Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/USS Iowa turret explosion/archive1

USS Iowa turret explosion

3 articles

A Glimpse of Hell

This topic is nominated as a featured topic candidate and is intended to be a sub-topic under the Wikipedia:Featured topics/Iowa class battleships featured topic. Fred Moosally was captain of Iowa at the time of the explosion and A Glimpse of Hell was a notable work of investigative journalism that publicized the results of the author's study into the explosion and its aftermath. Cla68 (talk) 07:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support All is in order. Good luck with the nom, Cla68! TomStar810 (Talk) 17:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Z gin der 2009-02-24T04:26Z (UTC)
Support -- Meets WP:WIAFT.--TRU CO 01:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Meets all the requirements. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -MBK₀₀₄ 05:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nick-D (talk) 08:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have significant concerns regarding NPOV, sourcing, and WP:BLP on the Fred Moosally article. The concerns are being addressed on the talk page at the moment, but if they can't be resolved there, then the article might be sent to WP:FAR. --Aude (talk) 10:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed the concern [1]. Cla68 (talk) 01:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The concerns are not addressed. Actually, my concerns regarding the Thompson book as a source likely extend to the other two articles in this featured topic nomination. I think a detailed check of the references is needed and to search out other possible sources that can help make the articles more balanced, rather than giving undue weight to Thompson and his book. I realize that this sort of detailed reference check does not usually happen at FAC, especially with book sources. We are past FAC, but being a BLP and sensitive subject, I think a detailed check is needed in this case before I'm comfortable supporting this as a featured topic. Please bear with me as I track down copies of the print references. --Aude (talk) 09:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't a BLP problem be taken to FAR? If the sources are not sufficient, it would lose it's star and make this moot. I don't think FAC should involve second guessing the FA process.Yob Mod 15:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think of FAR as something to try after discussion on the article talk page has failed to resolve any issues. Hopefully it won't be necessary. --Aude (talk) 22:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to wait for this to be resolved before promoting/not promoting this topic. I guess if the issues are resolved on the talk page, then the oppose here would be withdrawn and hence the topic can be happily promoted. But if the issues aren't resolved, then the article will end up at FAR, and then I'm not going to have to not promote the topic I'm afraid, because as per WP:FT?, "the topic should not have any active.... Featured article reviews... Nominations with one or more articles involved in a process mentioned above may result in a quick fail". Obviously if the article survives FAR, the topic can always come back here at that time - rst20xx (talk) 23:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably going to take awhile. Aude announced that he is ordering the book to look at it himself, so it will be threshed out on the talk page before it goes to FAR. My position is that the book is a reliable source, and it is clearly stated in the article when that source is the single source for an assertion. If you don't want this nomination squatting here while this gets discussed over the next few weeks, probably, I don't mind if you close the nomination as unsuccessful. Cla68 (talk) 00:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - as an aside, I was wondering about A Glimpse of Hell (film) anyway. I am not sure how notable it is but it appears to be a gap - rst20xx (talk) 02:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you may be right that the film article should be developed and included in the topic. I thought that since the film was a work of historical fiction, from what I've read about it, that it shouldn't be included. I could be wrong, however, because the film does concern itself to some degree with the topic and may be the reason that some of the real-life people involved decided to sue the writer of the book. Cla68 (talk) 03:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Close with no promotion as per the above discussion - rst20xx (talk) 17:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]