Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Virginia Tech massacre/archive2


 * 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 not promoted 01:59, 24 July 2007.

Virginia Tech massacre
previous FAC

The previous FAC was speedily closed because the article was not stable, but it appears to have reached that point now; there are only a few edits, mostly reverts, each day. HHermans 14:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Overall a well-written article, with some quibbles. I have a somewhat hard time believing the article is stable when it hasn't yet been 4 months since the event (I'm sure there will be additional changes/responses on-campus during the fall). I would recommend "paragraphizing" the embedded list under resistance. The amount of coverage on responses was somewhat excessive, condensing the many 1 or 2 paragraph "Response" sections into larger units would also take care of the criterion 2(c) Table of Contents and criterion 4 unnecessary detail concerns I have. Madcoverboy 15:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Too soon, not stable enough. Agree with Madcoverboy. — Wackymacs 16:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Too many footnotes in the lead. A well-written lead should be a summary with few if any footnotes; which should be in the body. Has one or more cite needed tags. Lists could be made prose. Footnotes are often unnecessarily in the middle of a sentence, not at the end. I haven't even gotten to reading the text, just looked at format.Rlevse 16:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Stability is a measure of edit wars and rapid changes by many editors, not topic life (unless it has the currentevent tag). Otherwise, every living biography would be "unstable" because the people haven't died yet. I think four months is enough time provided the article architects keep it updated in perpetuity. Zeality 18:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support The article clearly meets every criterion. Opposing on the grounds that more information is likely to be released later seems a bit silly to me; more information about anything could come out in the future. Zeality is right in hir comments about living people biographies. Atropos 22:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment THe only problem I see is the citation needed tag. No article is "complete" by the definition of a wiki, and four months has been enough time to make this article stable. The Placebo Effect 02:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Citation added. HHermans 13:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Support People still come out with new items related to the Columbine shooting and the DC Snipers years after the event. I don't think that will hurt the article at all, since the fall semester is just weeks away. Anyways, the article looks good, 127 citations for this short article and sums up the events well. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose per most of the opposes above, plus what is currently fn 88 only displays a number, no information at all.Sumoeagle179 12:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Footnote 88 has been fixed. -- Sfmammamia 06:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Support A well-written article, which is balanced and NPOV in its presentation. A lot of effort has clearly gone into polishing it, as early contributions were all over the map. MeegsC | Talk 14:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose Please fix the lead (WAY too many references which are unnecessary if referenced later in the article per lead guidelines. Other than that, it appears to be an excellent article. — BQZip01 —  talk 21:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Conditional on fixing lead as requested above. ike9898 13:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I have a concern with the last sentence in the Media response section, regarding the "first published book". A Google search for "Anatomía de una mente torturada" only turns up one link to the Spanish Wikipedia. The sentence also poorly phrased, so if the book is a hoax or other untruth, it would be good if it were removed. If not, it needs rewording and perhaps a source. Harryboyles 11:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.