Talk:Boston Chinatown massacre/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Muttnick (talk · contribs) 03:43, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I will begin this GA review soon.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead|y, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
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:
Muttnick (talk) 03:43, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reference points because I am a new GA reviewer

I will be using Dalj massacre, Kandahar massacre, No Gun Ri massacre, and the Boston massacre articles as reference points for massacre articles that are GA-certified. On 12/29/20, I will finish going over the final three subsections. I will also finish checking the sources. So far so good.

Lead Review

The lead properly identifies the topic, establishes the context, well-balanced with proper wikilinks, establishes that the event was notable (international manhunts will do that), and summarizes the most important points. But I believe it can be made better.

Number of dead: One thing that is universal in the articles is an identification of the number of people killed in the massacre within the first sentence. I believe this is useful placement but not necessary. Use your discretion.
@Muttnick: The formatting was partly based on Golden Dragon massacre. Is it crucial for the number to be given in the first sentence? Perhaps a combined firstand second sentence would fix both this and the next bullet point at the same time. How about:
The Boston Chinatown massacre or Tyler Street Massacre was a gang-related shooting in which five Chinese men were killed execution-style by three Vietnamese men in a Boston Chinatown gambling den in the early morning hours of January 12, 1991.
The third lead paragraph (or second lead paragraph) could be moved into the first paragraph at the end in that case, since the lead paragraphs would be quite short otherwise. — MarkH₂₁^talk 17:03, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Second sentence: The lede is overall concise and well-written. However, the second sentence is by far the weakest of the bunch and should be reworked.
There are three issues. First, "[d]uring a night of gambling" reads as-if the men were executed throughout a period of gambling but in reality their gambling had ceased when they were killed. Second, I wonder if it is necessary to indicate that they were even gambling at all. The fact that they were in a gambling den should raise that inference without it needing to be said. And finally, "in the basement-level gambling room" is unnecessarily specific and should be omitted. I believe the use of the word "gambling", three times within 21 words is inefficient and wordy.
I agree, this is a bit repetitive and wordy. See the suggestion above for combining the first two sentences. — MarkH₂₁^talk 17:03, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @MarkH21: I believe that alteration is perfect! Muttnick (talk) 18:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Citations: Everything in the lede is sourced and supported in the body of the article. It may be a good idea to cite to the page for citation 25. (It was page four that supports the fact.)
Done Page number added for the second instance of citation 25. — MarkH₂₁^talk 17:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One sentence paragraph: I believe this is one of the rare circumstances a one-sentence paragraph is OK.

Overall, the only change that I believe is direly needed is the second point regarding the second sentence. The other points are just suggestions

Background Review

No typos, grammar checks out.
All sources are conventional and reputable.
Opening Every background section in my reference set begins by mentioning the location of the massacre. And while the perpetrator subsection is necessary for the reader to keep track of the participants, it is ill-suited to serve as the first section in the body because it is essentially a list in the form of prose. Instead, the article should open with the Gambling den subsection and then followed by the Perpetrators subsection. This change should not have too much of an effect on the perpetrators subsection because none of the perpetrators are mentioned in Gambling den.
Done — MarkH₂₁^talk 17:05, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perpetrators table This is excellent. Good job.
Nicknames I do not believe it is necessary to always include the nicknames of people in the body of the article. For example, "Yu Man Young (翁宇文, aka 'Chou Pei Man')" is used in the Gambling den subsection, and then in the Motivation subsection "Yu Man 'Chou Pei Man' Young" is used. This is unnecessarily wordy. Either use parentheses to designate his nickname with the first reference and then refer to him only by that nickname going forward or leave out the nickname altogether and just reference it in the table. Another example is "Hung Tien Pham (Chinese: 范進雄, aka 'Hung Sook', 'Uncle Hung')." In In the Shadow of the Dragon, (citation 1), the Boston Magazine does not reference the "Uncle Hung" nickname which indicates to me that it was not particularly important. It may be better to get rid of it from the body of the article and instead merely keep the nickname in the table for readability sake.
I agree it's a bit inconsistent right now. I think the nicknames could be mentioned in the very first mention of each person and removed from all subsequent uses rather than removed entierly (the table shouldn't replace the information given in the prose). — MarkH₂₁^talk 17:43, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Motivations: This section is comprehensive and well-done. Good job.
- One small suggestion: "Bac Guai" John Willis, who was close to ~~"Dai Keung"~~ Luu and had ties to the Ping On...
  Done — MarkH₂₁^talk 17:25, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Massacre Review

No typos, grammar checks out.
All sources are conventional and reputable.

Repeated information issue

There is a repeated information issue. Check this sentence in the first paragraph: "After he was returned to Boston in 2001, Tran told local police that he did not have a gun and that he did not kill anyone during the massacre, claiming that his brief departure from the gambling den was a failed errand to purchase cocaine."

And then in the third paragraph there is the sentence: "Tran later claimed that he only entered the club to buy cocaine, he did not have a gun, and that he did not shoot any of the victims, as demonstrated by the recovery of only two guns, neither of which bore his fingerprints."

Obviously it is repeated information. I believe the first time this information was given as an explanation for why Tran left. And the second time the information was used to give Tran's account of the event. However, the information should be used more efficiently and not repeated. Further, I believe the bolded phrase in the first sentence ought to be in quotation marks because it is directly lifted from the article.

Done I just combined the two appearances into the third paragraph, since the initial usage is still about his later account and that can be given in one place. — MarkH₂₁^talk 17:36, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Narrative issue

It seems to me that the third paragraph of this section would be better if it focused on the shooting of Lee and the survival of Young and did not digress into the claims of either Tran or Tham. This change would maintain chronology: the second paragraph would be on the beginning of the massacre, the third on the shooting of Lee and surivival of Young, and the fourth on the immediate aftermath. The paragraph structure could be something like this:

Lee's testimony on being shot and what he saw. -> Both Tran and Tham separately claimed to have let Young flee. -> Young's testimony that they ran out of bullets.

Their accounts do break the chronology and tone to some degree. Would it be better if their accounts were given in the "Trials and convictions" section, a new subsection in "Massacre", or just a separate paragraph in "Massacre"? — MarkH₂₁^talk 17:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see the merits in all three options. I believe, as you pointed out, the main problem is chronology/tone. I would probably just make it a separate paragraph but do as you see fit! Muttnick (talk) 18:19, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Simple Suggestions:

Distinguish which Tran "entered the club for the first time at 2:30 AM with David Quang Lam" because it is a tad-bit confusing.
Done Used "Siny Van Tran" for the descriptions where "Van Tran" is also present. — MarkH₂₁^talk 17:13, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
David Quang Lam (aka 'Dai San Wai' ~~or 'Big Mouth Hao'~~)
Why remove just the second nickname? — MarkH₂₁^talk 17:13, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I may just have had it out for the nicknames in general. It is fine to keep. Muttnick (talk) 18:21, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pak Wing ~~"Bruce"~~ Lee. Lee was referenced at least three times in this section before the nickname "Bruce" was added.
Done Moved to first instance. — MarkH₂₁^talk 17:13, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath Review

Paragraph needed

There are no references to how the police identified the suspects. A paragraph on this should be written and it should precede the section about the guns. I suggest that the last paragraph in the Escape subsection regarding Most Wanted be moved to this new paragraph as the police would need to know their identities before they put them on that list.

The paragraph from "Escape" was moved down to "Investigation". I can take a look at more information about the identification of the suspects. Feel free to directly add more! — MarkH₂₁^talk 17:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added a sentence on Lee. That should be fine and I should of done it myself in the first place. Muttnick (talk) 18:24, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A small issue

...the first was in the name of Nam The Tham, departing from John F. Kennedy Airport to Hong Kong via Narita on January 31, 1991; the second and third were for "Hung Tien Pham" and "Wah Tran"... The first name isn't in quotes but the latter two are.

Done — MarkH₂₁^talk 17:26, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

"Young discontinued club operations and ~~visited~~ fled to Puerto Rico where he lived for three months."

Done — MarkH₂₁^talk 17:27, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Final three aftermath subsections

Arrest and extradition is good to go
Trials and convictions
- Suggestion: Maybe combine the final two small paragraphs.
  Done — MarkH₂₁^talk 17:24, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions
- Everything checks out in this section. But I feel like this section would be better with additional information on the neighborhood's reaction to the massacre. I believe In the Shadow of the Dragon discussed this.
  Agreed. I'll take a look but feel free to add them if you already have them! — MarkH₂₁^talk 17:28, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following links are dead

Note 6: Watkins, David (October 7, 2005). "Two guilty of 1991 gang killings in Boston Chinatown". South China Morning Post. Retrieved January 30, 2020.

Note 19: Watkins, David (October 7, 2005). "Two guilty of 1991 gang killings in Boston Chinatown". South China Morning Post. Retrieved January 30, 2020.

A note

@MarkH21: This is my first true GA review. If I did anything atypical during it or failed to do something typically done, please let me know! I will not be offended.

I have put what I believe is required in green text. I hope some of my suggestions will be of use to you. The article is well-done and it was a pleasure to work on. I will be finishing up on source-checking but doubt I will find any errors. If I do, I'll let you know. Muttnick (talk) 16:44, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Muttnick: Hi! Thanks for your thorough review as well as your kind words. I looked briefly through the suggestions and I think that they are great observations. I will take a closer look soon, but my initial reaction is that I will probably carry out all of your suggestions. Happy holidays! — MarkH₂₁^talk 16:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy holidays to you as well! Muttnick (talk) 16:59, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy pinging Mliu92, who also made significant contributions to this article, if they want to also provide feedback or work out some of these details. — MarkH₂₁^talk 17:57, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the chance to comment; I only want to offer the loss of the South China Morning Post article is unfortunate but possibly only temporary, as Google still points to that same URL. I found a link to a cached text-only version of that article for evaluation; the full cached version bounces to a redirect. I also found contemporary articles (published in October 2005) covering the same case developments and prepared by syndicated news services Reuters and Associated Press if you want to insert them in addition to (or in place of) the SCMP article:

Szep, Jason (October 5, 2005). "Two Vietnamese jailed for Boston Chinatown murders". Red Orbit. Reuters. Retrieved 29 December 2020.
"2 convicted in 1991 Boston massacre". Lewiston Sun-Journal. AP. October 6, 2005. Retrieved 29 December 2020.

Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 18:44, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I still have access to the SCMP article via academic news archive Nexis Uni, and it presumably existed in print form, so there's no need to actually remove the SCMP ref. It would be helpful to add the other articles that also cover the same material as additional refs though. — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:15, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Success!

Mliu92 and MarkH21, all of the essential issues I raised have been addressed. None of my suggestions still on the table detract the article from meeting the requirements. Congratulations on a job well done. Muttnick (talk) 21:27, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Muttnick: Thanks! I'll still go through the remaining to-do items soon. Thanks again for your suggestions and review! — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:47, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]