Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ronnie Lee Gardner/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 promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:35, 26 November 2010.

Ronnie Lee Gardner

 * Nominator(s): KimChee (talk) 18:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because the late subject initiated a 25-year appeals process, providing an interesting look into incarceration and capital punishment in the state of Utah. It has developed over several months into a good article and is ready for a FA review. KimChee (talk) 18:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * First impression I think there is a problem with over linking (see WP:Overlink). For example, I see American, execute, firing squad, convicted, robbery and escape. Linking such common terms makes the article look amateurish. I suggest you question the value of all linked terms. Clearly some will be useful, but others might be redundant. Graham Colm (talk) 18:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * A number of redundant and self-evident links, including the ones mentioned, have been trimmed out. KimChee (talk) 20:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Still links to alcohol, fermentation, sunglasses, revolver, cocaine, mercury and cremated. Be more ruthless ;) Iridia (talk) 05:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * More links ruthlessly removed, but mercury has been redirected to mercury poisoning as I believe that was the context of its mention in the case. KimChee (talk) 05:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * After seeing an Australian editor add a link regarding the United States, I think it may be necessary to leave a link for American to keep the article global. KimChee (talk) 11:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not exactly sure what policies are, but it seems to me that links to random topics, such as meningitis and huffing, do not really have impact on the topic at hand. 68.197.174.59 (talk) 17:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think those links are fine. They are used in the context of potentially damaging his brain/influencing his actions, and I think readers would often want to find out more information on those topics, to see what kinds of effects they might have. "Huffing" is also slang and would not be understood by everyone. Trebor (talk) 19:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what "keep the article global" means given that this article is written in English and is about one American. It is not about poverty or an infectious disease where a bias towards their impact on one country would be a problem. The linking is much improved, but I still see, for example, pled. I suggest the nominator reads this and tries to avoid getting an award. Graham Colm (talk) 20:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, those have been taken care of. May I nominate an old revision of the article for that award? KimChee (talk) 22:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Second impression I am sorry but I have to oppose because I don't think the prose is FA quality. It's close, but problems remain. The Lead is often the most difficult to fine tune. Here's a list of examples that I think need refining:
 * Here, "to limit appeals" - does this mean the number of appeals, the length of appeals or what? It's vague.
 * The lead has been updated to specify that it is the number of appeals and the end of the Death penalty debate section discusses the proposed legislation in more detail. KimChee (talk) 12:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Here this, "to escape from a court proceeding" - sounds odd. I know what it means, but the prose is clumsy.
 * This part of the lead has been completely rewritten. KimChee (talk) 12:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * More clumsy prose here, "as a result of the courthouse shooting", "courthouse shooting" should be avoided and a better phrase used.
 * I think "pointed out" is too colloquial.
 * Here, "A state law regarding" - begs the question which state law? And, I think "on" would be better than "regarding".
 * This has also been rewritten. KimChee (talk) 12:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the inclusion of "team" is needed here, "Gardner's defense took the case all the way."
 * Rewritten using the term "legal team". KimChee (talk) 12:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't like "for being the first" and would prefer "because it was..".
 * No need to apologize as this is to the benefit of the article. The lead has been updated to address the comments above. KimChee (talk) 14:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * In summary, I think the article would benefit from a copy-edit from an editor new to the article and who can bring a strategic distance and iron out the remaining glitches. The sources have been used well, but are occasionally a little too close with regard to wording - I found the section on the execution a minor problem - with the use of "his ashen face" and "He was strapped to a black metal chair with a white target over his heart, a hood over his head, and sandbags placed around him to stop ricochets", which is only a minor re-write of the text used in the sources. Graham Colm (talk) 22:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have updated the execution section and will request an editor who assisted me during the peer review process to make a quick pass through the article for additional improvements. KimChee (talk) 14:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have struck my oppose because I like your friendly attitude and your responses to, hopefully, constructive criticism. But I still think another copy-edit from an experienced editor could make the further refinements that are needed. There is nothing I like more when working on Wikipedia than to add my support to worthy FA candidates—I hope I can do this here soon. Graham Colm (talk) 21:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, the opportunity is much appreciated. I have learned to value diplomacy while dealing with the image copyright crew. :) KimChee (talk) 12:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments:
 * The following sentence, "Gardner had a daughter in May 1977 and a son in February 1980 with Bischoff, but was convicted of robbery and sent to Utah State Prison in the same month his son was born" is cited to [6]. I can't see any mention of this information in the source.
 * The primary citation for this sentence is [1], which confirms the dates and information about the conviction. [6] was included in an earlier revision to confirm the names of Gardner's children. This was commented out due to reservations expressed during an earlier review. These children are adults now. Is there a second opinion regarding this? KimChee (talk) 00:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * On your selection of sources, I notice that around 40 per cent of the citations are to The Deseret News; it seems a bit odd that a local paper should be the main source for such a high profile news event. Would you care to comment on this?
 * A broad selection of sources was easy to find regarding the execution and to a lesser extent, the courthouse shooting. However, the details of Gardner's life and mundane legal proceedings before the execution were followed almost exclusively by the local city sources, the two largest being Deseret News and The Salt Lake Tribune. Deseret News allows their archives to be searchable back to 1850 through Google's news scanning service. For this reason, I admittedly cite it frequently for articles pertaining to Utah history. On the other hand, The Salt Lake Tribune website underwent a change this year in which most of their archives are now behind a paywall (example). Therefore, this is a result of availablility of information and not any bias in particular. KimChee (talk) 00:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Citation formats are good. Brianboulton (talk) 23:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Cleaning that up was a chore. KimChee (talk) 00:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

image copyright

Looks okey other than File:Gardner execution protester Utah cropped.jpg which has potential derivative works issues with the typesetting on that sign.©Geni 07:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I do recall this subject coming up before: In the United States, where this photo was taken, typefaces are not subject to copyright with the exception of scalable computer outline data as argued in Adobe Systems, Inc. v. Southern Software, Inc. Here is an external source on this particular subject. KimChee (talk) 08:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The issues is not the typeface. The issue is that while the words may be in the public domain their layout is not.©Geni 18:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Understood. That image is nice, but not critical to the article, so I will follow the recommendation of the reviewers. KimChee (talk) 22:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I would be content that this image is PD, it falls below the threshold of originality, how else would you display this text on a canvas that only allows 11 characters per line. Fasach Nua (talk) 10:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

"Murder" subsection


 * "During the night of October 9, 1984, Gardner attempted to rob the Cheers Tavern in Salt Lake City."
 * "the night of" could be clarified by being more specific about the time. For example: "At about 11 p.m. on October 9, 1984,".
 * Gardner was evidently successful in robbing the tavern so "attempted" is the wrong word. Perhaps: "At about 11 p.m. on October 9, 1984, Gardner robbed the Cheers Tavern in Salt Lake City."
 * Done, except for the time of 11 p.m.; I could not find that in the sources for that sentence. Do you remember where you found that information? KimChee (talk) 22:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I was using 11 p.m. as an example of how to construct the sentence. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 00:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "While high on cocaine, he shot bartender Melvyn John Otterstrom in the nose, killing him."
 * "high on cocaine" is too casual. Is there another way of saying this? Perhaps, "while under the influence of cocaine". I'm not sure "in the nose" is necessary. Some will relish this horrific detail but some will not.
 * Done. The article previously reiterated the source in stating that he was shot in the nostril. That was changed to "nose" due to an earlier objection. However, I think "face" or "head" should still get the point across. KimChee (talk) 22:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Clarify the order of events. Did Gardner kill Otterstrom first and then rob the tavern, or did he rob the tavern first and then kill the bartender?
 * The sources are also unclear on the order of events as evidence was circumstantial and relied on testimony. I added some information regarding Gardner's version of the events and investigator findings. KimChee (talk) 23:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The paragraph can be tightened. I suggest something on the order of: "While under the influence of cocaine, Gardner robbed the Cheers Taven in Salt Lake City of less than $100 at about 11 p.m. on October 1984. Gardner shot and killed bartender Melvyn John Otterstrom during the event, and later attended his funeral, posing as a childhood friend."
 * As the victim's own cousin Craig Watson was the source of claiming how much was stolen, I think it is important to keep that detail. KimChee (talk) 22:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Hope this helps!
 * Yes, it did. Thank you! KimChee (talk) 22:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Susanne2009NYC (talk) 18:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks very good. Just one comment at this moment: The "female visitor" he had sex with is not stated in the article to be visiting him, leading me to wonder at first if it was rape. However, the source material does state that she was visiting him, and therefore presumably the sex was consensual. If I was confused by this, others might be, so the article should clarify she was visiting him. --Golbez (talk) 18:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Done, rephrased.


 * Dab/EL check - no dabs, no link problems. -- Pres N  23:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. I found some minor issues with references not quite squaring with how the facts were presented (specifically in multiple ref cases), probably as a result of avoiding copyvio and trying not to inappropriately snythesize sources, but they were at the margins, and certainly the overall citation of the text appears good. I'm not sure if I follow Geni's point about the copyright in layout, but if i read it correctly it would suggest we could never portray protest posters in any images. Somehow, it just doesn't seem like common sense, but I am well aware that common sense can be a bad guide when it comes to copyright... hamiltonstone (talk) 02:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Support — The article has been greatly improved since my first and second impressions outlined above. I am satisfied that the prose is of FA standard. I have spot checked several sections of the article for any problems with copyright and my only—borderline—concern has already been addressed. Graham Colm (talk) 11:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Support with the disclaimer that I reviewed it for PR. I'm not an expert in the topic, but it appears comprehensive and well-sourced, and well-written enough to be an FA. Trebor (talk) 02:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Support comprehensive and the sources are great. FA.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.