Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ike Altgens

Ike Altgens

Okay, okay, maybe the man was unremarkable outside the one day he became world famous, but the lack of interest is astounding. It's not polite to beg, but, here I am (slaps self with trout).

Already a Good article, one suggestion from one editor (User:Maclean25, with my thanks) gave me the material to finish this article. Radio Kirk talk to me 05:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support as nom. Radio Kirk talk to me 14:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Object for now~~ images need a better fair use rationale, please find a image if you can of the subject, also the In popular culture section is only one line, please expand. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 22:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Radio Kirk talk to me 02:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support better now, just try to expand a little more, thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I ever find anything more, I guarantee it, thanks. :) Radio Kirk talk to me 18:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Conditional~~ Support As long as you deal with the two one sentence paragraphs. The last sentence should be incorporated into the paragraph above and the second intro paragraph should be expanded, probably with information about his length of AP employment. Also, take out the parentheses around the Clint Hill information and clarification of what you mean about the number of photos taken (was it 3, 4, 7, did he lie, I'm not sure from the sentence!) InvictaHOG 23:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still think the Hill passage reads better with the parens (grin), but, done. :) Radio Kirk talk to me 00:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you like it better the other way, not a problem with me...just was awkward, but that's just my opinion! Great job. InvictaHOG 17:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I just read it again and it flows better than I first thought. I'd considered it what I call a "necessary diversion" when I first wrote it. :) Radio Kirk talk to me 17:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support though the Footnotes/Resources sections should be ironed out. The standard is to have a References section listing everything used in the writing of the article, and a Notes section for the footnotes. In this case, a combined "Notes and references" section would be fine, but they should be in a top level heading (==Notes and References==), almost always with no subheadings. If the Resources were used in the writing, they should be a Reference. If not, they should presumably be under a Further reading section (which is also a top level heading). Tuf-Kat 02:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe... apparently the standard has changed... again ;) Radio Kirk talk to me 02:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. While a great article, it has absolutely nothing about the rest of his career with AP. There's a 40-year gap there with only the motorcade photo information. Rebecca 05:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If I may? Even if I found anything else, I would question its relevance. Admittedly (as I note), Mr. Altgens was entirely unremarkable until the one day that made his a household name 'round the world. :) Radio Kirk talk to me 13:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]