Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Saint Valentine's Day Massacre/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Saint Valentine's Day Massacre

[edit]

Saint Valentine's Day Massacre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

As of 9 August 2025, 05:14 (UTC), this page is active and open for discussion. An FAC coordinator will be responsible for closing the nomination.
Toolbox
Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 11:49, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The St Valentine's Day Massacre is still a source of contradiction, confusion and debate, even some 96 years after the event and even after a confession by one of the individuals involved in it. That said, it's a fascinating story, pulling in some of the big names of 1920s organised crime and events that have appeared in countless gangster films ever since. This has been through an extensive rewrite recently and both Wehwalt andSsilvers were of huge assistance in giving it a pre-PR polish and Americanisation; it's also had a fruitful PR with excellent suggestions from Pbritti, Tim riley, Noleander and HAL333. Any further constructive comments are most welcome. - SchroCat (talk) 11:49, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support  Comments  from Noleander

[edit]
  • Stronger assertion available for lead? Police and historians have speculated that the murders were an attempt to kill the head of the North Side Gang,... and much of the speculation has focused on whether he was behind the murders. Do the sources support a stronger wording for the first "speculation"? Such as The consensus of contemporary investigators and modern historians is that it was an attempt to kill.... In contrast to the second "speculation" usage (the force behine the attempt was Capone) which is perhaps less concrete, hence "speculation" is apt. Just asking.
    • I think that would be WP:OR if we were to say what the consensus is. It's one of those situations where even though there is this indication of guilt, people are still putting forward (or supporting) different possible versions. - SchroCat (talk) 18:10, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation & Source format: looks consistent, uniform & high-quality.
  • Images: Very informative & engaging ... great for readers. I checked three random images for copyright issues, and all appeared to have solid "free to use" licensing info in the Details page. But I'm not claiming I did a full image review.
  • Wording improvmement: ... FBI investigated and gathered affidavits from several people who had seen Capone at events he had attended since January. maybe ... FBI collected affidavits from several people who saw Capone attending events in public. I guess I'm trying to say that the word "public" should be included.
  • Grammar: I see a lot of "had"s that jump out at me clunky. Examples:
    • .. doctor that said he had been suffering... could be: ... doctor that said he was suffering...
      • "doctor that said he was suffering from bronchopneumonia since January" doesn't work grammatically.
    • their weapons had not been used could be: their weapons were not used
    • whom had previously been acquitted could be: whom were previously acquitted
    • who had been identified as a possible could be: who was identified as a possible
    • both had been destroyed. could be: both were destroyed.
    • and an acetylene torch had been used in could be: and an acetylene torch was used in
I seem to recall reading in Strunk & White that "had" should generally be avoided (in sentences like the above) unless there is a compelling reason. I think it is called passive tense or something? I'm not a grammar expert. I'm seeing about 30 sentences in the article where it looks like "had" could be replaced with "was/were" ... and would make the sentences read nicer.
"Had been" is the past perfect (or pluperfect) form and it's a strong form where used in the right places - where it's used to indicate an action or state that was completed before another action. I think we've mostly got it right here, although I've been through and removed some to smooth it out a little. - SchroCat (talk) 19:54, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I could tell that some uses of "had" were correct and useful, but it is hard to put the rule it into words. Noleander (talk) 13:53, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Depth, breadth, and coverage: Yes, meets FA standards. It has broad coverage, and appropriate depth ... Lots of juicy details, yet the article never gets boring or bogged down. Coverage looks complete: during Peer Review I mentioned a couple of items that could be added (e.g. in Legacy: mentioning how the two gangs fared after the killings) and those are now incorporated in the article.
  • Prose is outstanding: engaging and precise. I'm having difficulty finding any issues or improvements.
  • ... who suffered glass splinters in her eye. "Splinters" seems odd for glass, normally that is for wood. Would "shards" or "fragments" or "pieces" conform to what the sources say?
  • Moran's gun then misfired or was empty as he was about to kill Torrio, and the North Siders fled, ... Can wording be improved to minimize ambiguity? As is, some readers may parse as Moran's gun then misfired ( or was empty as he was about to kill Torrio) vs Moran's gun then misfired ( or was empty) as he was about to kill Torrio. I'm guessing the latter is intended. Maybe put parenthesis around (or was empty) ?
    • (Unsolicited ultra-pedantry) In technical terms, there's a distinction between a misfire -- where the gun works fine, but the ammunition fails to ignite -- and a stoppage, where the gun itself fails to get the firing pin to the back of the cartridge, sometimes because the magazine is empty. "Misfire" covers both in common usage, but we could say "failed to fire -- it may have been empty -- before...", which would solve the concern raised above and the ultra-pedantry here. UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:39, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've swapped out "misfired" for the "failed to fire" and tweaked the punctuation a little. - SchroCat (talk) 07:15, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose & breadth/depth of content. Have not done image or source review. Noleander (talk) 17:45, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Support per my detailed comments on article talk, plus hands-on edits, at the nominator's request.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:48, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just a drive-by comment. The Washington Post should be under news and not web --Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:18, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, good spot. Many thanks - SchroCat (talk) 13:25, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from ErnestKrause

[edit]

Some comments to start things off. The writing in the article is generally rather good. I'll raise one or two points on the narrative later. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:35, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • The images look very good; I've noticed that they all appear to be shown on the right side of the screen. Possibly one or two might look better on the left side.
  • Your footnote on the related films seems to be the only place where the cinema surrounding the event is discussed. It might be nice to see a sentence or two, possibly about the film "Scarface" especially, in the main body as well. Its considered a top film in the genre.
    • I think the information about how well-informed or influential the film is, is probably best left to the film article. I've found it cleaner to leave the lists as they are without trying to use my OR to put more weight on one film over others. - SchroCat (talk) 16:03, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm recalling a film titled 'The Untouchables' with Sean Connery and others; was there anything about Valentine's in that film? Its somewhat mentioned here: [1].
  • General comment about what appears to be a preference for ending several sections in the article with short one or two sentence paragraphs; is this stylistic, or done for some other reason. Most of the other paragraphs, other than the ones at the end of some of the sections appear to be generally fully developed.
    • No stylistic reason, certainly. I stick to a paragraph for each point, so there are sometimes shorter paragraphs. As there is less about some of the minor points, these tend to be the paragraphs at the end of a section - that's about the only reason I can think of! - SchroCat (talk) 16:03, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will try to follow-up tomorrow or the next day. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:35, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's great - I look forward to them. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:03, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Second set of comments"

  • I'm still finding the writing in the article throughout its sections to be of good quality. My interest is shifting more to the chronology you have chosen for this article and its outline. Your preference has been to present Bugs, then Capone, and then the massacre. That's about as simple a chronology as possible, though you later present details of the planning of the event later in the article as to motivations, intentions, planning, decision for extreme bloodiness, etc. With 20-20 hindsight at this point in time, shouldn't the article take more advantage of all the investigation that took place after the event; for example, if look-outs were hired to reside across the street from the victims' site, then why not include that ahead of the description of the shooting itself in something like a "Planning" section? It seems the chronology of events and the motivations are much better known today than they were in the contemporaneous newspaper accounts from the day of the shooting, etc, suggesting that the narrative in the Wikipedia article could benefit more from that knowledge.
    • Because there is nothing known about the actual planning. It's still not really known who the perpetrators were, but only some (strong) indications, so the planning is even less certain. Sure we could have a Planning section, but it would have to largely be in the passive voice ("lookouts were arranged"), as we don't actually know who planned what. - SchroCat (talk) 07:32, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems to go poorly for Capone after the event ends anyway; does he really benfit from the massacre if he was indeed to be identified as the principal culprit who ordered the shooting. Why was he involved in the extreme measures if he knew he was likely to be arrested on separate charges after the event anyway?
  • My previous comment about the film "Scarface" was really to single it out as what is generally thought to be one of the three top crime films of the first generation of Talkies; the other two were 'Public Enemy' and 'Little Caesar'. This is optional and your choice about inclusion in the main body of the article, though the film 'Scarface' is recognized as being in top form.
    • I'll have a think about that, but as soon as one gets mentioned, people start adding their favourite film alongside it, so I've always found it easier to just acknowledge a connection without further comment, unless there is something particularly notable about it. - SchroCat (talk) 07:32, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm editing on a 20 inch screen, and some of the images seem like they might be close to nearly causing image bunching. These include the Bugs portrait which might look better on the left, and the "murder scene" which also might look better on the left. This is for you to decide as you feel best for the article.
    • I've moved the murder scene across, but I'm okay with Moran where it is (I'm also on a 20" screen). I don't think we can make every screen size happy, particularly given that 65% of readers now use a mobile to access WP. - SchroCat (talk) 07:32, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at the Wikipedia article for Al Capone, the summary of this event goes a little differently in the biography article as opposed to this article. Is the summary in the Capone article defective, or do you feel there's a better approach taken in this article about the shooting.
    • I haven't even looked at the Capone article, so I can't comment on whatever flaws it may contain. All I know is that this article is based on a wide range of high-quality sources. - SchroCat (talk) 07:32, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article elsewise looks fairly comprehensive and nearly ready to move forward. I'll check in after you have a chance to see the comments left above. ErnestKrause (talk) 02:12, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again ErnestKrause. Much appreciated - SchroCat (talk) 07:32, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm seeing a fairly well written article that looks like its ready to move forward for promotion. Nice going. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:21, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you ErnestKrause - your thoughts are much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:23, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TR

[edit]

My concerns – none of them very great – were addressed at the peer review. Rereading now for FAC I find no new points to raise. Happy to support: the article seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. Tim riley talk 12:51, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Ssilvers

[edit]

I previously gave comments on, and made edits to, the article, and I have no further concerns. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:43, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support from HAL

[edit]

All comments addressed in the PR. ~ HAL333 19:30, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Disclaimer: I know next to nothing about Al Capone and his surroundings. This topic might need a somewhat more specialized source reviewer. Laurence Bergreen is flagged on their biography as being a potentially unreliable source, and for most of the books here I can only judge the publisher. At least, the formatting seems consistent - save for The Mob Museum which is sometimes in italics and sometimes not, what makes it a reliable source? - and most books have some academic citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk • contribs) 10:32, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jo-Jo. The italics on the Mob Museum now sorted. I'm fairly sure it's a reliable organisation, particularly for the level of information we're using it for here - one of the two uses is just the fact that it owns the bricks from the wall, for example. For Bergreen, it's not quite as clear cut as our article puts it (I would argue that the criticism is from a self-admitted piece of "village journalism", much of which misses the point); it's also not about the book we are using here, which is published by Simon & Schuster, a reliable publisher. I've run some additional searches, and the work we're using hasn't received any negative criticism that would make it unreliable. - SchroCat (talk) 10:04, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I guess. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:26, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • One drive-by comment: in the Inflation calculation section, the two McCuskers go to different PDFs but have the same page range given. Do you even use these (as they are labelled as pre-1800, even if they have content covering later years) or do you just rely on the Federal Reserve Bank one? —Kusma (talk) 10:26, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Kusma. Good point: I’ve trimmed them out. - SchroCat (talk) 04:36, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Crisco 1492

[edit]
  • The accusations have been disputed by some historians who have suggested that "Three fingered Jack" White and Tony Accardo were involved. - Ambiguous. "Were also involved" or "were involved in lieu of one/all of the named parties"?
    • Yes...! As the lists of participants are all 'best guess' from the historians, there are a few names suggested, so we can only hope to suggest the most commonly mentioned, rather than all the permutations of possibilities. In other words, ambiguity was what I was after here! - SchroCat (talk) 08:24, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • living in two floors of the Hawthorne Hotel - I think "on" is more common in AmE
I agree with Crisco. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:46, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thursday, February 14 - Is "Thursday" necessary here?
  • At 10:30–10:35 am - At or between?
  • from where he had been shot, despite having been shot multiple times - shot... shot
  • You're very careful to mention Illinois for the various cities and towns. Why not have the states for Los Angeles and St. Louis?
Yes, St. Louis should mention the state, though maybe Los Angeles is known so well that one doesn't need to clarify? -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:48, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • of the three Sicilian hitmen, Anselmi, Scalise, and Giunta - perhaps just "of the three Sicilian hitmen."?
  • Leaving Atlantic City, Capone and his bodyguard, Frank Rio, - Rio is already linked above. Aside from the link, I don't think his name means much here.
  • Inconsistent in usage of Tommy guns vs. Thompson (machine) guns.
  • William White (gangster) - Is it "Three fingered", "Three Fingered" (with caps), or "Three Fingers" (as per our article on him)?
  • Arthur J. Bilek concludes that Tony Accardo, a member of the Chicago Outfit, was one of the gunmen in a team assembled by Jack McGurn and that the other gunmen were Burke, Winkler, Goetz, and Carey. - A one-sentence paragraph is too short. Is there any supporting argument or something that can beef this up?

I've added an extra line about it being the start of Accardo's rise to top, but the piece is devoid of background evidence. - SchroCat (talk) 08:24, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, excellent work. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:49, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Chris: if I've not commented above, I've used your suggestions in toto. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:24, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coords

[edit]

Hi @FAC coordinators: as this one has been open for a couple of weeks, has seven supports and has passed the source and image reviews, would it be okay to post a second nom? (Although no problems if you’d rather I wait, obviously). Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:55, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: ? - SchroCat (talk) 02:22, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, didn't see this first time round. No objections to another but, as a drive-by comment, is there anything more to be said on the specific motivation, even if only informed speculation? We have Bolton saying it was all to kill Moran and take over the North Side, which sounds plausible, although we then have someone contradicting it partly. Also they didn't kill Moran but I guess they succeeded in neutralising him and the North Side gang ceased to be a threat. Anything on that aspect? N.B. I only skimmed the article so if I missed something, pls forgive... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:40, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ian.
In terms of the motivation, we’ve got the Capone -> taking over territory (the most likely and the one most commonly raised. Outside that, there’s only really the question of three-fingered Jack and his cousin being shot by the two brothers who died (covered in the ‘Subsequent events and other suspects’ section). Those two are about it. So much weight is given to the Capone as overall culprit (regardless of who the actual shooters were) other motives just aren’t mentioned. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 04:10, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Saint_Valentine%27s_Day_Massacre/archive1&oldid=1303967863"