Talk:2007 SuccessTech Academy shooting/GA1

I'll be reviewing this. All other reviews welcome of course. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
a. No issues noted here. The prose is clear, and certainly meets the "reasonably well-written" minimum.

b. Essential MoS compliance is evident EXCEPT: the lead makes reference to security guards, with an appropriate cite. This information does not appear in the body of the article. The lead should only summarize information all ready present in the article.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
No issues here.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
I do have some concerns with the scope of the article. I certainly would like to read more about the security guard situation - what is there now simply invites questions. Also, the sources have quotes from several of the students and teachers concerning what they did during the episode. One of them mentions a teacher leading his entire class into the bathroom, and waiting out the shooter. Another talks how people started running all over, which could provide you with a natural lead into the sentence concerning the student who was trampled while fleeing. (On that topic, is there a reason her name is not used? I'm not faulting the choice, rather I would like to reconcile it with the fact that we name the shooting victims.) Also, I'm virtually certain that this incident prompted some sort of statement from local officials, such as the mayor or the governor. If they can be located, they really should be added to give the full scope of the incident. Short articles can be GAs, but they need to fairly cover the entire incident, and I don't think we're there right now.

I'm not sure which section would be best to add the information about the security guards. Which one do you think would it fit in? Cyanidethistles (talk) 04:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
NPOV maintained throughout.
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
Good to go here.
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
No pictures, but there don't appear to be any free images available. Perhaps a request could be made to get a picture of the school; there have to be Wikipedians in Cleveland who could assist. You could add a {{quotebox}} to help break up the text a bit, but I wouldn't hold up GA over this issue.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

'On hold'. I think a fair bit of expansion is justified here, but you've all ready got the sources to do it. I'll hold this pending that improvement. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 04:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't think that the article quite meets the breadth requirement. What is here is good, but it still seems more like a news story than a reasonably in-depth review of the incident. I checked Google News, and there's a Newsweek story from Oct 22, 2007 that's available for free from www.accessmylibrary.com (you need a library card, I can get it for you if you can't) that would provide some additional coverage. I also saw at least one BBC News story - and it probably would be a good idea to use it or other non-American sources to help achieve the breadth you need. I don't think this is that far from GA, and if you like I'd be happy to review again later. Of course, if you simply want to relist at WP:GAN I'd have no problem with that either. Good luck. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, just give me that. Though I really am not sure what is here that I have to fix. What the problems that need to be fix really need to be explained before I do any more work to the article.Cyanidethistles (talk) 03:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]