticism of it in the "research issues" section at the end, but removed this mention per above suggestion.  Lott's study also has methdological issues, as pointed out by the NAS panel.  Though, Lott's study has sparked much political debate and needs mention here. It is mentioned in accordance with WP:NPOV, in respect to how Lott's study is viewed by experts. --Aude (talk) 16:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. No mention of accidental shootings (which form a significant portion of total incidents), suicide discussed under "Crime rate" section!, awful sentences like "Gun violence is not new in the United States, with the assassinations of President Abraham Lincoln in 1865, and of Presidents James Garfield, William McKinley, and John F. Kennedy." (at least it should be something like "...United States, as shown by the..." but what about much earlier political incidents like the Burr-Hamilton duel?) Assassinations and attempted assassinations of U.S. Presidents section doesn't mention that these were all gun-related attacks nor does it mention that non-gun related attacks have occured or the relative number of non-gun related attacks, for comparison. This is also the only section concerning historical crimes, the rest of the article all current events. Surely gun violence in the U.S. was an issue for more than just the last few years. Needs at least minimal discussion of 2nd Amendment. Needs better (and organized) discussion of state laws on backgrounds checks and ID cards. Rmhermen 17:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think a mention of the Burr-Hamilton duel may be worthwhile, but dueling was actually not the same thing as gun violence per se in that this was common in that period as a procedure between "gentlemen" to solve a dispute and definitely wasn't restricted to the U.S., though it may have become more so then elsewhere. Maybe a historical overview section discussing the "wild west" much of it somewhat mythically embellished, the gangster period of the 30's, etc. Perhaps empahsizing all the gun related assassination attempts on U.S. Presidents needs expansion as I think there were almost no non-gun related attempts to kill U.S. Presidents.--MONGO 18:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I have moved the suicide section back, out of "crime rates" section. It was originally on its own, as it should be.  I have also added data on accidental shooting injuries.  Will look for data on deaths from accidental shootings.  Given that we have 50 different versions of state laws, as well as local laws, detailed discussion should be (I think) treated in a separate article.  Maybe we can summarize some key points better on state laws, though.  As for historical crimes, the two charts show the surge in gun violence during the 1980s-1990s, which greatly exceeds anything in the past (at least the 20th century).  I may be able to add something on historic homicide trends in New York City or some other place(s) to give better perspective. --Aude (talk) 18:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I have added a "main article" link to the Gun control in the United States (by state), which I think is the place to discuss state laws in more depth. The second amendment is mentioned in the intro, with "Gun policy in the United States is also highly influenced by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, which prohibits infringement..." with a link to Gun politics in the United States. --Aude (talk) 18:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: After a relatively quick glance, this looks like a great article. Any external links? --Spangineerws  (háblame)  02:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I have asked at Wikipedia_talk:External_links. If links are a must, I can think of one or two "official" government links   to include if we must.  But, have concerns about the section becoming too long like Gun politics in the United States.  I may go ahead and add the links, and see how it goes. --Aude (talk) 02:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I added one link. Will see how it goes. --Aude (talk) 02:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * "Suicides involving firearms" should be incorporated elsewhere in the article: it's just too short for a level 2 section. The research section is almost as bad. --Spangineerws (háblame)  02:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The suicides section doesn't really fit anywhere else. It had been listed under "crimes", but that was inappropriate. Can try and dig up more material to add. --Aude (talk) 02:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose - I spot checked a few of the references in this article, and found that they either do not state what the article claims they do, or that the article is being selective in terms of which facts from the references it cites. Based upon this spot check, I am very dubious of all of the citations. - O^O 01:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you please provide the references?  Michaelas10   (Talk)   13:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)