Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Federal Bureau of Investigation/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 18:01, 19 June 2007.

[edit] Federal Bureau of Investigation

Previous FAC

Self-nomination - I am again renominating this article for FA status. A lot of changes have been made. --Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 20:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose I recognize the significant number of changes since the last FA nom, but more needs to be done. Some paragraphs don't have a single citation. Some cites still have the "citation needed" tag. "Legal authority" section is very stubby - needs editing. "History section" should not be presented with a horizontal table. SeleneFN 21:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Only one citation needed tag... not many. I removed the timeline. The "Legal authority" section just had to be made into a single paragraph in the middle. The history section cites are there. I'll just link them all up to the same page if you really want me to. Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 07:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose The article has a lot of promise, but there are some problems—ranging from large to small—that keep it from achieving its potential. These are the ones that I have noticed.

• Most importantly, the article seems to be based almost exclusively on web sources. While it has a good further reading section, that only highlights the fact that none of these books have been consulted in the writing of the article. In order to create a truly comprehensive article I think you need a wider variety of sources.
• I'm a bit wary of the fact that so many of the citations take us to the FBI website itself.
• The lead needs editing so that it flows better. You have a one-sentence paragraph about the FBI's foundation that doesn't really seem to fit where it's been placed.
• Would it make sense to deal with "Legal Authority" in chronological order? You also have a one-sentence paragraph here too.
• This needs a citation: "most historians now believe that if there was a crime wave at all, it was grossly exaggerated during the Great Depression."
• Much of the history section has a bit of a listy feel to it, going from one paragraph and one subject to the next without tying them together. The mention of the assassination of Kennedy, in particular, seems a bit out of the blue.
• Why are the services of the FBI lab and the units at Quantico listed in italics? You seem to have quite a lot of italics scattered around, in fact.
• "Before the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act was passed in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks, the FBI director would brief the President of the United States on any issues that arise from within the FBI." The tenses are a bit confused here and the sentence is vague. What sort of issues?
• "Professional support staff works out of one of the many support buildings the FBI maintains." This doesn't really tell the reader very much.
• "Some authors, television programs, or motion picture producers offer reasonably accurate presentations of the FBI's responsibilities, investigations, and procedures in their story lines, while others present their own interpretations or introduce fictional events, persons, or places for dramatic effect." I know that this is summarizing a sub-article, but it really doesn't have any content to it.
• I'm not sure about your choice of notable persons in the "See also" section. How did you decide who to include?
• Do you really need maps and aerial photos in the external links?

So yeah, there's some work to be done. I do hope that you're able to improve the article though, because it's an important topic and definitely worthy of FA status. MLilburne 10:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Well... I would have not have nominated this if I thought this was still missing. The recent peer review resulted in no responses to these items. Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 01:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Peer reviews do tend to be a lot less thorough than FAC reviews. Are you saying that you believe my points aren't valid because they didn't come up at peer review? MLilburne 09:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

No. They are valid. I will have to go back and complete this list once more again. Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 21:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

As I said before, I think the most important priority is to get to your local library and order the books that are listed in the further reading section. Taking a look at them should improve the article in all sorts of ways. MLilburne 07:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment - a minor comment: is "Mission & Priorities" (section title) a proper noun? If not, it should be "Mission and priorities" per WP:MOS. CloudNine 18:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Minor object. All of my objections from the last year have been addressed save one: there are still chunks of info missing inline citations. Non-objectionable comments: I'd like to see organizational diagram and 'FBI in fiction' section; 'Media portrayal' section is stub lenght and has no ilinks.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:32, 10 June 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.