Talk:Gun show loophole/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Zwerg Nase (talk · contribs) 07:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On it! Zwerg Nase (talk) 07:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Darknipples, Mudwater: It is hard for me to review this while it undergoes heavy changes. Any end in sight? Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:12, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Zwerg Nase: As I've explained on the talk page -- see my posts there, and in the talk page archives, for a full explanation -- having an article called "Gun show loophole" violates the Wikipedia NPOV policy. A better title would be "Background checks for firearm sales in the United States". There's been a lot of discussion about this issue, but as far as I can tell there's not going to be a consensus about it. At the current time I'm not planning to say much more about this. As far as the article itself, I have made some edits to it, but not that many. So for my part, I'd say go ahead with the GA review. — Mudwater^(Talk) 13:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I'm pretty much done with making updates. As far as the NPOV tag, I feel it will be resolved as soon as we get some more impartial opinions. Mudwater's opinions on the title, and subject, are nothing new. I find it a bit strange that someone decided to tag the article as soon as the GA review started, but, it will work itself out soon enough.Darknipples (talk) 15:06, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Zwerg Nase: The POV tag issue seems resolved. If not, I'm not sure where it could possibly go. I will continue sorting things until I know for sure, so I'm going to work probably until tonight. I've never gone through a GA review, and I'd appreciate any guidance that disambiguates the process and what you need from us. Thanks. Darknipples (talk) 16:44, 22 September 2015 (UTC) OK, I can't see anything else I'd like to tweak, barring some unforeseen important news regarding GSL I'm done for a while. What now? Darknipples (talk) 21:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be able to go through it again hopefully today or tomorrow. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up @Zwerg Nase:, this has gone to Administration [1] -- Darknipples (talk) 21:59, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Zwerg Nase: Will this affect the review in any way? Any details you can provide are appreciated, even if some of us are more concerned with the title than the actual article status. Darknipples (talk) 21:43, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Darknipples: As long as there is a consensus reached and no edit-warring, it will not affect the review. I am very sorry that I wasn't able to give you a review yet, the past week has been more stressful than I thought and I never found the time to work in Wikipedia longer than a couple of minutes. I hope to be able to do it this weekend. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:26, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, Zwerg, take your time, I just know that constant changes can fail the article, but not specifically what kind of changes counts against receiving GA status. Darknipples (talk) 18:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Finally on it. These are the things I believe should be adressed:

Reviewing the title controversy, it is my understanding that the issue is still not fully resolved. However, as long as there is no edit-warring, I feel that debates don't stand in the way of this becoming a GA. The case would be different if the title would be a clear NPOV violation, which it is not IMO, referring to WP:POVNAME.
However, I think the article itself should be more careful with the term in the prose. The worst example is in the Overview section, where it reads The loophole generally refers. You cannot write that. Better say The term refers to a perceived....
Having said that, I feel that the Overview section should be removed alltogether. The lead is the place to give an overview over the topic. If information is vital enough to go into an overview, put it in the lead. If not, leave it in the rest of the prose. Several pieces of information from Overview should be moved into Background.
Many abbreviations are used, some of them without introducing what they stand for. One example of this is FFL, where only later I find out what it is.
Background: You should give the full name of the "Brady Law" and give the shorter version in paratheses.
Early efforts: The title of the study should be in italics.
Early efforts: Before, names of bills and law where not in quotation marks, but Firearms Owners' Protection Act is. Any particular reason?
Early efforts: There is no source for the US Attorney proposals.
Notable events: I find that did not survive the House is a little colloquial.
Response: Maybe Responses would be a better title? The singular implies that there is one reaction to one action, which is not the case.
Response: but eventually killed by legislators - far too colloquial!
Response: Give a short explanation of what the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 includes.
Recent developments: Any news on the "Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2015"? Also, since the act is already referred to in the next section, where it belongs, you should move this information there.
Ref #28 ("About the VPC") is dead.

Optional: Any chance to get more images into the article? Maybe a photo of one of the prominent persons mentioned?

I am putting this on hold for the moment. The nominators have seven days to adress the issues. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:37, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Review Work

Reviewing the title controversy, it is my understanding that the issue is still not fully resolved. However, as long as there is no edit-warring, I feel that debates don't stand in the way of this becoming a GA. The case would be different if the title would be a clear NPOV violation, which it is not IMO, referring to WP:POVNAME.
However, I think the article itself should be more careful with the term in the prose. The worst example is in the Overview section, where it reads The loophole generally refers. You cannot write that. Better say The term refers to a perceived.... Done
Having said that, I feel that the Overview section should be removed alltogether. Done The lead is the place to give an overview over the topic. If information is vital enough to go into an overview, put it in the lead. If not, leave it in the rest of the prose. Several pieces of information from Overview should be moved into Background.
Many abbreviations are used, some of them without introducing what they stand for. One example of this is FFL, where only later I find out what it is. Done
Background: You should give the full name of the "Brady Law" and give the shorter version in parathenses. Done
Early efforts: The title of the study should be in italics. Done
Early efforts: Before, names of bills and law where not in quotation marks, but Firearms Owners' Protection Act is. Any particular reason? (not as far as I'm aware, removed) Done
Early efforts: There is no source for the US Attorney proposals. Done
Notable events: I find that did not survive the House is a little colloquial. Done
Response: Maybe Responses would be a better title? The singular implies that there is one reaction to one action, which is not the case. Done
Response: but eventually killed by legislators - far too colloquial! Done
Response: Give a short explanation of what the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 includes. Done
Recent developments: Any news on the "Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2015"? Also, since the act is already referred to in the next section, where it belongs, you should move this information there. Done
Ref #28 ("About the VPC") is dead. Done

Optional: Any chance to get more images into the article? Maybe a photo of one of the prominent persons mentioned? DoneDarknipples (talk) 20:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Darknipples: There is only one point outstanding. Will you adress this as well? I also believe that it is better with less President portraits. I would rather recommend using a photo of Dave Kopel. Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Done[reply]

@Zwerg Nase, Mudwater, Capitalismojo, Faceless Enemy, QuilaBird, Dennis Brown, Godsy, Callanecc, Winner 42, NE ENT, Cullen328, and DESiegel: (Anyone that can help) The recent ANI discussion over the Gun show loophole article title has been "archived with no resolution". Shall we continue with the GA review, or no? [2] Does there need to be a POV tag placed over title concerns per Mudwater's request's and "Opposing editor's" concern's? Also, the outstanding issue of whether "Background checks on firearms sales in the United States" is the proper title, or not? -- Darknipples (talk) 05:57, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Darknipples: Since this is the first time I am faced with a situation like that, I will ask the GA project about how this situation should be handled. I have made my opinion clear, but I will not act against consensus. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zwerg Nase, Godsy has tagged the last paragraph for tone. We can omit it all together or make changes to it. Your call. Darknipples (talk) 19:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Darknipples: Hmm, I wouldn't say that the tone is a big issue. The prose could be better, sure, maybe using words that sounds a bit less generalizing. But all in all, in my opinion, the tone is OK. Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zwerg, I'm all for improving the article in nearly any way, especially in terms of prose. Let us know what you think will improve the article, no holds barred, we've waited months for this type of feedback, at least I know some of us have. Darknipples (talk) 03:38, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reply to my question on how to go ahead with the unresolved matter. I will therefore not hold it against you, if anyone has a problem with it, they can feel free to reasses the article at any time. A problem I have left now are two ref-errors that occur, the errors I get are:

Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "DOJ1999January" defined multiple times with different content

Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "History-C" defined multiple times with different content

Can you take care of that? Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks to Mudwater. Darknipples (talk) 02:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Zwerg Nase: I don't think this article currently meets good article criteria number five (stability) or is up to par with good article criteria number one letter b (complies with certain Manual of Style guidelines); I also believe concerns with respect to good article criteria number 4 (neutrality) have been suppressed. Regards,—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 20:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the stability will improve; at the least perhaps a hold is due for the time being. I did some work regarding the WP:MoS issues, though the article could still use work, especially the lead. I also pointed out some other things that need to be fixed.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 22:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We've addressed the issues Zwerg brought up, and they've been very clear regarding the article's neutrality. Godsy has tagged the article yet again [3]. Who is conducting the GA review, here, Godsy or Zwerg? Darknipples (talk) 00:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the {{Lead extra info}} tag, because I've fixed the issues related to it. Several still remain: 5, 3 in the last paragraph of the lead, and 2 in the legislation section. The latter of the tags should be relatively easy to fix.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 01:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Darknipples, no need to get angry, everyone can feel free to chip in. As for the tags left:

The ones in the lead: The neutrality one is debatable, since one should be able to see that the article states the opinion of a third party. Nevertheless, I agree that a better tone for those sentences could be found. For instance: Since the mid-1990s, gun control advocates have voiced concern over the perceived loophole in legislation and have urged the government to extend background check requirements to private sellers. On the other hand, gun rights advocates take a contrary standpoint, claiming that no loophole exists. To them, required background checks for the sales of firearms from one private citizen to another endanger Second Amendment rights and exceed the government’s authority, regardless of whether such sales are made at gun show. I'm not sure if this is entirely better, what do you think, Godsy?
As for the too many citations bit, I have to agree with Godsy, those could be cut down, especially the first instance in which only two sources are used.

Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added the neutrality tag simply because that information used to be attributed to guns rights advocates, but after a copyedit that attempted to address the sentence length issue [4], it's stated like a fact. The first part of the sentence is reasonable to an extent, that it would "exceed the government’s authority" is debatable; who holds this opinion needs to be clarified. I think your suggested alternative is good, though I'd maybe tweak it slightly: Since the mid-1990s, gun control advocates have voiced concern over the perceived loophole in legislation, and campaigned to require background checks for all gun sales. Contrarily, gun rights advocates have stated the laws function as intended, and no loophole exists. They have contended that required background checks for private sales of firearms endanger Second Amendment rights, and exceed the government’s authority, regardless of the venue. A second sentence after the first might be due as well, summarizing reasons gun control advocates argue for expanded background checks, as this has been done for the latter group.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 17:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good points! Zwerg Nase (talk) 07:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[5] The last paragraph in the lead section was removed by a random IP editor. As I've stated before, I'm actually fine with this, as it only seemed to reflect POVs on the subject, and was added purely by demand of other editors. Darknipples (talk) 20:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then it's just the tags in the last section left standing in the way. Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Zwerg Nase, it seems Godsy has now decided to do a major overhaul of the entire article. I feel it is fairly unnecessary and possibly WP:DISRUPTIVE. Since they are entitled to improve the article, I will refer to your guidance and community consensus before reverting. I'm not trying to be the "bad-guy", but the GA review takes precedence. Darknipples (talk) 03:16, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone. Right now, the GA review would need to fail because the stability of the article is not guaranteed. This is a shame really. @Godsy: While many of the edits you made were constructive, it would have been preferable to discuss the matters here first, ensuring that no edit-warring starts over the article. You're making my life very hard here. I don't quite see why a distinction between Provenance and Background is necessary. The first of these reads more like an overview, which should be in the lead. I will give both of you three more days to sort these things out. If the article is stable then and meets the criteria already mentioned here in length, I will pass, otherwise, I'll be forced to fail. Please communicate with each other, that's what talk pages are for! Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zwerg Nase, I've reached out to Godsy on their talk page to try and resolve this issue. I cannot speak for them, but my only concern is passing the GA review. As for today, I am refraining from any more article edits. It seems a pity that this review hinges on whether or not Godsy responds. Please clarify if we will need to revert back to any specific previous edit in order to pass, along with any other requests you may have. I realize we are under a deadline. Thanks for all your help. Darknipples (talk) 21:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, the revert I'm suggesting [6] would put us back in shape to pass with only a minor adjustment needed, as Zwerg Nase and I previously discussed [7]. Darknipples (talk) 23:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article is in a much better state overall, and Zwerg Nase has pointed out that "many of the edits [I] made were constructive". I'm concerned with improving the article for our readership, not obtaining a particular status for the article. "My only concern is passing the GA review": Reverting to a previous version of the article purely to get a better quality rating would be the pinnacle of bureaucracy and detrimental to the encyclopedia. A version on the order of this would be much better regardless of whether it met a certain quality rating. I refrained from making changes of that nature because I knew it would be met with considerable resistance, and reverted (even the little bit of content I did remove was challenged). Articles about controversial subjects, ought to be simply described (stealing some words there from a Wikipedian I respect); instead they're often filled with unneeded content which leads to more unneeded content being added for balance and so on and so forth.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 02:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As far as WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY is concerned, here are a few quotes from it..."Although some rules may be enforced, the written rules themselves do not set accepted practice. Rather, they document already existing community consensus regarding what should be accepted and what should be rejected." & "Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, not by tightly sticking to rules and procedures..." Darknipples (talk) 02:46, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Godsy, despite your attempts, it's quite clear through your words and actions that you simply do not care about seeking consensus, let alone the GA review. I do not take issue with most of your changes (other than ones I've already mentioned), so much as the disregard you have shown Zwerg Nase, for their time and effort thus far. Contrary to your beliefs, I know the GA process is an important part of Wikipedia and it's content. However, you are treating this review more so as if it were for WP:FARC, rather than a simple WP:GA. Darknipples (talk) 04:42, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lead Section

It should be noted that I take specific issue with regard to these edits [8], and [9]. Replacing reports by the ATF with, albeit neutrally worded POVs, seems counter-intuitive in my view. Darknipples (talk) 06:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So far, Godsy has not deleted my revert on this issue. Hopefully, moving forward, they will discuss it first, before reverting. Darknipples (talk) 23:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edits made to the lead. I condensed it back down to 3 paragraphs and removed some minor details already mentioned in the body. [10] -- Darknipples (talk) 07:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is a better wording for the ATF sentence within the lead (not going into too much detail covered later), and it fixes the issue about reasons backing up the positions of the first group being absent which I've pointed out. Nice work. I think dropping the last sentence of the third paragraph would make it flow a bit better, and not again go into too much detail, but I'm alright with it as is.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 17:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contributing events Section

Godsy, did you quote this from the article [11]? If so, please share the exact quote, and or, location within the cite. If not, it may considered WP:SYNTH WP:UNDUE. Darknipples (talk) 22:36, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted to make a sentence that lacked context and sense, into a proper one that actually stated something, by expanding it from the source. Weeks after the Columbine shooting, Frank Lautenberg introduced a proposal to close the gun show loophole in federal law. It was passed in the Senate, but did not pass in the House. Gun control advocates wanted to extend the background check requirement to nonlicensed firearms sellers at gun shows, too. Frank Lautenberg's proposal would have done this according to the wording, so what does that sentence add without my addition (simply stating they supported it, if that's even necessary, it could be done in a better manner)? What part of the source is that sentence corresponding to before my expansion?—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 00:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your definition of "proper" appears to be WP:SYNTH, in this case. Here's the actual paragraph you referred to [12] in your edit summary "(expand sentence from source: last sentence in first paragraph)"...

"The House last night approved a plan to weaken some of the existing rules for background checks at gun shows, in a vote that revealed the enduring power of pro-gun forces in Congress."

Your added "reference" from this site...

"which passed because of bipartisanship in one half of congress, but failed as well in the other."

You asked..."so what does that sentence add without my addition"....The sentence is reliably sourced, and WP:DUE regarding FACTS in context to the subject of the section. Your decision to overhaul the entire article seems to have a lot to do with your excluding and including materials without consensus. Darknipples (talk) 01:58, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"last sentence in first paragraph" of the section I was editing in the article.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 02:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That still does not explain your addition of what seems like WP:UNDUE WP:Synth. Darknipples (talk) 03:34, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, but I'll restore it to the previous wording. [13] —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 16:54, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"excluding and including materials without consensus": Naturally when something is reorganized, bits and pieces my be altered, added, or removed. Most of what I "excluded" was put back in. You haven't had consensus when adding things to the article in the past (e.g. [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]), and you (quite hypocritically) removed something today in the same manner I did. You seem to want to hold me to a higher standard.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 19:42, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. Darknipples (talk) 00:12, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Godsy, instead of turning this [20] into an edit war, let's discuss it's WP:Weight. As far as prose, i.e. WP:MOS, I don't see where it applies to the extent of exclusion. Darknipples (talk) 22:46, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quite simply, that sentence doesn't fit in the sequence of that section, and there isn't another good place in the article for it to reside that I can find. The first three paragraphs are about an individual event, the last one references three in regard to protesting (whether or not the latter is appropriate).—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 00:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're reasoning is fairly vague and simply doesn't give an explanation other than what seems to be your own personal preference. Again, due almost entirely to the way you've reformatted the article...Without consensus.

[21] "Between Columbine and Virginia Tech, the gun show loophole issue had largely faded from the legislative agenda." -- Darknipples (talk) 03:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm conceding this issue for reasons previously stated here [22]. Darknipples (talk) 22:30, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Provenence Section

Godsy, please address the "contradiction tag" that you have placed as a result of your overhaul. Please explain what you think needs to happen here. The issue of "too many citations" seems easily addressed, as most of them seem to be some duplication. Darknipples (talk) 22:58, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The contradiction existed before the rearrangement of the information in the article, it simply wasn't in the same section.

As of September 2015, 18 U.S. states and Washington, D.C., require background checks at gun shows. ≠ According to a 2013 report, seven states require background checks on all gun sales at gun shows: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, New York, Oregon, and Rhode Island. Four require background checks on all handgun purchases at gun shows: Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Six require individuals to obtain a permit that involves a background check to purchase handguns: Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, and North Carolina. The remaining 33 states do not place additional restrictions on the private sales of firearms.

I already "addressed" the contradiction tag on the articles talk page [23], though I've expanded on the issue above.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 23:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Godsy, despite all of this, the overlying issue here is whether or not Zwerg Nase is willing to accept your "overhaul". If they ask us to simply revert your changes to the format, you should respect their decision, since they've already put in the necessary work for the review. Zwerg has already stated issues regarding your "overhaul" [24] - "I don't quite see why a distinction between Provenance and Background is necessary. The first of these reads more like an overview, which should be in the lead."

On a more relative note, if a revert is not suggested by Zwerg, I suggest removing the old references (According to a 2013 report... The remaining 33 states...) and simply using the information under "Summary of State Law" from the (most current) cite [25], which reads...

Eighteen states and D.C. have extended the background check requirement beyond federal law to at least some private sales. Eight states (California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington State) and D.C. require universal background checks at the point of sale for all transfers of all classes of firearms, including purchases from unlicensed sellers; Maryland and Pennsylvania laws do the same, but are limited to handguns. Four states (Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts and New Jersey) require any firearm purchaser, including a purchaser from an unlicensed seller, to obtain a permit issued after a background check, and four more states (Iowa, Michigan, Nebraska and North Carolina) do the same only for handguns. Illinois also requires a background check whenever a firearm is sold at a gun show. Nevada law allows but does not require unlicensed sellers to request a background check on a firearm purchaser. Most of these jurisdictions also require unlicensed sellers to keep records of firearm sales or report such sales to law enforcement.

We can use state abbreviations to help shorten it up, or whatever way you'd like to "wikify" it, as not to plagiarize...I will begin editing again tomorrow. Darknipples (talk) 00:40, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't quite see why a distinction between Provenance and Background is necessary. The first of these reads more like an overview, which should be in the lead.": I attempted to address this by changing the "Background" section to the "History" section. The "Provenance" section explains the topic and legislation, while the history section explains what led up to it. Perhaps better heading titles are due, but I think the information is broke up in a reasonable manner, better than how it was before.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 00:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've failed to speak to my suggested resolution, unsurprisingly, but I will go ahead and update the section with it and remove the tag, on the off chance you'll allow it. Darknipples (talk) 05:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a copyright violation in its current form, simply changing the state names to abbreviations (disallowed per MOS:POSTABBR), doesn't do it. I don't spend all my time on this article, and unlike yourself, at least 70% of my total edits are not on or in regard to this specific Wikipedia article. I apologize if my response wasn't good enough or in a time frame, that suited you. I think I've responded amply well, all things considered.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 16:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your response included a reference to policy, making it much easier to see your point. I will address this issue and remove the tags when I am done. If you still find it unacceptable, please make the changes you feel are required so that we can finish by the deadline. Darknipples (talk) 21:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notable opinions

This reference seems WP:UNDUE in terms of being "notable".

"In 2012, the head of a Minnesota gun owners group said a state legislator's effort to close the gun show loophole that doing so would only "impose unnecessary deprivation of liberty, hassle, delay, and cost" on the state's "legitimate gun owners."

I've removed it, pending any objections Darknipples (talk) 05:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go ahead and remove some other information that suffers from the same problem:

On September 17, 2013, the day after the Washington Navy Yard Shooting, gun control activists and relatives of victims of mass shootings that occurred at Sandy Hook, Aurora, and the Oak Creek, Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting, came to Washington to protest for stricter gun control. The activists said they hoped that the Navy Yard attack's proximity to Capitol Hill would motivate lawmakers to close the gun show loophole. Specifically about Colorado gun activists looking at the source.

Gun control advocates wanted to extend the background check requirement to non-licensed firearms sellers at gun shows, too. A generalization, which have mostly been attributed within the article, along with other concerns I've expressed about it on this talk page.

If any one is restored, all three should be.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 17:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How does this improve the article? If you feel my deletion of the previous reference is unwarranted, why not just restore it with a short explanation in the edit summary, and or here, as to why you feel it merits inclusion (SEE "pending any objections")? Why (for lack of a better term) "ransom" what are arguably mutually exclusive and reliably sourced references? Wikipedia is not a WP:GAME, but in the interest of consensus, I will not object to these edits moving forward, as they are only of minor importance, and so that the GA review may continue. Darknipples (talk) 22:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional overhaul suggestion

In order to speed things up and hopefully save some of Zwerg's time, I'd like to address [26] Godsy's currently suggested version [27]. They have stated, it..."would be much better regardless of whether it met a certain quality rating." And that..."Articles about controversial subjects, ought to be simply described (stealing some words there from a Wikipedian I respect); instead they're often filled with unneeded content which leads to more unneeded content being added for balance and so on and so forth." While I might agree this is a profound insight, I am compelled by WP:POLICY, and the importance of discussion and consensus, to state my objection to these edits on the basis of previously mentioned policies, here. I will link this discussion to the article TP, for any other involved editors. Darknipples (talk) 08:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, in response to the statement regarding "Articles about controversial subjects", I would point out that Wikipedia is not censored, and that "it is not our job to edit Wikipedia so that it reflects our own idiosyncratic views and then defend those edits against all comers; it is our job to be fair to all sides of a controversy" as per WP:CONTROVERSY...This may seem overly bureaucratic to some, but it's been the only constant guide most editors, like myself, have been able to rely on in order to navigate Wikipedia in many ways. Darknipples (talk) 08:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't characterize my views as being dis-aligned with policy.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 17:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear...

...what have I gotten into here? To make it short: I went over the most current version and found several things I feel need fixing:

Provenance: I do see a certain sense in this section now, even though it might have been included otherwise, but certainly not a reason to fail. What definitely would be a reason to fail though is the fact that almost the entire last section is a direct copy violation from this source. You will need to put this section into your own words asap!
Government studies and positions: The first paragraph reads weird, especially with the colon in the middle.
Same section: You use the term "FFL" here for persons regularly. That is very confusing considering the abbreviation actually describes the licence. You should change those instances to "FFL holders" or something similar.

In my opinion, the article could pass pending these changes, but only if all edit conflicts are resolved! If I don't see this article being stable over the next 24 hours, I will fail this review. You would then be welcome to resolve your issues and nominate it again when the article has reached a safisfactory level of stability. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Revisions

Provenance: I do see a certain sense in this section now, even though it might have been included otherwise, but certainly not a reason to fail. What definitely would be a reason to fail though is the fact that almost the entire last section is a direct copy violation from this source. Done Darknipples (talk) 22:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Government studies and positions: The first paragraph reads weird, especially with the colon in the middle. Done Darknipples (talk) 22:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Same section: You use the term "FFL" here for persons regularly. That is very confusing considering the abbreviation actually describes the licence. You should change those instances to "FFL holders" or something similar. Done Darknipples (talk) 23:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so I am going to pass this now, since it meets GA criteria in my opinion, seeing that edits the past few days have been constructive. I will however keep an eye on this. Thank you for all your work! Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]