Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Leo Frank/archive1


 * 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 archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 18:02, 18 December 2016.

Leo Frank

 * Nominator(s): Tonystewart14 (talk) 08:59, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Born in 1884, Frank managed a pencil factory in Atlanta, Georgia. When a 13-year-old girl who worked at the factory was found dead in the factory’s basement, Frank was arrested and charged with the crime. After a highly-publicized trial, Frank was convicted and sentenced to death. He appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court to no avail, but had his sentence commuted to life imprisonment by Georgia Governor John M. Slaton. In addition to being political suicide, Slaton’s action was ultimately fruitless, as Frank was kidnapped from a rural prison, driven across the state, and lynched in a remote wooden area. His case coincided with the rebirth of the Ku Klux Klan and the question of whether he was guilty continues to be debated.

The article went through another FAC way back in 2004, and is currently a good article. There have been some issues with sockpuppet editing, and while this has usually been nipped in the bud at SPI pretty quickly, the article has indefinite semi-protection and I'll be sure to monitor the article in case any issues arise. I've put a lot of work into the article, as have several others, and I'd appreciate any feedback! Tonystewart14 (talk) 08:59, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Comments by Maunus: I will take a look at this article over the next weeks. My first immediate suggestion is that the references section is a little unwieldy and untidy, I would would suggest separating text notes and short citations in the references section, and make the referencing use short citations consistently by moving all long citations (e.g. note 84 and several others) into the bibliography.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:24, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Maunus, do you think it would be good to have a "Notes" sub-section with any long notes, then a separate "References" sub-section with short ones? It would thus be:
 * 10 Notes and references
 * 10.1 Notes
 * 10.2 References
 * 10.3 Sources
 * Let me know if this looks good or if I should take a different approach. Tonystewart14 (talk) 19:04, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that would be best, given how many long textual notes the article has.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:16, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and made the change. There are a few references with several bullet points that I left as references, but overall it should be a lot better. Feel free to take a look and let me know if there is anything else that can be improved. Tonystewart14 (talk) 21:42, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I think this is much better - there are still some long refs that I think should be moved to the bibliography and cited as short refs for consistency. And I would prefer the bullet points in the notes section because they have explanatory text.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:16, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I've noticed that trying to put bullet points in the notes formats them incorrectly, to where they are simply inline rather than line breaking before each bullet. You're welcome to make the changes directly if you like. Note that I also made some changes to your lead edits, although I made sure that the parts you edited would still make sense. Tonystewart14 (talk) 09:22, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think the bullet points are really important, so I would not have a problem getting rid of them for the sake of separating notes and references. I think Im about ready to support this but I want to read thhrough it one more time to be certain. Best, ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:51, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and made the change. Let me know what you think about it as well as the article overall when you get the chance. Tonystewart14 (talk) 02:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Image review
 * File:Leo_Frank_Signature.png needs a license tag for the original work
 * File:FrankLynchedLarge.jpg needs a US PD tag, and if the author is unknown how do we know he died over 70 years ago? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:18, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for looking this over. The Signature image has a tag already, but if there's another specific tag I need please let me know which one it is. For the lynching one, I replaced the 70 years tag with a US one, so that the death date of the photographer doesn't matter. If there's anything else, feel free to make the edits directly or let me know below. Tonystewart14 (talk) 03:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The CC tag on the signature covers the derivative work - the reproduction by tracing - of the signature, but it does not cover the original signature. That is quite likely PD, but I don't know for certain which tag would apply. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:37, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and added a PD-US tag here, but I'm not sure if there is a proper way to format the page. I tried to say that the original is PD and the derivative is CC4, but if there's a better way to do it feel free to edit that page. This is my first FAC, so I'm still learning some of the finer points. Tonystewart14 (talk) 20:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Any formatting is fine so long as it's clear, and I think yours meets that standard. However, that tag requires pre-1923 publication, not just creation, which means we need to know where you traced it from to ensure that requirement is met. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:49, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I added a link to this document, where I traced the signature from the second page. As this is a notarized petition to a government agency, I believe it should be adequate for "publication", but please let me know if this is incorrect. Tonystewart14 (talk) 04:38, 14 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I have now had a chance to read through the article again. I don't find any conspicuous reasons to oppose its promotion, for which reason I support. However, I must say that this is the kind of article where I am not 100% comfortable promoting without having an expert review the content for any misrepresentations of the academic literature. I also do think that the article could still be improved by adding details about the scholarship, how have different historians described and evaluated the case and what is its relevance today. This second level of description of the literature would help me feel sure that the article is accurately representing the literature. This does not mean that I dont trust Tonystewarts' editing of course, but simply means that I think this type of article requires a level of expertise from the reviewer that I simply dont have (I havent for example had time to read any of the used literature here and therefore my support rests on good faith).·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I want to get back to this as this FAC has aged quite a bit. I have responded to some critiques by another user at the bottom of this review, and appreciate your support. FWIW, I did email Leonard Dinnerstein during the GA review who did a dissertation on the case in the 1960s and corrected some things with his advice. I also made sure that the literature and different perspectives were covered adequately, such as when I added the reference to websites supporting Frank's guilt. If you think there's anything else I should do at this point, feel free to let me know.
 * Also want to bring you in since this is currently the oldest active FAC. If you have any comments on what you mentioned above in August or anything else about the article, please let me know. Tonystewart14 (talk) 19:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Brianboulton
I peer-reviewed this in Nov/Dec 2014, since which time it has doubled its length to stand at a whopping 116kb of Wikitext and 11,500 words. WP articles at featured level are required to be comprehensive, but that does not mean exhaustive. I don't like to criticise the efforts of the article's authors who have obviously laboured mightily, but extravagant length does affect both readability and reviewability. With careful reading I'm so far only down to the Jim Conley section, so have much more to cover. Here are my comments to date, to which I would add a recommendation to the authors consider whether greater use of a "summary" approach in some of the sections could reduce the length considerably.
 * It might be worth skimming through the GA review, which was when we rewrote and added significant amounts of text. The reviewer, SilkTork, also expressed some concerns about the length, although he also requested additional detail in several areas. We did some trimming then and made an effort not to add details that were trivial. Of course, there could still be material that would be better off removed, so if you have any specific recommendations once you finish the article I'm all ears. Tonystewart14 (talk) 05:37, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Lead


 * A five-paragraph lead is contrary to the MoS recommendation of a maximum four. Overall I think the lead is a little overdetailed; it should be a very concise summary of the subject with the details confined to the text. The first paragraph is fine, but I think the remained should be condensed into three shorter paragraphs. In particular, the final paragraph could be reduced to a single sentence, since these various adaptations are all given in the text.
 * I went ahead and implemented your recommendation regarding the final paragraph. Reading the rest of it, and knowing the case, it seems compressed to me already, and taking more out would leave out important details. But I'm open to any other recommendations if you think it's still too long. Tonystewart14 (talk) 06:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)


 * "His legal case" → "His trial"?
 * Correct, and done. Tonystewart14 (talk) 06:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)


 * In the fourth paragraph you don't date the march of the 1,200, so "two months later" is indefinable.
 * I rewrote this a little based on what was in the body. 1,200 specifically isn't mentioned in the body, nor in a couple sources I looked at, so I went ahead and took this out. I added the date of the kidnapping and lynching, as this is important and wasn't mentioned in the lead before. Tonystewart14 (talk) 06:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Social and economic conditions


 * "had been going through" → "was undergoing"
 * I'll call your suggestion and raise you an "underwent" (unless you insist otherwise). Tonystewart14 (talk) 09:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)


 * "a failing rural situation" is somewhat inelegant. I'd reword the whole sentence as follows: "To serve a growing urban economy based on manufacturing and commerce, large numbers of people were leaving the increasingly impoverished countryside to relocate in Atlanta, often in "squalid slums".  The terem "squalid slums" is not worth quotation marks; use a slight paraphrase, e.g. filthy, sordid, wretched.
 * I reworded this sentence and took out the quotes in favor of a different phrasing. Tonystewart14 (talk) 09:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)


 * "Despite their success, they recognized themselves as a 'people apart', which left them 'with a pervasive sense of anxiety' ". Again there are quotes wrapped around fairly mundane phrases, without attribution, and again it would be better to paraphrase. As a rule, direct quotes should be used sparingly, when particularly arresting phrasing is used, and should be attributed unless the source is obvious from the context.
 * This has also been reworded. Tonystewart14 (talk) 09:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)


 * "One of their responses..." – "strategies" rather than "responses"
 * Done. Tonystewart14 (talk) 09:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)


 * "enhance the image of Jews in the dominant society" – another unattributed and paraphrasable quote.
 * I rephrased the first part of the sentence. Tonystewart14 (talk) 09:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I suggest a pipe-link on "Reform" to Reform Judaism
 * Done. Tonystewart14 (talk) 09:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The Marx quote beginning "In isolated instances..." is followed by two footnotes but is not itself cited.
 * This is referenced in the same page as the first footnote, so I went ahead and added a named reference to clarify. Tonystewart14 (talk) 09:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Leo Frank


 * "Frank's northern culture and Jewish faith added to the sense that he was different" – do you mean added to his sense, or a general sense?
 * A general sense, although I'm not quite sure how to modify the sentence to clarify that. Feel free to take a stab at it, or reply below with suggested text. Tonystewart14 (talk) 09:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Mary Phagan


 * Can you give more details of the nature of Mary's work at the pencil factory?
 * I mentioned that she operated a machine used to insert erasers into pencils. Tonystewart14 (talk) 10:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Discovery


 * "Her underwear was still around her hips, but stained with blood and torn open across where the vulva would be." I would end this sentence at "torn open"; the remaining detail is overspecific and unnecessary.
 * Done. Tonystewart14 (talk) 10:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Police investigation


 * "Frank seemed extremely nervous, trembling, and pale; his voice was hoarse, and he was rubbing his hands..." – whose description of Frank's behavior is this?
 * See next comment. Tonystewart14 (talk) 10:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC)


 * "...and asking questions before the police could answer" – I'm not sure what you mean here. Surely, questions always precede amswers?
 * This quote from the Oney book should clarify the previous two comments:

...he paced restlessly across the parlor, wringing his hands and firing questions so fast that he apparently didn't leave Black time to answer: "Has anything happened at the factory? ... Did the night watchman report anything to you? ... I dreamt I heard the phone ring around four o'clock." Evidently, Black's reply to this barrage was a curt "Mr. Frank, you had better put your clothes on, and let us go to the factory." Subsequently, the detective would remember it this way: His voice was hoarse and trembling and nervous and excited. He looked to me like he was pale ... He seemed to be nervous in handling his collar. He could not get his tie tied, and talked very rapid. Boots Rogers would echo these impressions: Mr. Frank seemed to be extremely nervous. His questions were jumpy ... His voice was a refined voice ... kind of lady-like ... He was rubbing his hands ... He seemed to be excited.
 * Frank tells the police that he did not recognise the name Mary Phagan, but later says Phagan was in his office between 12:05 and 12:10 p.m on Saturday? Is this not contradictory?
 * This is addressed in the "despite" quote below. The reason it says "despite" is that if Frank knew that someone else knew Phagan, that would mean that he also knew Phagan. Tonystewart14 (talk) 10:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC)


 * "Despite claiming he did not know Phagan the day before, Frank told Scott that Gantt knew Phagan well..." This is not a "despite" sentence. I think the required sense is something like: "Having claimed the day before that he personally did not know Phagan, Frank now told Scott that Gantt knew Phagan well..."
 * See above comment. Tonystewart14 (talk) 10:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC)


 * "Jim Conley, the janitor at the factory, was arrested on May 1 and would remain in custody until the trial." This sentence seems premature, given that the next section is entirely devoted to Conley.
 * I removed this sentence, as this fact is indeed in the next section. Tonystewart14 (talk) 10:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I'll resume when I can. Brianboulton (talk) 14:33, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I do apologise for the delay in resuming this review, but for the last few days I have been distracted on various fronts. I'll try to get to it today, and post later. Brianboulton (talk) 14:56, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Resuming at last! Will post soon. Brianboulton (talk) 18:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

A few more sections:
 * ''James "Jim" Conley'


 * Can you clarify why Conley was kept in custody long after the police had decided that his shirt was not bloodstained? Why were they holding him?
 * The Oney text just mentions that he made "a statement the detectives didn't even bother to take until fifteen days after his arrest". Apparently he didn't post bail due to his financial circumstances, but the text doesn't specify and thus we don't mention it in the article. Tonystewart14 (talk) 20:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


 * "At trial, Conley changed his story..." At what trial? Frank's or his own?
 * It was Frank's trial – Conley did not have a separate trial. Tonystewart14 (talk) 20:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * "He said Frank withheld the money until he had burned Phagan's body in the basement furnace." Needs rephrasing, e.g. "He said Frank decided to withhold the money until Conley had burned Phagan's body in the basement furnace."
 * Done as suggested. Tonystewart14 (talk) 20:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Media coverage


 * "As many as" is unnecessary editorial emphasis.
 * Done, and wrote out "Forty" to start the sentence. Tonystewart14 (talk) 15:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


 * "prepared ten militia companies": a better word than "prepared" might be "organized"
 * Done. Tonystewart14 (talk) 15:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


 * " Albert Lindemann ... opined that "ordinary people" may have had difficulty in evaluating the often unreliable information and "suspend[ing] judgment over a long period of time" while the case developed". Sentence not grammatatical as written. Maybe add "were" after the "and"
 * I moved the word 'in' to be before the second -ing word rather than the first. This should help some. Tonystewart14 (talk) 15:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Trial


 * Second para: I'd reorganise this, so that the present second and third sentence are placed at the end of the paragraph. The prose would flow more naturally.
 * Done. Tonystewart14 (talk) 15:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


 * "bloodstains" is one word
 * Done. Tonystewart14 (talk) 15:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


 * "The defense theory..." – delete the word "theory"
 * Done. Tonystewart14 (talk) 15:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


 * "The defense brought many witnesses to support Frank's alibi, which suggested he did not have enough time to commit the crime". This sentence needs strengthening; an alibi that merely "suggests" something is not much of an alibi. I suugest: "The defense brought many witnesses to support Frank's account of his movements, which indicated he did not have enough time to commit the crime".
 * Changed per suggestion above. Tonystewart14 (talk) 15:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


 * "The prosecution's analysis of stomach contents placed the time of death at 30 to 45 minutes after the last meal. Of this analysis, the defense's expert witness contested both the methodology and the conclusions". I'd say "her last meal", and delete the words "Of this analysis". Can you explain the grounds on which the defense contested this analysis?
 * Changed to 'her', and the defense is mentioned in the next sentence regarding the inflammation, as well as later in the paragraph where Arnold, one of Frank's attorneys with prior medical experience, rebuts some prosecution arguments. Tonystewart14 (talk) 15:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

More later. Brianboulton (talk) 23:23, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow progress but here is more:
 * Trial


 * You should link Dorsey at first mention, in the previous section.
 * Done. Tonystewart14 (talk) 15:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Frank's alleged sexual behavior


 * What is the significance of mentioning "Monteen Stover"? How does he/she fit into the narrative? (I see this is answered later, but you need greater clarity at this point)
 * I removed the mention of her from this section and reworded some of this section slightly. Tonystewart14 (talk) 20:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


 * "cross-examined unsuccessfully" – what does this mean? If it means that they could not break his story you should say so.
 * I removed "unsuccessfully" and specifically stated that the defense failed to break Conley's story. Tonystewart14 (talk) 20:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


 * "Judge Roan recognized..." – that's the wrong verb. "Said", "remarked", "ruled", there are many better alternatives.
 * I changed this to 'noted' and changed "would allow" to "allowed". Tonystewart14 (talk) 20:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Timeframe


 * "vivid parts" – "vivid" is wrong. "Crucial" is the word.
 * Done. Tonystewart14 (talk) 20:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


 * "whose father worked for the Montags" – who/what are "the Montags"?
 * I removed the name Montags, but clarified that they were a family who owned a stake of the pencil factory that Frank managed. Tonystewart14 (talk) 20:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


 * "Frank's attorneys located witnesses to dispute the alleged early departure from lunch". What is the nature of this allegation, and who made it?
 * This is addressed in the rest of the paragraph. It mentions some witnesses who saw Frank walking outside at a later time. Tonystewart14 (talk) 18:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * "the locked up factory" needs a hyphen. When was the factory locked, and who locked it?
 * I added the hyphen, and the page cited just mentions what the article does about it being locked up, although a previous page noted that they locked up at 6 PM. This was during the incident where a fired employee came back at that time to retrieve items he had left in the factory. We could specify this here, although I don't believe it's necessary. We could even leave out the locked-up part in the article. Tonystewart14 (talk) 18:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Conviction and sentencing


 * This seems very sudden: no closing arguments, speeches, summaries? No mention of how long it took the jury to reach a verdict?
 * I added some content from a previous version of the article. I agree that it was a quite abrupt transition before. Tonystewart14 (talk) 15:50, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Appeals


 * "Frank's absence from the court when the verdict was announced..." Shouldn't this have been mentioned in your trial account section? It seems important to know why Frank was not in court  to hear the verdict.
 * I mentioned this in the new content under Conviction and sentencing. Tonystewart14 (talk) 15:50, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


 * There's some pretty dense legal stuff in this section. I found this particularly daunting: " Louis Marshall, President of the American Jewish Committee and constitutional lawyer, urged them to raise the point, and the decision was made that it should be made clear that if the extraordinary motion was rejected they intended to appeal through the federal court system and there would be an impression of injustice in the trial." Is there a less wordy way of getting this point across, if indeed it is necessary?
 * Earlier in the article, I added a footnote explaining what an "extraordinary motion" is, and the prior sentence puts this one in better context. The paradox about making it less dense is that it would become more wordy, so I think the current text is a good balance. Tonystewart14 (talk) 15:50, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


 * "the significance of the Carter letters was disputed" → "the significance of Conley's letters to Annie Carter was disputed"
 * Done. Tonystewart14 (talk) 18:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * "the testimony as it related to" → "the testimony relating to"
 * Done. Tonystewart14 (talk) 18:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * "should have been raised earlier in the process" – delete last three words, as implied
 * Done. Tonystewart14 (talk) 18:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Commutation hearing


 * "including one written by Judge Roan shortly before he died..." When did Roan die? This should have been mentioned earlier.
 * He died on March 23, 1915. The article doesn't mention this, and upon looking back at each mention of "Roan" in the article there's nowhere that it would make sense to mention it. The specific day seems too trivial for an encyclopedia article. Tonystewart14 (talk) 15:50, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


 * "Smith analyzed the notes and produced a 100-page analysis" → "Smith produced a 100-page analysis of the notes"
 * Done. Tonystewart14 (talk) 18:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * You have: "The commutation ... was unpopular with most Atlantans" but later: "The public was outraged. A mob threatened to attack the governor at his home..." which sounds like a lot more than "unpopular".
 * I went ahead and took out this phrase since the next subsection specifically deals with the public reaction. Tonystewart14 (talk) 18:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

The rest to follow. Brianboulton (talk) 23:38, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Looking again, after a break: Although the FAC has been open for five weeks, I seem to be the only reviewer active here, albeit with long pauses. But I would really like to see some other input, which will be essential if the article is to earn promotion. Maybe Maunus, who showed an early interest, could be pinged? Brianboulton (talk) 14:45, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I finally got around to all of your points above. If you have any comments for the rest of the article or anything else, please let me know when you get a chance. As you suggested, I'll also ping Maunus and Nikkimaria below.
 * You made a comment a while back about some of the references being too long. I'm considering moving refs 237, 238, and 240 to the notes section, although I apparently won't be able to use bullet points if I do. I could make it one paragraph and add references after each sentence, although this might be too convoluted relative to the current bulleted references. If you have an opinion one way or the other, we can consider that.
 * You commented on the licensing of Leo Frank's signature in the infobox, as while he died prior to 1923 in the U.S., the publication status was initially ambivalent. As I mentioned at the top of this page, I added a link to this document which is an application for executive clemency. This wasn't "published" in the sense of a book, but is a legal document in the public record that I believe should suffice for public domain criteria. Tonystewart14 (talk) 16:02, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Coord note
I'm afraid we can't keep this open much longer without some more commentary; we'd generally have archived it before now but I wanted to at least give Maunus the chance to wrap up his review, and see if one or two more might stop by in the meantime. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Following up... Firstly, tks Maunus and Sarastro for adding comments.
 * Secondly, we'll need a source review for formatting and reliability before long.
 * Lastly, as this is Tony's first FAC we'll also want a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing, a hoop we ask all first-timers to jump through. These checks can be conducted by people who've commented already or you can post requests at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Update -- I'd been prepared to leave this open an extended period because I felt we were working towards consensus, and pressing on seemed the better alternative to archiving and starting a third time down the track, since Tony seemed to be trying to meet somewhere in the middle (but I would prefer to see feedback from Sarastro). Brian was I think was broadly supportive, but then he's suddenly had to retire from WP, so we'll need another reviewer even if Sarastro is prepared to support promotion (, if you're still willing, pls stand by for the call if it becomes necessary!). Also we still need a source review and spotcheck per my comment above. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:25, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ian. I added a request for image/source review and spotcheck, and can provide further verification of sources beyond the linked page numbers as needed. Depending on WP policy, I can also send PDFs of books to reviewers privately if this is not copyvio. That way, it would be easy to search through them and spotcheck as needed. Tonystewart14 (talk) 02:45, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Ian, sure, just ping me if you'd like me to do a review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:57, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Sarastro
I've read to the end of the Background section, and I'm seeing a few minor issues but nothing that is particularly worrying. My only larger issue would be a few terrifyingly long sentences in places. More to come. Sarastro1 (talk) 15:01, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The whole article is dauntingly long. I'm not sure yet what could be cut, but I suspect some parts could probably be shortened.
 * The lead is also a little long; WP:LEAD recommends no more than four paragraphs, so I wonder if we could merge the five paragraphs here into four?
 * "Two notes, made to look as if she had written them, were found beside her body": This is a little vague; it looks at first sight like someone forged her handwriting, which is the meaning I think most people would take, but this is not what the main body says. I think some rewording might be needed.
 * "Based on the mention of a "night witch"": Presumably this was in the letters, but the meaning is not quite clear.
 * "The case attracted national press,": Should this be "national press attention"?
 * "with many deeming the conviction a travesty": Based on the next sentence, I wonder would this be better as "many outside Georgia"? Then, maybe the next sentence could be "This criticism fueled local antisemitism and hatred toward Frank".
 * The social and economic conditions section is a bit heavy. I wonder if some sentences could be split, simplified or shortened.
 * "To serve a growing economy based on manufacturing and commerce, large numbers of people were leaving the countryside to relocate in Atlanta, often in primitive housing,[1] due to a struggling agricultural economy.": There's a bit too much going on in this sentence. Maybe "many people left the countryside" is a little more concise. But I'm not sure to what part of the sentence "due to a struggling agricultural economy" refers: as written, it is a little ambiguous.
 * "Employment conditions in the city included child labor, a 66-hour work week, low wages, and unregulated and unsafe work sites": These aren't really employment conditions; maybe "Employment issues in the city"? Or "challenges"?
 * "One of their strategies was to select rabbis and leaders who would put forth a positive image for their people to eliminate frictions that would threaten the existing stability.": This sentence has a lot going on in it. Is there any way to simplify it, or split it?
 * "An example of the type of tension that Rabbi Marx feared": We haven't really identified any tensions, and certainly none of his fears.
 * If we were looking to cut parts, do we really need anything on Marx in this section?
 * I can't help wondering why this section is called "Background". The article is named Leo Frank, and this is not really background about him. Even more off-putting, there is a section in Leo Frank's article called "Leo Frank". Maybe move the first section (The Social/Economic one) to the start of the murder section and rename it "Background", and rename the Leo Frank section something along the lines of "Early life"?
 * Are we repeating the antisemitism background in both the "social" section and the "Leo Frank" section? Sarastro1 (talk) 15:01, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

A few more:
 * "into an established Georgia family": Not too clear what we mean here by "established".
 * "Shortly after her birth, her mother, Frances Phagan, moved the family back to their hometown of Marietta, Georgia.[28] During or after 1907, she moved the family to East Point, Georgia, in southwest Atlanta, where she opened a boarding house.": Not too sure what hometown means here: is it her hometown, or where the family lived before. Also, we have close repetition of "moved the family". I think it may also be neater to open the first sentence with "Shortly after Mary's birth, her mother, Frances Phagan, moved..."
 * "That spring, Phagan took a job with the National Pencil Company, where she earned ten cents an hour operating a knurling machine that inserted rubber erasers into the metal tips of pencils, and worked 55 hours per week.": Again, if we were looking to cut some of this back, do we need to know how much she earned? Or precisely what her job was?
 * The "Discovery" section begins with three consecutive sentences starting "On..."
 * "the factory's night watchman, Newt Lee, went to the factory basement to use the toilet.[33] After leaving the toilet, Lee discovered Phagan's body in the rear of the basement near an incinerator and called the police": Again, looking to cut the length, do we need to know he used the toilet? Why not "the factory's night watchman, Newt Lee, discovered Phagan's body in the rear of the factory basement near an incinerator and called the police."
 * "Her dress was up around her waist and a strip from her petticoat had been torn off and wrapped around her neck. Her face was blackened and scratched. Her head was bruised and battered. A 7-foot (2.1 m) strip of 1⁄4-inch (6.4 mm) wrapping cord was tied into a loop around her neck, buried 1⁄4 in (6.4 mm) deep. Her underwear was still around her hips, but stained with blood and torn open. Her skin was covered with ashes and dirt from the floor, initially making it appear to responding officers that she and her assailant had struggled in the basement.": I have a slight problem here with the repetition of "Her" and the use of short sentences which makes this seem slightly sensationalist and tabloid. By all means, list the injuries and facts, but why not make it a little more neutral? To me, as written, this seems more like a dramatised account. (For example, compare the style here to the style of the Social and Economic section) Sarastro1 (talk) 20:56, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * "When the police arrived after 7 a.m. without telling the specifics of what happened at the factory, Frank seemed extremely nervous, trembling, and pale; his voice was hoarse, and he was rubbing his hands and asking questions before the police could answer.": Again, if we are looking to reduce the word count, we could lose everything after "nervous" without any huge detriment to the article. If we really need to know his "symptoms", we could add these in a note without distracting from the main tale.
 * "gave a written deposition to the police that provided a brief timeline of his activities on Saturday": Also, could we trim this back to "gave a brief written timeline"?
 * "and that he had a confrontation with ex-employee James Gantt at 6 p.m. as Frank was leaving and Lee arriving": It's not quite clear who was the "he" having a confrontation, Frank or Lee.
 * "Frank also mentioned an unidentified Negro in the factory, although Scott did not place much emphasis on this point.": This sentence is apparently unreferenced.
 * For consistency, I've fixed a few instances where we are quoting a "current" writer but use the past tense. I think the literary present applies here, but I think consistency is the most important thing.
 * It's not quite clear in the Police Investigation section when, why or for how long the Pinkertons were involved. Who asked them to get involved? As written, it could be read that Frank got them involved, but it is not clear. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think we actually state the cause of death in the main body of the article. Also, was an autopsy carried out?
 * Still thinking about the length, I think some of the Conley section could be cut back and given as more of a summary. Although it is well-written and fairly concise, it is a large chunk of a large article. For example, rather than detailing all his different accounts separately, could we not combine them into one and summarise them? I'm sure the first two paragraphs could be combined and shortened. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: I'm down to the end of the Conley section now. I've made a lot of suggestions already, so I think I will pause and give the authors a chance to respond, although I'm not sure how active the nominator is at the moment. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your review so far. I'll get to these shortly. My hope is that this review isn't archived simply due to it being idle, as I'd like to see it pass and will make improvements as necessary.
 * One other preliminary remark I'd like to make is that the length of the article is largely due to added content from the GA review, which was intended to make the article more complete by adding content from previous versions. Brian also made a comment about length, so perhaps it could be whittled down some without reverting to the pre-GA version of the article. Tonystewart14 (talk) 12:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Comment: It's nearly two weeks since I made these comments. As far as I can tell, nothing has yet been done about them. Sarastro1 (talk) 12:06, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, sorry about that! I've been very busy but it is the weekend now, so I should get to this by end of day tomorrow. Tonystewart14 (talk) 23:50, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Tonystewart14 response
Here's the first part:
 * The whole article is dauntingly long. I'm not sure yet what could be cut, but I suspect some parts could probably be shortened.
 * As I mentioned previously, we added a good amount of content during the GA review as the reviewer noticed that some important aspects of the case were missing. However, we left out some more minor points that would have required several paragraphs to explain. There may be a few places where things could be cut, but in general the article should be near the length it is now. Tonystewart14 (talk) 00:15, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The lead is also a little long; WP:LEAD recommends no more than four paragraphs, so I wonder if we could merge the five paragraphs here into four?
 * Update: This edit from Midnightblueowl merged two paragraphs together to make the lead four paragraphs. If you think that it should be done another way, feel free to comment. Tonystewart14 (talk) 03:32, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The GA review made several mentions of the lead needing to adequately summarize the article, especially for a longer one like this, but didn't mention paragraph count, which is not a hard requirement. The first two paragraphs of the lead are short, so I think at least by word count it's not terribly long and covers the article well. Tonystewart14 (talk) 00:15, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * "Two notes, made to look as if she had written them, were found beside her body": This is a little vague; it looks at first sight like someone forged her handwriting, which is the meaning I think most people would take, but this is not what the main body says. I think some rewording might be needed.
 * The main body expands on the notes more in the Conley section. Tonystewart14 (talk) 00:15, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * "Based on the mention of a "night witch"": Presumably this was in the letters, but the meaning is not quite clear.
 * In the lead, the mention of this has "night watchman" following this phrase to make it apparent that Lee was implicated based on the similarity. This is explained in the body under Discovery. Tonystewart14 (talk) 00:15, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * "The case attracted national press,": Should this be "national press attention"?
 * I seem to recall that it was written this way before "attention" was removed by another reviewer here. Tonystewart14 (talk) 00:15, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * "with many deeming the conviction a travesty": Based on the next sentence, I wonder would this be better as "many outside Georgia"? Then, maybe the next sentence could be "This criticism fueled local antisemitism and hatred toward Frank".
 * I feel like that might be ambiguous in the sense that it wouldn't be clear if the press attention was completely national or just in a few states besides Georgia. Tonystewart14 (talk) 00:15, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The social and economic conditions section is a bit heavy. I wonder if some sentences could be split, simplified or shortened.
 * I re-read this section just now and recall another comment I made in this review where I said there has to be a balance between density and article length, and I think the text achieves this. I don't think anything is too hard to understand and it's presented in a reasonably brief text. If you have specific suggestions, feel free to mention them. Tonystewart14 (talk) 01:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * "To serve a growing economy based on manufacturing and commerce, large numbers of people were leaving the countryside to relocate in Atlanta, often in primitive housing,[1] due to a struggling agricultural economy.": There's a bit too much going on in this sentence. Maybe "many people left the countryside" is a little more concise. But I'm not sure to what part of the sentence "due to a struggling agricultural economy" refers: as written, it is a little ambiguous.
 * I made the change you suggested to be more concise. I also removed the second phrase since we already mention how commerce and manufacturing were growing, and this implies that agriculture was struggling. Tonystewart14 (talk) 01:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * "Employment conditions in the city included child labor, a 66-hour work week, low wages, and unregulated and unsafe work sites": These aren't really employment conditions; maybe "Employment issues in the city"? Or "challenges"?
 * Using the dictionary definition, I think this satisfies "the circumstances affecting the way in which people live or work, especially with regard to their safety or well-being". Tonystewart14 (talk) 01:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * "One of their strategies was to select rabbis and leaders who would put forth a positive image for their people to eliminate frictions that would threaten the existing stability.": This sentence has a lot going on in it. Is there any way to simplify it, or split it?
 * I reworded the second part of this sentence to be simpler and clearer. Tonystewart14 (talk) 01:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * "An example of the type of tension that Rabbi Marx feared": We haven't really identified any tensions, and certainly none of his fears.
 * This refers to the view that Jews were employing Gentile child laborers, such as Frank hiring Phagan and other girls. This is in the rest of the paragraph, so it would be redundant to write it out in that sentence. Tonystewart14 (talk) 01:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * If we were looking to cut parts, do we really need anything on Marx in this section?
 * I think mentioning him illustrates Jewish relations of the period well without going into excessive detail. Tonystewart14 (talk) 01:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I can't help wondering why this section is called "Background". The article is named Leo Frank, and this is not really background about him. Even more off-putting, there is a section in Leo Frank's article called "Leo Frank". Maybe move the first section (The Social/Economic one) to the start of the murder section and rename it "Background", and rename the Leo Frank section something along the lines of "Early life"?
 * This was addressed in the GA review. We actually didn't have the social/economic section for a long time, but the GA reviewer felt this put the article in an appropriate context to answer why Frank was noteworthy. Tonystewart14 (talk) 01:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Are we repeating the antisemitism background in both the "social" section and the "Leo Frank" section?
 * I don't think so. The only mention of it in the Frank section is the last sentence, which addresses Frank specifically. Tonystewart14 (talk) 01:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Quick reply: Hmm, so to summarise the replies here, "Thanks, but no thanks". I'm not sure there is much point, in that case, in continuing the review. Incidentally, "The case attracted national press" has been in this article since before the FAC began. Also, the lead should be self-contained and should not need reference to the main body to make something clear to the reader. Finally, I appreciate that there were a few issues at the GA review, and things were done for that review. However, this is not a GA review. As it stands, this article is undoubtedly a GA but in my view it is still some way short of FA standard. Given how long this review has been open, that is a concern, and the replies here do not reassure me, particularly as my comments were made over two weeks ago. Rather than worry about the GA review, perhaps addressing the concerns of FA reviewers would be a way forward. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:34, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I should first state that my responses to you were similar to Brian Boulton's in that I went point-by-point and either noted a change or gave my opinion as to why the current version was better. I did make several changes due to your suggestions, which are appreciated. I'll get to part 2 shortly.
 * I'm happy to address any responses you have to my comments, but I don't want you to feel like I'm blowing you off; just that I'm giving my take as to why I think the current version is preferable. Tonystewart14 (talk) 20:51, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Part 2:
 * "into an established Georgia family": Not too clear what we mean here by "established".
 * My assumption is that this means they had been tenant farmers for several generations and established themselves into the profession. This could be changed to "into a Georgia family". Tonystewart14 (talk) 01:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * "Shortly after her birth, her mother, Frances Phagan, moved the family back to their hometown of Marietta, Georgia.[28] During or after 1907, she moved the family to East Point, Georgia, in southwest Atlanta, where she opened a boarding house.": Not too sure what hometown means here: is it her hometown, or where the family lived before. Also, we have close repetition of "moved the family". I think it may also be neater to open the first sentence with "Shortly after Mary's birth, her mother, Frances Phagan, moved..."
 * "Their hometown" is plural and thus means family. I adjusted some of the wording here to avoid repetition and improve clarity. Tonystewart14 (talk) 03:52, 12 November 2016 (UTC)


 * "That spring, Phagan took a job with the National Pencil Company, where she earned ten cents an hour operating a knurling machine that inserted rubber erasers into the metal tips of pencils, and worked 55 hours per week.": Again, if we were looking to cut some of this back, do we need to know how much she earned? Or precisely what her job was?
 * The pay is important because it sharply contrasts with that of Frank, who earned $180/month plus a portion of the profits. The exact job description isn't mandatory, but is brief and a reader would probably wonder about it if it hadn't been mentioned. Tonystewart14 (talk) 03:52, 12 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The "Discovery" section begins with three consecutive sentences starting "On..."
 * I changed this wording some. Tonystewart14 (talk) 03:52, 12 November 2016 (UTC)


 * "the factory's night watchman, Newt Lee, went to the factory basement to use the toilet.[33] After leaving the toilet, Lee discovered Phagan's body in the rear of the basement near an incinerator and called the police": Again, looking to cut the length, do we need to know he used the toilet? Why not "the factory's night watchman, Newt Lee, discovered Phagan's body in the rear of the factory basement near an incinerator and called the police."
 * I'm not sure the toilet part is crucial, but I don't think the idea of going around and snipping little bits is very helpful, and one might wonder why he went down there in the first place. Like several other points here, however, it could go either way and perhaps this could be implemented should someone else come by and second your motion. Tonystewart14 (talk) 03:52, 12 November 2016 (UTC)


 * "Her dress was up around her waist and a strip from her petticoat had been torn off and wrapped around her neck. Her face was blackened and scratched. Her head was bruised and battered. A 7-foot (2.1 m) strip of 1⁄4-inch (6.4 mm) wrapping cord was tied into a loop around her neck, buried 1⁄4 in (6.4 mm) deep. Her underwear was still around her hips, but stained with blood and torn open. Her skin was covered with ashes and dirt from the floor, initially making it appear to responding officers that she and her assailant had struggled in the basement.": I have a slight problem here with the repetition of "Her" and the use of short sentences which makes this seem slightly sensationalist and tabloid. By all means, list the injuries and facts, but why not make it a little more neutral? To me, as written, this seems more like a dramatised account. (For example, compare the style here to the style of the Social and Economic section) Sarastro1 (talk) 20:56, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree, and combined the second and third sentences. It might be improved further, but this should be a good start. Tonystewart14 (talk) 03:52, 12 November 2016 (UTC)


 * "When the police arrived after 7 a.m. without telling the specifics of what happened at the factory, Frank seemed extremely nervous, trembling, and pale; his voice was hoarse, and he was rubbing his hands and asking questions before the police could answer.": Again, if we are looking to reduce the word count, we could lose everything after "nervous" without any huge detriment to the article. If we really need to know his "symptoms", we could add these in a note without distracting from the main tale.
 * This could be changed to "...nervous while he was being interrogated", which is shorter but might not sound as good. Tonystewart14 (talk) 03:52, 12 November 2016 (UTC)


 * "gave a written deposition to the police that provided a brief timeline of his activities on Saturday": Also, could we trim this back to "gave a brief written timeline"?
 * This could be changed to "gave a brief timeline of his activities on Saturday to police", but like the last one and several others, I don't think it sounds as good nor does it shorten the article or even the section by any significant amount. Tonystewart14 (talk) 03:52, 12 November 2016 (UTC)


 * "and that he had a confrontation with ex-employee James Gantt at 6 p.m. as Frank was leaving and Lee arriving": It's not quite clear who was the "he" having a confrontation, Frank or Lee.
 * I changed 'he' to 'Frank'. Tonystewart14 (talk) 03:52, 12 November 2016 (UTC)


 * "Frank also mentioned an unidentified Negro in the factory, although Scott did not place much emphasis on this point.": This sentence is apparently unreferenced.
 * This is ibidum from the previous sentence, but I added a second Oney 63 ref for clarity. Tonystewart14 (talk) 03:52, 12 November 2016 (UTC)


 * For consistency, I've fixed a few instances where we are quoting a "current" writer but use the past tense. I think the literary present applies here, but I think consistency is the most important thing.
 * That's a good idea, thank you. Tonystewart14 (talk) 03:52, 12 November 2016 (UTC)


 * It's not quite clear in the Police Investigation section when, why or for how long the Pinkertons were involved. Who asked them to get involved? As written, it could be read that Frank got them involved, but it is not clear. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This is correct, so I mentioned that Frank hired them. Tonystewart14 (talk) 03:52, 12 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't think we actually state the cause of death in the main body of the article. Also, was an autopsy carried out?
 * I mentioned the strangling explicitly in the body, since "strangled" only appeared in the lead until now. Regarding the autopsy, a longtime editor of this article in the GA review mentioned that it had been removed because it "would confuse rather than enlighten a reader". It is, however, discussed in the last paragraph of the Trial section before the "Frank's alleged sexual behavior" subsection. Tonystewart14 (talk) 04:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Still thinking about the length, I think some of the Conley section could be cut back and given as more of a summary. Although it is well-written and fairly concise, it is a large chunk of a large article. For example, rather than detailing all his different accounts separately, could we not combine them into one and summarise them? I'm sure the first two paragraphs could be combined and shortened.
 * It's not a bad idea, but I think it's important to show how Conley's account changed on multiple occasions. This is one of those points that would be good to have a third opinion from someone knowledgeable in the case as we seem to be stuck in a bit of an impasse currently with much of this review, although I do value your feedback and think you have contributed many good ideas. Tonystewart14 (talk) 04:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Sarastro final comments
Final comments: I've read to the end of the article, and many of my reservations stand. To be blunt, I'm expecting these to be ignored or argued away. And to be blunt, I don't think this article is FA standard at the moment (incidentally, the prose is very good). There are a few odd little issues with referencing which need sorting, but the main issue for me is excessive over-detailing. This article is over 11,500 words but the nominator is resisting all suggestions that cuts be made. The level of information in here is, in my view, unsuitable for an encyclopaediac summary. I will also confess to being rather irritated by the attitude of the nominator throughout this review. But as I have no wish for my irritation to cloud my judgement, I am not opposing the article. Even so, I think it falls short of FA standard and would require a lot of convincing to support. Reducing the word count would be a start. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:44, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "despite denying having seen": A bit of a mouthful, might be better as "although he denied having seen"?
 * "On the day of the murder, Conley said he saw Phagan go upstairs, then he heard a scream coming from upstairs shortly after.": Maybe "...go upstairs, from where he heard a scream coming..."
 * "Disputing this version of events, the person behind the pay window, and the woman behind Ferguson in the pay line, both testified that in accordance with his normal practice, Frank did not disburse pay that day.": A few too many commas for the reader here; it took me a couple of reads to get the meaning. I'd prefer a bit of a re-write such as "Two witnesses&mdash;the person behind the pay window and the woman behind Ferguson in the pay line&mdash;disputed this version and testified that, in accordance with his normal practice, Frank did not disburse pay that day."
 * Returning, without much hope of anything happening, to the theme of length and over-detailing, we mention the importance of the time of death twice: in "trial" and "timeline". Is there any reason we need to mention this twice?
 * There are many paragraphs which are apparently unreferenced at their end, or which only have a note rather than a reference; for example, the first paragraph of Timeline and the entire second paragraph are apparently unreferenced; so is the end of the first paragraph of Conviction. Even if the reference is given afterwards, it is usually a good idea to have a reference at the end of each paragraph, at least, to avoid someone slapping a cn tag on it. This is worth checking throughout.
 * "Lemmie Quinn, foreman of the metal room, testified that he spoke briefly with Frank in Frank's office at 12:20. Frank had not mentioned...": Can we avoid close repetition of Frank here?
 * "As said above, Quinn placed Frank in his office at 12:20": Again, why are we repeating what we have already said? Surely it would make more sense to re-order this to avoid having to mention the facts again? And I've never seen "as said above" in a FA before.
 * I think the Timeline section is over detailed. For example, why do we need to list what every witness said about where and when they saw Frank, when we have already said that Frank's time was accounted for by witnesses? There are a huge number of times and events listed. Really, this should be summarised much more concisely.
 * "The sensationalism in the press that started before the trial continued throughout the trial, the appeals process, the commutation decision, and beyond.": This needs rephrasing or attributing, as we are presenting an opinion on the behaviour of the press, in wikipedia's voice.
 * In the After the Trial section, we are referencing quotations using a mixture of references and notes; really, one form (references) should be used for consistency. It may be technically correct to reference the quotations this way, but it is a little disconcerting to see two different types of referencing.
 * The second paragraph of Popular Culture seems to be entirely referenced to a website for The People v. Leo Frank, which does not support anything but the existence of that film. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:44, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Here's my response to the final comments. These were in fact helpful in many ways, so thank you for your feedback. I also removed some paragraphs to clear out unnecessary content from the article. Tonystewart14 (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "despite denying having seen": A bit of a mouthful, might be better as "although he denied having seen"?
 * Done. Tonystewart14 (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2016 (UTC)


 * "On the day of the murder, Conley said he saw Phagan go upstairs, then he heard a scream coming from upstairs shortly after.": Maybe "...go upstairs, from where he heard a scream coming..."
 * Done. Tonystewart14 (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2016 (UTC)


 * "Disputing this version of events, the person behind the pay window, and the woman behind Ferguson in the pay line, both testified that in accordance with his normal practice, Frank did not disburse pay that day.": A few too many commas for the reader here; it took me a couple of reads to get the meaning. I'd prefer a bit of a re-write such as "Two witnesses&mdash;the person behind the pay window and the woman behind Ferguson in the pay line&mdash;disputed this version and testified that, in accordance with his normal practice, Frank did not disburse pay that day."
 * I feel that mdashes are a bit of a roundabout way of reducing commas, so I rewrote as follows: "Both the person behind the pay window and the woman behind Ferguson in the pay line disputed this version of events, testifying that in accordance with his normal practice, Frank did not disburse pay that day."Tonystewart14 (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Returning, without much hope of anything happening, to the theme of length and over-detailing, we mention the importance of the time of death twice: in "trial" and "timeline". Is there any reason we need to mention this twice?
 * I'm thinking the last paragraph within Trial might be unnecessary. The meat of this paragraph is in the beginning paragraph of Timeline and the other details are probably too trivial for the purposes of an encyclopedia article. As there has not been much progress in regards to shortening the article, I'll go ahead and take it out and would entertain anyone who feels it should stay. Tonystewart14 (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2016 (UTC)


 * There are many paragraphs which are apparently unreferenced at their end, or which only have a note rather than a reference; for example, the first paragraph of Timeline and the entire second paragraph are apparently unreferenced; so is the end of the first paragraph of Conviction. Even if the reference is given afterwards, it is usually a good idea to have a reference at the end of each paragraph, at least, to avoid someone slapping a cn tag on it. This is worth checking throughout.
 * I removed the second paragraph, and the others mentioned do have references in addition to notes. I'd be happy to add references if it is an issue elsewhere. Tonystewart14 (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2016 (UTC)


 * "Lemmie Quinn, foreman of the metal room, testified that he spoke briefly with Frank in Frank's office at 12:20. Frank had not mentioned...": Can we avoid close repetition of Frank here?
 * Changed 'Frank's' to 'his'. Tonystewart14 (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2016 (UTC)


 * "As said above, Quinn placed Frank in his office at 12:20": Again, why are we repeating what we have already said? Surely it would make more sense to re-order this to avoid having to mention the facts again? And I've never seen "as said above" in a FA before.
 * I took the "as said above" line out and moved the reference for this line to the first sentence of the paragraph. Tonystewart14 (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I think the Timeline section is over detailed. For example, why do we need to list what every witness said about where and when they saw Frank, when we have already said that Frank's time was accounted for by witnesses? There are a huge number of times and events listed. Really, this should be summarised much more concisely.
 * I took out paragraphs 2, 4, and the beginning of 5 to make this section more concise. Tonystewart14 (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2016 (UTC)


 * "The sensationalism in the press that started before the trial continued throughout the trial, the appeals process, the commutation decision, and beyond.": This needs rephrasing or attributing, as we are presenting an opinion on the behaviour of the press, in wikipedia's voice.
 * Added a note here. Tonystewart14 (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2016 (UTC)


 * In the After the Trial section, we are referencing quotations using a mixture of references and notes; really, one form (references) should be used for consistency. It may be technically correct to reference the quotations this way, but it is a little disconcerting to see two different types of referencing.
 * I see there are four notes in question, and all but one have references within the notes. The references allow a reader to see more of the quote beyond just a few words if they wish. If this should really be changed to just a reference, it could be done, but personally I think notes are more appropriate. Tonystewart14 (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The second paragraph of Popular Culture seems to be entirely referenced to a website for The People v. Leo Frank, which does not support anything but the existence of that film. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:44, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The article just says that Ben Loeterman directed it in 2009, which the source supports, and the site has "The Film" section which goes into more depth. Tonystewart14 (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand slightly. Does that reference support, for example, "In 1937, Mervyn LeRoy directed They Won't Forget, based on the Ward Greene novel Death in The Deep South, which was in turn inspired by the Frank case. It was the first major film adaptation based on the Frank case."? Sarastro1 (talk) 22:03, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, fixed this paragraph. Tonystewart14 (talk) 00:35, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Image review
All of them seem appropiate especially since they are free, so it passes. By the way, could you make the image review in my own FAC, Tidus? It's only nonfree and two free. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 14:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Coordinator note: This nomination has been open for over four months and consensus just has not developed to promote it to Featured status. Therefore, I will be archiving the nomination. -- Laser brain  (talk)  18:02, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

-- Laser brain  (talk)  18:02, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.