Talk:Ike Altgens.html
 
| ca | de | en | es | fr | it | nl | no | pl | pt | ru | ro | fi | sv | tr | vo |


 

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ike Altgens article.
Article policies
Featured article star Ike Altgens is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Peer review This History article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale (comments).
 
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has an assessment summary page.

The article is a bit on the smaller side, needs a bigger lead, and footnotes --Jaranda wat's sup 20:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. RadioKirk talk to me 21:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Contents

Why Peer Review

Already a Good Article, I'm curious to learn whether this could ever qualify as a Featured Article. My concerns are the dearth of information on this man's life prior to and following the event that made him famous. It appears at this point I have found all that can be found/is relevant/is verifiable. Comments invited. RadioKirk talk to me 05:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

One book got me the rest. Thank you, User:Maclean25, :) RadioKirk talk to me 05:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

RadioKirk, please reconsider

I think the addition of the high-res version of the first Dealey Plaza photo is worthwhile. The impact of this photo (and many other news photos of the day) was made as a full-page print in Life or similar magazines. For our readers to get a feel for the medium in its heyday we should always include quality upsampled versions when possible (if having two versions in one article really does break Fair Use then we should have only the high res version thumbnailed). This is one of the small set of features that can set us apart from Britannica and others and we should exploit it to the hilt. Plus, in this particular photograph it is impossible to even see what is happening at the resolutions currently provided. JDG 14:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, and strongly; click on the first thumb and the full-res image is relatively clear in its presentation of the events (: and especially so now that I've put up a better scan).
Please bear in mind, I'm of the very strong opinion that, while the crop is perfect for John F. Kennedy assassination and other articles specific to the assassination, this article is specific to Ike Altgens, and it should lead with his full, uncropped image. (I'll have to look it up, but I believe this also is supported by the Manual of Style.) The man-in-the doorway image already in the article better presents its subject as well.
These points argue against replacement; the image certainly cannot be added as it provides nothing beyond those already there, which would violate Fair Use. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 15:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, we just disagree, but I won't press it. You say "the image certainly cannot be added as it provides nothing beyond those already there"-- but it does provide something: it provides a close, high res look into the passenger compartment of that limousine about 1 second after the shot struck. I can't come up with a more important service a version of a photograph can provide, honestly. All my version is is a detail of your version, and details (in the strict illustrative sense) are extensively used in encyclopedias, books and professional journals... BTW, when one clicks on "Download high-resolution version" in your image page, the old closer-cropped, poorer scan quality image is shown. JDG 00:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, by point: one, that's why it's an appropriate image for the assassination articles, but not for Altgens'—the article isn't about the assassination, and the exposition is incorrect here (and is the reason it would violate Fair Use [as an addition to those there now]); two, clear your cache to see the newer version.
Let me add, if I may: there's a specific reason this article doesn't go into the goings-on within the limousine, and that's because it's an argument for assassination pages that use this image as one of a large set of still and motion images for debate. The controversy that is specific to this image (and is the entire reason Altgens merits an article of his own, to be honest) is the man in the doorway. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 00:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Secret Service agent's sightline

The article previously said that, in the Altgens photo, one of the Secret Service agents in the follow-up car is looking at the grassy knoll. Presumably this referred to the second agent standing on the left running board of the follow-up car. However, the agent is looking to his right, not ahead. At that point where the vehicle was on Elm Street, he would be still looking at either Texas School Book Depository, or (more likely) at the crowds along the north side of Elm Street.

The Roberdau map of Dealey Plaza can help show this. The Altgens photo was taken at Z-255 (see annotation on the right side of Elm Street). At that point the presidential limousine was still in front of the TSBD; the Secret Service follow-up car was behind that (for the presidential limousine drawn to scale, see it at the top of the map, on Houston Street). Whether the agent is looking 90 degrees to his right or even just 45 degrees to his right, he would still be looking in the direction of the TSBD. To be looking at the grassy knoll area from that point, he would have to be looking almost straight forward. — Walloon 09:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

You're correct, I neglected to take the curve of Elm into account when I wrote that. Otherwise, I've performed a minor rewrite that I hope you'll like. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 13:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting

Dear fellow contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether or not dates are autoformatted. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Disadvantages of date-autoformatting

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. I'm seeking feedback about this proposal to remove it from the main text (using a script) in about a week's time on a trial basis. The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. BTW, anyone has the right to object, and I have no intention of arguing with people's feelings on the issue. Tony (talk) 12:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
All Right Reserved © 2007, Designed by Stylish Blog.