Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Assassination of John F. Kennedy/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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 18 September 2023 [1].

Assassination of John F. Kennedy

Nominator(s): Walloon (talk), HAL333 22:41, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Outside of wartime atrocities, the killing of John F. Kennedy was the greatest crime of the 20th century. No murder in modern history has attracted as much analysis and debate. I have decided to co-nominate this article with the late Walloon, who still has the secondmost share of authorship and edits and laid out the article's foundation. My hope is to promote this article to FA status, so that on November 22—the 60th anniversary of Kennedy's killing—it can appear as TFA. Thanks, ~ HAL333 22:53, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • The present layout results in considerable sandwiching of text between images
  • Addressed. ~ HAL333 16:36, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Badgeman.jpg: when and where was this first published? Ditto File:Robert_Croft_photo_showing_JFK's_car_on_Elm_Street.jpg, File:Jack_Ruby_1963_Mugshot.jpg
  • The Badge Man image is an expansion of the Mary Moorman photograph, which appears to have appropriate copyright(?). It was also okayed for use in the recent FA Badge Man. The Ruby image has been removed.~ HAL333 23:23, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:JFK_limousine.png: source link is dead. Ditto File:Kennedys_arrive_at_Dallas_11-22-63.JPG
  • Both fixed. ~ HAL333 18:13, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Sbt2.jpg is tagged as requiring referencing
I'm not sure which exact resources Bradipus used to create that image. However, it is accurate and aligns with mainstream accounts. Can I simply remove that tag? It isn't present on the sister image. Or should I add sources, even if those aren't necessarily the ones that Bradipus used to create it? ~ HAL333 17:23, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you can add sources that confirm its accuracy that's fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:52, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Lee_Harvey_Oswald_1963.jpg: why is this believed to be a US federal government work, when it's credited to municipal police?
  • The image is a crop of one published as Commission Exhibit No. 520 of the Warren Report. ~ HAL333 02:31, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Clay_Shaw.jpg has two different PD tags, but the source site doesn't provide enough information to support either?
  • Shaw image replaced. ~ HAL333 16:42, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Back-and-to-the-left-fairuse.png needs a stronger FUR and a different fair-use tag. Additionally I'm not sure the non-commercial tag is accurate - the source publication is indeed under an NC-ND license, but the image itself is under a different copyright, unless I'm missing context? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:11, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have expanded the FUR - could you tell me what the correct fair use tag is? And I'm not sure regarding the ND-ND license. That's what the research article says is the license... ~ HAL333 13:08, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can just use the generic tag. As I can tell the article is under an NC-ND license, but the image itself is given a separate copyright notice in the caption. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:52, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
HAL, has this been done? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:14, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Commons is my Achilles heal. I don't know how to add a "generic tag". Where can I find the corresponding HTML code, Nikkimaria. ~ HAL333 16:44, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
{{non-free fair use}}. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:16, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tell me if that looks alright. ~ HAL333 14:31, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi again Nikki, could I just get your take on this and then I think we can wrap up? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:33, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, that's fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:48, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Nikki, can I just check you're good with the image review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:35, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PCN02WPS

It might take a while but this is a very interesting topic to me so I'll put my name down for a prose review. Just one thing that I'll let you know off the bat - footnote 150 (The New York Times 2003, pp 197-201) is showing an error as it doesn't point to any cited source. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 14:52, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Background

  • "In summer 1959, he received a" → MOS:SEASON dissuades from using the name of a season to describe a time of year
  • "the Warren Commission attributed this assassination attempt to Oswald" → link Warren Commission since this is the first time it's mentioned in the body
  • "it is believed this package contained Oswald's rifle." → recommend rewording to clarify who believed this (or note that this is a consensus view, which it is as I understand it)

November 22

  • "were: Agent Bill Greer, who drove" → list format is fine, though I think the colon is unneeded
  • "rode in a later vehicle." → recommend a different word instead of "later" as that could imply that they rode over without being part of the motorcade
  • "As it continued down Elm Street, multiple shots were fired. About 80% of the witnesses recalled hearing three shots." → There's nothing wrong with this, so no need to change it if you disagree with me, but I think this would read more smoothly if these sentences were combined; they sound just a bit choppy as is
  • "exited his throat just beneath his larynx" → link larynx; it wouldn't surprise me if plenty of people don't know this term
  • "According to the Warren Commission's single bullet theory" → diagram caption uses "single-bullet" with a hyphen, so I recommend changing one or the other for consistency (if you add a hyphen in the body, one should also be added for "magic bullet")
  • "shattered his right radius bone" → Link "radius bone" to radius (bone)
  • "His brain and bloodspatter landed as far as the following Secret Service car and the motorcycle officers" → link United States Secret Service
  • I instead added "Secret Service to the "Kennedy's arrival in Dallas and route to Dealey Plaza" subsection where I discussed agents without actually naming their agency. ~ HAL333 23:18, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "jumped off into Elm Street" → this wording sounds awkward to me, since it's already been mentioned that the president's car was on Elm Street at the time the shots were fired, I think simplifying this to "jumped onto the street" or "jumped down onto the street" works better
  • "by which any shooter could flee the grassy knoll; he saw no one leaving the scene." → footnote 96 is cited after the semicolon and after the full stop which ends this sentence - since there's no other footnote cited in between, the one after the semicolon can be removed.
  • "reported that the rifle's report was so loud" → I know "report" is being used to mean two different things in this sentence, but switching one of them would still help to eliminate some repetition
  • In the labeled image of the Depository, circle "A" is explained in the caption but "B" is not - is "B" of any importance?
  • "B" is where he reported seeing witnesses on the fifth floor. If the Depository image is clicked on, it appears as the caption (an issue with dual image templates, but quasi-helpful here). But I can add it to the caption if you want. ~ HAL333 23:36, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "CBS host Walter Cronkite broke the news on live television" → one of the most memorable things I associate with this broadcast was the fact that the studio equipment wasn't fully ready (I think the camera hadn't warmed up or something like that) meaning the report was audio-only for the first minute or something - did this turn up in any of your sources and do you think this is worth mentioning?
  • It's not crucial imo. ~ HAL333 23:36, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Immediate aftermath

  • "Kennedy's personal physician, Rear Admiral George Burkley" → Burkley is already linked near the end of the previous section
  • "Panel member Milton Helpern—Chief Medical Examiner for New York City—said that selecting" → redlink Milton Helpern, since plenty of NYC Chief Medical Examiners have their own articles, and remove link to NYC in favor of a link to Office of Chief Medical Examiner of the City of New York
  • I could have sworn that I had already redlinked that... But done regardless. I'll try to make that article in the next month or so as well. ~ HAL333 23:36, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On Sunday, November 24 at 11:21 a.m." → comma after "24" per MOS:DATECOMMA
  • I'm assuming that the image of Ruby shooting Oswald was the photo that won Robert Jackson the Pulitzer - if so, can this be noted in the image caption?
  • "Ruby, slated to be retried, died of a pulmonary embolism..." → Another thing that's not technically wrong, but there are a lot of commas in this sentence. Could it be reworded to be a little more straightforward?
  • That might be the most barbaric sentence I've ever written. Fixed. ~ HAL333 23:36, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Films and photographs of the assassination

  • "valuing the complete film at $16 million" → the inflation equivalent that follows should be rounded in the same "$xyz million" style as the original "$16 million" figure that is given (details/instructions at Template:Inflation#Rounding); also, removing "2021" from that template will allow the figure to update as the inflation equivalents are calculated (currently 2022 equivalents are available)

Official investigations

  • "2:30 p.m., on November 22, and 11 a.m., on November 24" → I think all three of these commas can be removed
  • "Captain J. W. Fritz of the homicide and robbery bureau" → does "homicide and robbery bureau" need caps?
  • "including the FBI and the Secret Service, and occasionally" → FBI is mentioned plenty of times before being linked here; the link should be moved to the first mention, which (I think) is in the sentence starting "Nine months later, the FBI removed the curb..." in the last paragraph of the "Shooting" subsection
  • "However, the HSCA's Dr. Michael Baden noted" → remove "Dr." per MOS:DOCTOR
  • "no evidence of a CIA or FBI-led conspiracy" → add hyphen after "CIA", as in "CIA- or FBI-led conspiracy"
  • "in these plots against Casto" → typo
  • "and a specially appointed National Academy of Sciences Committee determining" → "specially-appointed"

Conspiracy theories

  • "also rejected the single-bullet theory" → another instance of "single bullet" with a hyphen

Legacy

  • "As with the preceding attack on Pearl Harbor of December 7, 1941" → "preceding" is not needed when the exact date is also given
  • "would become a common topic of discussion" → "became a common topic of discussion" per WP:WOULDCHUCK (which is an essay, not a MOS page or strict guideline, but I like to abide by it regardless)
  • "sold in 1991 for $220,000" → inflation equivalent template would be helpful here

Overall, very well done. Given the length and thoroughness of the article, I really don't have all that much - everything I found is above. Take your time, just send me a ping when you're ready for me to have another look. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:47, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PCN02WPS, All comments addressed (or responded to). These were very helpful — thanks! ~ HAL333 00:07, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay in getting back to this, I didn't have it on my watchlist and your ping didn't go through (just FYI - if you go back in to fix the ping and don't add your signature within the same edit as a ping, it doesn't work for whatever reason) so this kind of fell off of my radar for a bit. That being said, I'm happy with the changes/responses, and the article is excellent - some of Wikipedia's best work - and a great read so I'm more than happy to support. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:18, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much, PCN02WPS! ~ HAL333 02:29, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

caeciliusinhorto

Gosh, I don't envy you taking on such a thoroughly-discussed and contentious topic. I read through the article last night, and in the main it looks very good. A few points that came up in my initial readthrough:

  • I see a few infelicities in the prose, probably to be expected in a 7,500 word article. For instance:
    • from the lead: "The Kennedy assassination was also the fourth time that a U.S. president was assassinated, and the most recent time that one died in office." Repetition of assassination/assassinated and fourth time/most recent time reads awkwardly to me. I would suggest the more concise "Kennedy was the fourth U.S. president to be assassinated, and the most recent to die in office."
    • "Oswald requested and met with FBI Special Agent John Quigley while in custody." Picky, perhaps, but I don't like this construction: Oswald isn't requesting FBI Special Agent John Quigley here, he is requesting a meeting. Alternatives could be "Oswald requested a meeting with FBI Special Agent John Quigley..." or, if the fact that the meeting was carried out needs to be explicitly said, "At Oswald's request, he met with FBI Special Agent..."
    • "Dallas policeman thoroughly photographed the rifle" – should either be "A Dallas policeman" or "Dallas policemen"
  • Some words to watch that I am dubious about:
    • "Notably, frame 313 captures the exact moment at which Kennedy's head explodes." This is so obviously notable that explicitly saying so does nothing but weaken the sentence!
    • "Bugliosi emphasized that no witness ever reported seeing anyone—with or without a gun—immediately behind the knoll's picket fence at the time of the shooting": If this isn't in dispute, can we cut "Bugliosi emphasized that"? If it is, I'm not super keen on "emphasized" cited to Bugliosi; I would prefer a more neutral "said" or "stated" unless a reliable source says that Bugliosi is in fact emphasising this fact.
  • Finally, I am not familiar with the JFK assassination literature, so this may be an accurate reflection of the scholarship, but I'm astonished that there doesn't seem to be any discussion of Oswald's motive. Why he did it seems like a crucial question – has nobody really addressed it? Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:03, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments addressed. The issue of motive is a great point, and, now that I think about it, it is kind of underdiscussed in the sources. It may be that it's damned difficult to answer (even moreso than the rest of this). I've read too many books on the subject and still don't have a feel for who Oswald really was. I've added that the Warren Commission made no conclusion—only suggestions—about Oswald's motive. I've also added a note on Sylvia Odio's testimony to the WC regarding Oswald and another possible motive. ~ HAL333 12:11, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, second readthrough. A few more comments but these are mostly pretty minor:

  • Grammatical nitpicking, but "Ruby was convicted of Oswald's murder, though it was later overturned on appeal": neither "Ruby" nor "Oswald's murder" make sense as the antecedent for "it" here; very pedantically I think the sentence ought to read "... though this was later overturned ..." or "... though the decision was later overturned ..."
  • Fixed. ~ HAL333 20:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead, we have discussion of the HSCA conclusion that the assassination was the result of a conspiracy, followed by "The U.S. Justice Department concluded active investigations and stated that there was no 'persuasive evidence' of a conspiracy." Can we briefly indicate when this was (and possibly that this followed the Justice Department re-examining the dictabelt recordings on which the HSCA based their two gunmen theory)? I realise that we don't want the lead to balloon with detail, but at the moment it seems to me that the two-gunmen theory gets too much weight in the lead compared to the subsequent investigations concluding that there was no evidence for this.
  • I expanded the lead — tell me what you think. ~ HAL333 20:58, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The motorcade route was finalized on November 18 and announced soon thereafter": "thereafter" strikes me as somewhat old-fashioned; is there anything wrong with simply "after"? (And there's another "thereafter" later)
  • I'm a big proponent of "thereafter's". Is it all right if I keep them? ~ HAL333 20:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You may have your thereafters if you are attached to them, of course! Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:26, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Oswald ... traveled to Finland, where he was issued a Soviet visa. There, Oswald defected to the Soviet Union." Do we know anything about why? This comes up quite suddenly: did he have prior interest in communism?
  • "and Marina befriended Ruth Paine" – Ruth Paine is never mentioned again in the article. Given how much detail we have in this article already, I would be inclined to omit this unless there's some relevance to the assassination, in which case make clear what it is.
  • Removed. ~ HAL333 20:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In March 1963, Oswald attempted to assassinate General Edwin Walker at his residence" I know the sixties were a different time, but did this have any consequences? Why was Oswald able to wander around with a gun and shoot a president only eight months later?!
  • Fleshed out. It's vary hard to write concisely about Oswald. I could turn pretty much any sentence in the Oswald subsection into a subarticle. ~ HAL333 20:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see, so he was only identified as the assassin after the death of JFK - that makes more sense! Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:24, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • On my 1080p screen with Vector 2022, the wide image of Dealy Plaza cuts off about halfway along the white pergola, and the scrollbar to show the rest of the image isn't very obvious at all; on my phone with the default mobile browser skin, it's even worse, cutting off before the underpass. Perhaps crop the left side of the image out, so the relevant bits are more likely to appear on most users' screens? (Alternatively, stick |dir=rtl into the wide image template so at least the important bits of the image are the ones which are immediately in view!
  • Inserted 'dir=rtl'. ~ HAL333 20:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some times specify the timezone, others don't. So far as I can determine all the times given are in CST and relate to things happening in Dallas in November, where CST is the expected timezone. I would suggest just cutting the timezone specification throughout, but at least there should be some sort of consistent logic to when it is used; it currently seems fairly random. (And format it consistently, too: is it "1 p.m. CST", "1 p.m., CST" or "1 p.m. (CST)"?)
  • All but the first mention in the lead and body removed. ~ HAL333 20:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, other files were stated to remain sealed until June 2023": we're now into July 2023 – is there a more up to date source saying either that these remaining files were released, or that they still remain sealed?
  • It looks like they actually released them, on the final day on June. I had been checking periodically for that release but had given up. ~ HAL333 20:37, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Caeciliusinhorto-public, I really appreciate the comments. All addressed. ~ HAL333 21:05, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I spotchecked a couple of sources, and nothing looks problematic, so put me down as a support. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:19, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment from Wretchskull

Excellently written article! I would only reflect what I said earlier about the references, namely the lack of JFK biographies and other books mentioned in the talk page. Not my expertise, but I can't spot other issues. Wretchskull (talk) 18:54, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the comment, and I did find some of those sources helpful, particularly Sabato, but Kennedy biographies will ultimately have a more superficial and cursory discussion of the assassination because, unlike a book solely about the murder, that isn't the main focus. And, after a bit of thought, I don't think Vincent Bugliosi is over-represented in the sourcing. As of now, 22.9% of citations are for his 2007 book (the best and most thorough on the Kennedy assassination imho), and 8.1% for his 2008 more narrative-based book (very helpful for figuring out the sequence and timing of events). So about 31% total. But other Featured Articles on assassination sport similar percentages of references from single authors. For comparison, Buidhe's Assassination of Talat Pasha relies on Ihrig for 39.1% of citations. Wehwalt's Assassination of William McKinley uses Leech for 27.1% of citations. Or on the late, great Brianboulton's Assassination of Spencer Perceval, Hanrahan comprises 26.8% of references. ~ HAL333 21:26, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. If none of the books are of any value, I trust your judgement. I can't further quibble so I'll Support. Wretchskull (talk) 18:32, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated, Wretchskull. ~ HAL333 16:45, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

I might consider, in the opening sentence, moving the time up next to the date.
I removed it altogether - it's not crucial to a reader's understanding and is already in the IB.
"Ruby was convicted of Oswald's murder, though the decision was later overturned on appeal," "later" is redundant.
Removed.
"The assassination, which left a profound impact, was the first of four major assassinations " I might start "The assassination left a profound impact, and was the first ..."
Done.
"In 1960, after representing Massachusetts in the U.S. Senate," change "after" to "while". Also, the sentence could be read to say that Johnson was the Vice President in 1960.
Adjusted.
I don't think we should use the term "regime" instead of "government", it's become POV.
Removed.
"A 19-year-old Oswald sailed on a freighter from New Orleans to France and then traveled to Finland, where he was issued a Soviet visa.[22] There, Oswald defected to the Soviet Union," Where is "there"?
Finland -- should I remove 'there' and simply say "Oswald then..."?
"teenager Amos Euins" What need the red link? He's only known for this, I assume, and thus any likely attempted article on him will wind up a redirect to here, I'd assume?
Removed.
"Although Vice President Lyndon Johnson had technically become president as soon as Kennedy died, at 2:38 p.m., with Jacqueline Kennedy at his side, he was administered the oath of office by federal judge Sarah Tilghman Hughes aboard Air Force One shortly before departing for Washington with Kennedy's coffin.[136]" There's nothing terribly unusual about this. The constitution simply requires that the president take the oath before undertaking the duties of the office. Every Vice President who succeeded necessarily takes the oath after becoming president, as did newly-elected presidents who took the oath for the first time on Monday because Inauguration Day was a Sunday (Taylor and Hayes, I think).--Wehwalt (talk) 14:07, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point.
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:07, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All addressed or otherwise responded to. ~ HAL333 22:59, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Following the autopsy, Kennedy laid in repose in the East Room of the White House for 24 hours.[152][153] President Johnson issued Presidential Proclamation 3561, declaring the day to be a national day of mourning" I might say "lay in repose". And "the day"? What day?
"Ruby, slated to be retried,[173] While awaiting retrial in 1967,[174] Ruby died of a pulmonary embolism, secondary to lung and brain cancer. " Some problem here.
"at midnight on November 22, " Just leaving aside the question of what day midnight forms a part of, if it started at midnight, the conference would have taken place on November 23.
"Dallas Police, after the FBI expressed concerns that someone may try to kill Oswald, assured federal authorities that they would provide him adequate protection.[201]" Shouldn't "may" be "might"?
"99 percent of document" So what's left and what do they comprise?
Heck, I would like to know. The White House Memo cites the JFK Act permitting postponement of documents for national seurity reasons, which I cover in the third paragraph of that section. I could find nothing more specific than that. ~ HAL333 17:01, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"" President Lyndon B. Johnson authorized the minting of a new 50-cent piece, the Kennedy half dollar, in December 1963.[300]" Technically it was Congress, which overrode the statute requiring designs to be used for 25 years before being replaced by the US Mint (the Franklin was first struck in 1948)
That's it for now.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All fixed but one. ~ HAL333 17:01, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Wehwalt (talk) 15:09, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cerebellum

Novice reviewer here. I enjoyed the article :) Just a few comments.

  • Looks like Matza 2022 is missing from the works cited.
  • The caption for the image of Oliver Stone says JFK came out in 1992, it should be 1991.
  • Both Shaw and the neurotic, avidly anti-Castro Ferrie were gay. Homosexual seems more encyclopedic.
  • That's how I had it originally but had second thoughts. Reverted. ~ HAL333 16:51, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article contains lots of “Bugliosi says”, “according to Bugliosi”, etc. I agree with you that Bugliosi's is the best book on the assassination, but this could be confusing for someone who isn't familiar with his work. Maybe at the first mention of Bugliosi’s name include a descriptor like Vincent Bugliosi, an expert on the assassination or Vincent Bugliosi, who wrote an influential book on the assassination.
  • The Shaw trial is now widely regarded as a "travesty of justice" Doesn't MOS:QUOTE require in-text attribution for all quotations? --Cerebellum (talk) 10:52, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • All addressed, Cerebellum. Good catches. ~ HAL333 17:00, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cerebellum, are there any other changes I should make? ~ HAL333 20:49, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nope! Support. --Cerebellum (talk) 10:23, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SC

Putting down a marker for now. - SchroCat (talk) 18:17, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well done on taking on such a mammoth subject – there's not many who would dare to take on such a controversial and heavily-covered subject!

Lead & IB
  • If Tippit is mentioned in the IB under deaths, shouldn't Oswald also be?
  • I lean 'no'. Oswald died two days after the assassination. If I include Oswald, it makes it seem as if he died at the scene of the Dealey Plaza shooting. As it is, I've always been on edge as to whether Tippit should even be included... ~ HAL333 14:21, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does it matter it was on a Friday? Won't the date alone do?
  • "charged ... with the murders of Kennedy and Dallas policeman J. D. Tippit": this is the first mention of Tippit, so it's a bit of jump to see this. Maybe a short sentence before "Around 70 minutes after Kennedy" about Oswald murdering him first? Either that, or trimming so that it was Oswald was charged with murder, without giving the names.
  • "In its 1979 report, the United States House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) concluded that Kennedy was likely "assassinated as a result of a conspiracy" based on a police Dictabelt recording later debunked by the U.S. Justice Department." This is a bit of a monster sentence – and the debunking of the recording gets a bit lost. It may be worth thinking about moving the debunking to the end of the following sentence.
Oswald
  • He "traveled to Finland" but "travelled to Mexico City" (further down he "travelled by bus")
  • Ah, that's the British spelling creeping in. ~ HAL333 14:21, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Note 3) "governent agent" – check spelling
Shooting
  • InBrEng, "bloodspatter" is two words: is it one in the US?
  • Nope. It's still two. Fixed. ~ HAL333 14:21, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done to the end of Shooting – more to follow. – SchroCat (talk) 10:59, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unless noted above, all addressed. ~ HAL333 14:21, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aftermath in Dealey Plaza
  • "colored man... leaning" should there be a space after "man", per WP:ELLIPSIS, or is there no gap in the source?
Oswald's flight
  • [note 11]: " the rideges" – spelling
  • " Furthermore": not needed – it always looks like what follows was crow-barred in as an afterthought.
  • "conspiciuous" – "conspicuous"

Done to the end of Oswald's flight: more to come - SchroCat (talk) 20:36, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. ~ HAL333 23:50, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The final batch:

Kennedy declared dead
  • "he was administered the oath of office": as there's be no reference to Johnson in the rest of the paragraph, the "he" is uncertain
Immediate aftermath
  • "the National Archives": this goes to page that describes what a national archives is. Probably better linked (or piped) to the National Archives and Records Administration (if that is the correct target)
  • "Hundreds of thousands lined up... a quarter million passing": I know you mean people, but best to put it in there (as opposed to "Hundreds of thousands of" soldiers or Kennedy voters, etc)
Dallas Police
  • "and, early on in the investigation" - > "and, early in the investigation"
Rockefeller Commission
  • "Commission for its chairman": is that right in AmEng? In BrEng we'd probably say "Commission after its chairman", but I have no idea on your version... (Ditto on Church Committee, below)
  • It looks like it is, which I never realized. But "after" is equally acceptable in AmEng, and have made the change as it seems more universal. ~ HAL333 13:46, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Church Committee
  • "relevations" - > "revelations"
United States House Select Committee on Assassinations
  • "police channel dictabelt recording": capitalise "Dictabelt"

That's my lot. There's a lot of information crammed into the article, and you’ve dealt with it extremely well, covering all the main points, and only using detail where it is most appropriate. I can't hope to comment on the breadth of sources covered and used or unused (I just don't have the knowledge base), but this article feels as if it covers everything in a balanced and neutral way. - SchroCat (talk) 08:14, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • All addressed, SchroCat. The comments are much appreciated. ~ HAL333 13:46, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A large topic very well dealt with. - SchroCat (talk) 13:50, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Reviewing this version, with the caveat that this isn't a topic matter I am familiar with. Spot-check upon request.

  • I notice that some sources have multiple pages but no page numbers given e.g #261 and some news sites have bylines and others don't but otherwise the source formatting seems consistent.
  • In the case of #261, I feel that it's that the totality of the document that I am citing — it's not particularly long. I believe that those without a byline did not have a named author.
  • Looking upon Vincent Bugliosi I notice the somewhat ambiguous statements about a potential conspiracy.
  • Bugliosi is arguably the most prominent skeptic, and he is very fair in his analysis. ~ HAL333 02:31, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes "NBC News (1966). There Was a President. Random House." and this website a high-quality reliable source?
  • I removed the latter, but NBC is a high-quality reliable source. ~ HAL333 14:55, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a permanent dead link.
  • Removed.
  • Is Gallup the most important source of polling available?
  • I think so. I added a more recent secondary supporting source from NBC, which also cites Gallup. ~ HAL333 02:40, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • NPR is used as a source for claims on government policies, is it the best source for such things?
  • In the cases that I use it, I believe that it offers more context and info than just the gov document. ~ HAL333 13:50, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's an independent publication and not really state media, so I think it's reliable. ~ HAL333 02:38, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the issue I was wondering whether citing the government directly may be better in some instances. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:42, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I presume it's a mistake that Pappalardo (2017) links to the Warren item and not the Pappalardo one.
  • Fixed.
  • The "Cultural impact and depictions" section has a list of pop-culture works, on which basis have they been selected for inclusion?
  • My primary consideration was due weight. The films JFK and Executive Action are mentioned as one spurred federal legislation and the other was the first. There are other examples I wish I could include—like Gene Roddenberry's scuttled Star Trek film, which would have had Spock shoot Kennedy—but that would be undue weight. The three novels are given due weight as they are the most prominent novels (there aren't too many with articles) that solely concern the assassination. The late, great Cormac McCarthy's The Passenger does somewhat explore the assassination—and I would love to include it but it's tangential. For the songs, I believe that my selections represent the biggest songs. I, for instance, did not include songs with only passing references to the killing, like the Rolling Stones' "Sympathy for the Devil". Elegy is included because, well, it's by Stravinsky. "Crucifixion" is included because it is commonly referenced in the literature (it is the epigraph and titular inspiration for Pictures of the Pain) and had a direct impact on Bobby Kennedy. "Abraham, Martin and John" is a massively covered song and "Murder Most Foul" is by Bob Dylan—a Nobel laureate. He also covered "Abraham, Martin and John". ~ HAL333 02:31, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, how do you determine which work is due and which one is not? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:48, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because they are the most represented and discussed in reliable sources. ~ HAL333 23:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Out of curiosity, which are these reliable sources? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bugliosi for the films. For the books: Guardian, NYT, Guardian, NYT, NPR, WaPo, Britannica, NYT, Guardian, Deadline, Los Angeles Times, The Chicago Tribune, https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3cswssl BBC], New Statesman , [2], a literature journal, a literature journal, a literature journal, etc. (you won't find such coverage for the over books listed in the category I previously linked) For music: White House historical association, NYT, Guardian, academic journal, NYT—"Crucifixion"'s inclusion is well-merited so I will not list sources—The Tennessean, Atlanta Journal Constitution, NYT, The Guardian, The New Yorker, MIT Press Reader, NPR, Los Angeles Times, NBC News, Vanity Fair, etc. Hopefully you get my thrust. ~ HAL333 12:52, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but you may want to put a footnote mentioning these sources. Otherwise it looks like you handpicked them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:54, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm hesitant to do that. It would be citation clutter and I'm not sure if WP:DUE mandates it... ~ HAL333 19:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I'd put it in a footnote, think the notes at Open Arms (SZA song) for some statements sourced to multiple articles. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:08, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus, after some thought about how to do this, I decided to follow what they did at Stalin. All works now have at least 3 RS. ~ HAL333 23:15, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That works for me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:50, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jo-Jo, how is this looking now? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:08, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus ? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:18, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jo-Jo Eumerus, sorry to keep pinging you, but is this a pass? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:15, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Only Sorry, the issue I was wondering whether citing the government directly may be better in some instances. remains - I am not keen on using news to source a verbatim government claim, for that the government itself is the best source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:45, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Jo-Jo Eumerus, Which specific NPR ref is the issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HAL333 (talk • contribs)
    159, mostly. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:59, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Jo-Jo Eumerus, sorry for the incessant pinging. I think you typed that wrong -- 159 is a book reference. ~ HAL333 16:34, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I see, now it's 156. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:48, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FBI report on news of JFK's assassination in the Soviet
Better a secondary source than a primary one. Both are fine. Here's the original of the primary source. Another image, HAL333. SN54129 19:06, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Serial! And looking back at the primary source, it's not clear that it is a memo nor that it was written by Hoover (both of which the NPR article clearly states). ~ HAL333 14:36, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes HAL333, this image is merely the third page of the one NPR are citing. They link to the whole thing, currently on Archive.org. Which includes the precious words "FROM: HOOVER, J. EDGAR"  :) but does not refer to it as a "memo". It wouldn't: outsiders call them memos, inside the B. it's a "memorandum", a report or a communication. HTH! SN54129 14:58, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, good catch. Jo-Jo Eumerus, I've gone ahead and added the memorandum besides the NPR ref. Is there anything else I need to address? ~ HAL333 19:41, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I think that's it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:53, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kavyansh

Last year, I unsuccessfully tried to save the article on RFK's assassination from being delisted at FAR, but in that process, I learned a lot about the topic. I also remembered nominating the lead image of this article to be featured.

Kindly ping me if I do not start my review within 48 hours. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kavyansh.Singh, just checking in. ~ HAL333 04:45, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "destroyed the brain to hide the extent of the president's illnesses and consequent medication" — despite the link, I think the article should specify what "illness" we are talking about here.
  • "Vice President Nelson A. Rockefeller." — per our article, "Nelson Rockefeller" is his WP:COMMONNAME, I don't see any need for his middle initials.
  • "Dan Rather opined" —→ "Journalist Dan Rather opined"
  • Check p./pp.
    • Ref#114: "Bugliosi (2007), p. 801−802"
    • Ref#214: "Bugliosi (2007), p. 355, 455"
    • "Testimony of Howard Brennan. Warren Commission Hearings (Report). Vol. III. p. 144-145"
    • Ref#136: "Bugliosi (2007), pp. 110"
  • Needs En Dash:
    • Ref#100: "Bugliosi (2007), pp. 898-899"
    • Ref#117: "Bugliosi (2008), pp. 110-111"
    • Ref#153: "The New York Times (2003), pp. 197-201"

Well researched overall. Just a few nitpicks, none of which is a major issue, and which I am sure would be taken care of. Support – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:42, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Kavyansh.Singh! All good catches and all addressed, except for the "illnesses" one. I tried rewriting it, but it interrupted the flow and I couldn't describe it concisely and still be accurate. Kennedy had multiple conditions— probably Addison's disease, back and spinal injuries from World War II, hypothyroidism, a theorized autoimmune disease, and a plethora of conditions brought on by the heavy medication, including possible steroid-induced osteoperosis, etc.— there's quite a bit of postulation and nuance that I can't really do justice. Is it okay if I leave that part as is? ~ HAL333 00:00, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No issues. My support stands. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:28, 24 August 2023 (UTC).[reply]
I appreciate it. It may take a few years, but I'll eventually try to revamp Bobby's assassination as well — I'll ping you when I'm in the early stages of that. ~ HAL333 14:56, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by TompaDompa

I'll try to get round to this in the next few days. As an initial observation, several images lack alt texts and the alt texts for the two Oswald images in the "Background" section are swapped. TompaDompa (talk) 12:52, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good catches. Fixed. ~ HAL333 00:20, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Several images still lack alt texts, as can be seen here. TompaDompa (talk) 05:17, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that tool is broken... Only the infobox image lacked alt text. ~ HAL333 19:25, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • "Kennedy was the fourth U.S. president to be assassinated, and the most recent to have died in office." – the former will always remain true, while the latter was true then and is true now, but will likely change sooner or later. He was the fourth, and is the most recent (technically he also was the most recent, but that's trivial/tautological).
    • So is it fine as is? It can always be changed if/when another POTUS dies in office. ~ HAL333 19:26, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would write "Kennedy was the fourth [...] and is the most recent [...]". TompaDompa (talk) 14:12, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed. ~ HAL333 16:12, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Background
  • I don't think it's all that pertinent. ~ HAL333 21:02, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kennedy's tenure coincided with the height of the Cold War" – seems a bit dubious, both whether it was the height of the Cold war and whether "coincided" is the right word.
    • RS pretty universally rate the Cuban Missile Crisis as the height of the Cold War... ~ HAL333 19:43, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Interesting. I might've expected at least a significant minority to view the Korean War as the height of the Cold War considering both sides intervened heavily with "boots on the ground". At any rate, I don't think "coincided with the height of the Cold War" is the right way to put it (while "coincide" literally means happen at the same time, it does carry the connotation of happenstance). I might use a phrasing such as "marked by high tensions" or similar. TompaDompa (talk) 14:12, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've changed it from "coincided" to "saw" -- tell me if that works. ~ HAL333 16:16, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yep. TompaDompa (talk) 15:31, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "regarded as the closest that humanity has come to nuclear holocaust" – is there a good reason to use the stronger "nuclear holocaust" rather than the weaker "nuclear war" here?
    • Technically, WWII was a nuclear war. ~ HAL333 19:43, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair point. TompaDompa (talk) 14:12, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "U.S. Senator Ralph Yarborough" – I mention this here, but it occurs throughout: are we treating "Senator" as a title that should be capitalized when followed by a name or not (MOS:JOBTITLE)? The capitalization is not consistent ("Senators John Cooper and Richard Russell" but "senators Richard Schweiker and Gary Hart", for instance).
  • Fixed. ~ HAL333 21:05, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "since reading Karl Marx aged 14" – I would write "at the age of 14".
    • "Aged" is more concise. ~ HAL333 21:05, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is, but it runs the risk of being interpreted as referring to Marx rather than Oswald. TompaDompa (talk) 14:12, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright - I changed it. ~ HAL333 16:17, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While passing out pro-Castro literature alongside unknown compatriots, Oswald was arrested after scuffling with anti-Castro Cuban exiles." – might be worth mentioning when this was. I know it's mentioned in the image caption, but readers may not think to look there.
  • It makes the paragraph a bit more choppy if another month is mentioned. ~ HAL333 21:05, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Mexico City trip is contentious; an internal House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) report claimed that the embassy visitor was an Oswald impostor." – I feel like there's something I'm missing here. This seems almost like a non sequitur.
    • I'm confused. How is it a non sequitur? ~ HAL333 21:05, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, non sequitur is probably not the right way to describe it. My point is that there is obviously more to the story here—so much more that I feel more confused than enlightened by reading this sentence. At face value, "the embassy visitor was an Oswald impostor" strikes me as a rather outlandish claim. TompaDompa (talk) 14:12, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Pretty much any sentence in the Oswald subsection could be extended into an entire paragraph (I would like to rewrite the entire Oswald article someday). I have to sacrifice detail to adhere to summary style. I think the conclusions regarding the Mexico City period from both of the two big federal investigations are relevant here. And the Mexico City angle isn't pure conspiracy theory mumbo-jumbo. Just as an example, the CIA famously gave this photo (I'v always though he looks more like Liam Neeson) to support their claim that Oswald was in Mexico. Maybe more stupid than sinister, but I don't know. ~ HAL333 16:26, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • Alright. I remain mostly confused by this but I'll defer to your greater subject-matter knowledge. TompaDompa (talk) 15:31, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Vincent Bugliosi accused fellow anti-conspiracy theorists like Gerald Posner of distorting this event in their writings, which provides Oswald with a strong motive to kill Kennedy." – again, I feel like there's something I'm missing here. In what way does Bugliosi think they distort it?
    • It varies between different writers; Posner for instance cherry-picks and omits certain lines of testimony to weaken her credibility. It's a level of nuance I don't think this article needs. ~ HAL333 01:49, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is it consistently a question of downplaying it? If so, that should at least be mentioned (e.g. "distorting and downplaying"). TompaDompa (talk) 14:12, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to "distorting and downplaying". ~ HAL333 16:26, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
November 22
  • "The bullet created an oval-shaped entry wound" – where on his body, more precisely?
  • Specified. ~ HAL333 16:45, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "struck and destroyed several inches of Connally's right fifth rib" – would that be upon entering or exiting his chest? Or both?
    • I can't find a source that specifies it, but I believe it's upon exiting. To be honest, I don't think it makes a huge difference to the reader. ~ HAL333 16:45, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, probably not. I'm just trying to get as clear a mental picture as possible of the bullet's path. TompaDompa (talk) 15:31, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "creating a sucking chest wound" – I don't think this is the best way to describe it. Most people probably don't know what a "sucking chest wound" is. Honestly, I think "pneumothorax" is more likely to be understood by readers. I don't know if that's the best way to phrase it either, though. If the sources state that Connally's right lung was struck (which seems likely), I might describe it as "puncturing and collapsing his lung" or something like that. A phrasing with "chest cavity" could also be used.
    • I really disagree. I work in pre-hospital emergency medicine (for now) and sucking chest wound is much more widely recognizable by both professionals and patients. Even if both are unrecognized by a reader, it's pretty easy to deduce the meaning from "sucking chest wound". ~ HAL333 19:43, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Interesting, since my experience is the opposite. The first time I came across "sucking chest wound" was many years after I learned what "pneumothorax" is (I wonder if the relative infrequency of e.g. gunshot wounds and stabbings compared to e.g. traffic accidents where I'm at plays a part). I also didn't find "sucking chest wound" to be particularly intuitive when I first encountered the term—to me, "sucking" would more intuitively suggest tension pneumothorax. Anyway, I think we can do way better than "sucking chest wound" here. Posner quotes a Dr. West as saying "His chest wound gave him a pneumothorax [a punctured lung]. When he took his next breath, his lung collapsed [...]", so I think my above suggestion of "puncturing and collapsing his lung" would be a good alternative. TompaDompa (talk) 14:12, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "puncturing and collapsing his lung" is not just an alternative, but is an absolute improvement. Done. ~ HAL333 16:30, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Both committees concluded" – which?
  • Fixed. ~ HAL333 01:51, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""roughly ovular" [sic]" – if "[sic]" is necessary, a link to wiktionary should probably be included. By the way, we have Template:sic.
  • Good point. Linked to wiktionary. ~ HAL333 19:43, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "120 yards" – I would include unit conversion to metric.
  • Done. ~ HAL333 19:43, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Immediate aftermath
  • "the extent of the president's illnesses" – I would add a descriptor such as "multiple".
    • I don't know: "Illnesses" already communicates that they were multiple conditions. ~ HAL333 19:43, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed it does, but it doesn't emphasize that point, which seems like something that should be done here. TompaDompa (talk) 14:12, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Multiple" seems like a grammatical aberation to me. But I did add "chronic" -- is that an improvement? ~ HAL333 16:32, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes. TompaDompa (talk) 15:31, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "An eternal flame was lit" – WP:EASTEREGG; I would expect this link to go to eternal flame rather than John F. Kennedy Eternal Flame.
    • I expanded the link to "An eternal flame", if that's less eastereggy. ~ HAL333 19:43, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yep, perfect. TompaDompa (talk) 14:12, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "secondary to lung and brain cancer" – two different cancers, not one that had spread?
  • Good catch. ~ HAL333 21:02, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Films and photographs of the assassination
  • "some 65 feet" – I would include unit conversion to metric.
  • Done. ~ HAL333 19:43, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Official investigations
  • "selected Chief Justice Earl Warren" – should probably make it clear to readers unfamiliar with the title "Chief Justice"—which I reckon would likely be most people outside of the United States—that it is a Supreme Court position.
  • Done. ~ HAL333 19:43, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Three commission members" – seems relevant to mention out of how many.
  • Done. ~ HAL333 05:22, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(Both Shaw and the neurotic, avidly anti-Castro Ferrie were homosexual.)" – why is this mentioned here? To explain the comparison to Wilde? If so, that is not clear. The article later states "Other observers have characterized the proceedings as relying on homophobia.", and if that's the reason to mention that they were homosexual then that would seem a more logical place to mention this.
    • I don't know. It seems more logical to state their sexuality in the first para, where I actually introduce them. ~ HAL333 19:43, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • On the one hand I see your point, but on the other it kind of comes out of nowhere and seems like a really random detail to mention without any explanatory context. TompaDompa (talk) 14:12, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • I rewrote it slightly -- tell me if it's any better. ~ HAL333 16:35, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • A bit, yes. It'll do. TompaDompa (talk) 15:31, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, some 150,000 Americans were contacts." – is this a point Helms made or one that Holland (the cited source) makes? It should be made clear.
  • I attributed it to Holland. ~ HAL333 16:36, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Conspiracy theories
  • "Bugliosi estimated that a total of 42 groups, 82 assassins, and 214 people had been accused in various assassination theories." – I would add when that estimate was made.
  • I would very much like to, but I can't find that date... ~ HAL333 05:21, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Legacy
  • "The agency's budget has also increased, from $5.5 million in 1963 to over $1.6 billion by the 50th anniversary in 2013." – doesn't tell us much without inflation adjustment.
  • True. Added. ~ HAL333 01:43, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As with the attack on Pearl Harbor of December 7, 1941, and, much later, the September 11 attacks," – should probably give the year for the latter as well.
    • I don't think the exact year is necessary for 9/11. If they don't know it, they can always just click on the link — the benefit of such a hyperlinked encyclopedia. ~ HAL333 20:57, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're not wrong, but we should keep in mind that an increasing number of readers will have been too young to remember it or even born after the event. Might be considered future-proofing. TompaDompa (talk) 14:12, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess that makes sense: done. ~ HAL333 16:10, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Besides explicit portrayals, some critics have argued that the Zapruder film inspired more graphic depictions of violence in American cinema." – this seems to me a rather novel argument, and I would expect significantly stronger sourcing than we currently have to include it. I don't know if it quite reaches the level of being WP:EXTRAORDINARY, but it is certainly on that axis.
    • I added another claim regarding the Zapruder film. ~ HAL333 01:39, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think that helps. My reading of the added source is that the Zapruder film was an example of cinéma vérité more than an influence on it. Film history is a subject I am relatively more knowledgable about than the JFK assassination, and this strikes me as overstating the impact of the Zapruder film on cinema, specifically. TompaDompa (talk) 14:12, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think it's important to mention the cultural impact of the Zapruder film. Those two are RS I've rephrased it slightly and added a source that states it has been used in many films and TV shows. ~ HAL333 17:05, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • I agree on the covering the impact of the Zapruder film, I just don't know that this is the way to do it. I stand by my assessment that this seems to overstate things, but I don't know how to do the Zapruder film's cultural impact justice in some other way so it won't keep me from supporting the FAC. One possibility: I note that the Zapruder film article mentions that it was inducted into the National Film Registry in 1994. That says a fair amount to me (as something of a film buff) but I don't know if the significance thereof will be apparent to the average reader or mostly lost on them. I'll let you decide. TompaDompa (talk) 15:31, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The citation to "Gates (1998)" leads nowhere.
  • Fixed. ~ HAL333 20:53, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several of the cultural depictions seem dubious to include to me. In particular, some of them are cited only to sources on the works themselves, rather than to sources on the assassination. This runs counter to MOS:POPCULT (or equivalently, WP:PROPORTION).
    • Which ones seem dubious? ~ HAL333 19:43, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • The sources cited for American Tabloid, 11/22/63, Elegy for J.F.K., "Crucifixion", "Abraham, Martin and John", and "Murder Most Foul" all appear to be sources on the works themselves rather than the assassination. I mean, obviously the assassination is an important WP:ASPECT of the works, but that does not imply the converse. TompaDompa (talk) 14:12, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • As I mentioned in the source review above, the primary subject of these works is the assassination. There are plenty of works where the assassination is merely a backdrop of minor component that I would love to mention but can't. Moreover, works primarily concerned about the assassination mention "Crucifixion" (see the quote box) and you could argue that the White House source is primarily viewing. Is it alright if we leave it as is. I don't want to die on this hill (or should I say knoll). ~ HAL333 16:49, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ah, missed that source for "Crucifixion"—that's perfectly fine then. I'm something of a stickler for applying our content policies (in particular, WP:PROPORTION) to "in popular culture" sections and articles in the same way they apply to other types of content, and I have spent considerable time working on such content (e.g. rewriting the entirety of Mars in fiction) to keep it from being—effectively—TV Tropes content. This section obviously isn't that, and I don't expect it to devolve into it either (at least not in the near future), but I do agree with the comment from the source review about the works looking hand-picked (or as is so often the case with these kinds of articles/sections—added indiscriminately and then sourced post-hoc). Anyway, I agree about this not being a hill to die on. TompaDompa (talk) 15:31, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Texas State Archives preserves" – surely the Texas State Archives should be treated as plural?
  • Either way is correct, but I changed it to plural. ~ HAL333 19:43, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ping HAL333. TompaDompa (talk) 05:17, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HAL333 ? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:08, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support This looks very well-researched, comprehensive, and balanced, with the caveat that I would likely not be able to tell if it was not. Most of my comments above have been resolved; the remainder are not deal-breakers at this point. TompaDompa (talk) 15:31, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! You picked up a lot that had flown under the radar. ~ HAL333 20:40, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

  • Books should either all have publisher locations or none should - either is acceptable so long as you are consistent. So could you either remove the four locations given or add the nineteen missing ones?
  • Done.
  • Four Days: could you give both the full title and the OCLC? (The latter is 923323127.)
  • Done.
  • Could Four days in November have its full title, be in title case and include its OCLC. (1149162285)
  • Done.
  • Could you check all sources for full titles, correct and consistent case, missing ISBNs or OCLCs and anything else which may catch your eye and then give me a ping? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:30, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gog the Mild, I gave the references a final bit of elbow grease and I do not believe that there are any more issues. ~ HAL333 21:10, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Like most readers of my generation, I remember exactly where I was when I was told that JFK had been killed, and I don't live in the US. It took me over 30 minutes to read this engaging article, and apart from one minor issue, which I took the liberty of fixing, I found the prose to be exemplary. This FAC has my full support for promotion, but please check the external links; at least one (the PBS documentary) does not work for me and says "video not available". Best regards. - Graham Beards (talk) 08:48, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! I ended up removing the PBS documentary as it seems to require a payment to view it anyway. Best, ~ HAL333 17:01, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stray bullet from serial

You're very image-heavy (not surprising, considering the sheer wealth of material at your disposal). I wondered what the relevance of Kennedy's Moon speech image was? Just to identify him? Photos of him in the Ibox, photos below him with his wife. Might as well put a picture of Castro in  :) Also, I'd suggest changing the quoteboxes into blockquote; they fit well in the text, and due to the number of images, they aren't needed to break text up—you've already sorted that. Finally, a slight NPOV concern, why the choice of song lyrics you've made (when there's Over 200 songs... released following the assassination). Also your AP publ;ication The Torch Is Passed from 1963 is too early yo have an ISBN assigned to it, suggest either |OCLC= or |orig-year= parameter. Also, your NBC News (1966) cite is lacking any kind of identifier at all. But again, from that age, so an OCLC number might be available.

(talk page stalker) Many pre-ISBN works have had ISBNs retrospectively assigned, and we usually at least allow a nominator's preference. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:13, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great article though: distilling one of the single most important events of the 20th century into less than 8,000 words, in a fashion that both a Harvard professor and Randy could understand is no mean feat. Congratulations are indeed in order. SN54129 14:51, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. 1) I went ahead and added an image of Castro. If you think there are too many double image templates, I can drop it (It looked somewhat weird to have a single image of Castro under a section entitled "Kennedy". The framing of the Kennedy pic is just great too imho, and I like namedropping the Moonshot speech.) 2) I'm quite partial to my quoteboxes. 3) As far as I know, the "Crucifixion" song is the only piece of media that one of the article's "players" (RFK) interacted with. It's also referenced pretty commonly in the books, with it being the epigraph and titular inspriation for the seminal book on assassination-related film/phography. 4) I added the OCLC and also realized that I had missed that it had actual authors. ~ HAL333 16:27, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@HAL333: Okay. Apologies, I added another query re. NBC citation, if you haven't seen it. Also, if there is an actual interaction between the song and a Kennedy—a 'Kennedy Connection', if you will—can that be referenced in the caption or as a note? I'm still unsure what you mean, and I suspect that not everyone else will know either. But a sentence to clarify the connection would be great. Otherwise, I am happy to support this article's promotion from behind my grassy knoll. SN54129 16:34, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated. I've added the ASIN for the NBC book. And, when RFK first heard "Crucifixion", he immediately recognized that it was about Jack and broke down crying. In the third paragraph, I have the bit and Phil Ochs' 1966 song "Crucifixion", which reportedly brought Robert Kennedy to tears. Is that part unclear? Should I expand it? ~ HAL333 16:41, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was right next to it all the time, of course *facepalm* no problem with it all, and apologies to you for missing something so obvious. Snow blindness, I think. As to expanding it; I'd say, if you could, slightly, do so, because it sounds like an iconic moment and neatly ties in the two brothers together. It's a great story, shame to waste it. Anyway, up to you, still supporting  :) SN54129 17:10, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Assassination_of_John_F._Kennedy/archive1&oldid=1176025277"