Jump to content

Talk:Killing of Daunte Wright

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Blakely factors

[edit]

@The Gnome: I removed mention of Blakely factors not because it's not important, but because the line wasn't verified in any of the sources we cite in that paragraph. It still isn't, as far as I can tell. The only mention is Prosecutors initially outlined aggravating factors in Blakely filings, which would have allowed Potter to serve a higher sentence, but said in court Friday that the presumptive sentence would be appropriate. in here, which doesn't verify that the prosecution had failed to prove their case for Blakely factors to lengthen the sentence. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 12:34, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Rhododendrites. The sentence caused (as we all saw) a significant reaction against its perceived leniency. The "Blakely factors" are, by their definition, siginificant in determining severity of sentence in homicide cases. We seem to agree that they're not unimportant. Now, let me say that we do not need to provide sources that confirm the judge was correct about the prosecution failing to prove their case on the basis of "Blakely factors." Though encyclopaedically useful, that is not necessary. Additionally, it is quite important to point out that the defendant, back in December 2021, had waived her right to have the jury determine on the "Blakely factors" and opted, as was her right, to have the judge do that.
We only need to provide sources which verify that (a) the prosecution indeed argued on the basis also of "Blakely", (b) the defendant opted for the judge to decide upon "Blakely," and (c) the judge took the prosecution's argument into account and made a decision about "Blakely." There are several reliable sources for "a", "b", and "c" (i.e. here, here, here, here), here, here). Currently, there is no mention of the issue. I suggest the pertinent information is critical. What do you think? -The Gnome (talk) 11:43, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
we do not need to provide sources that confirm the judge was correct about the prosecution failing to prove their case on the basis of "Blakely factors." - I get your point about whether we have a, b, and c. That's fine. The open question for me is the extent to which the prosecution did pursue aggravating factors. We know they did initially, but does their concession that the presumptive sentence was correct preempt the judge declaring they didn't prove those factors? This may be a procedural question that's outside my knowledge, i.e. does the prosecution's statement withdraw their pursuit of those factors before the judge rules on them?
I went ahead and edited the material a bit for readability/context. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:01, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We can only report the opinions of others, i.e. of people writing in reliable sources, about the extent to which the prosecution did pursue aggravating factors. And that's because, whatever might be the assessments of that, it'd be a personal assessment; not for us to make. As to the the prosecution, it did indeed concede (no rhyme intended) that the presumptive sentence was correct. Again, as to whether or not that concenssion was objectively/legally correct it's not our place to say; we can only provide sources verifying the prosecution's concession and then search for sources (I haven't found any yet) about the possibility/extent to which the prosecution's statement withdraws essentially their further pursuit of the Blakely factors before the judge rules on them. -The Gnome (talk) 16:26, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. As far as I can tell, the edit introducing the issue of the factors is now alright. (Though, this, of course, is a developing case.) -The Gnome (talk) 16:26, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I made some other additions to the article in the section on the impact on policing. Please feel free to review and edit as necessary as it could use another set of eyes to ensure it aligns to the sources and fits the context of the article. Thanks in advance! Minnemeeples (talk) 16:25, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Murder of of Daunte Wright" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Murder of of Daunte Wright has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 20 § Murder of of Daunte Wright until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 18:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Killing of Daunte Wright/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mujinga (talk · contribs) 11:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rhododendrites, thanks for bringing this article to GAR. I'll review it as part of the August 2023 GAN Backlog Drive! Mujinga (talk) 11:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites I'll put the article on hold to discuss the issues raised below Mujinga (talk) 13:02, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review, Mujinga. I got started with some low-hanging fruit and will continue to poke away at this over the next few days. Also pinging Minnemeeples and Gobonobo in case they're around and want to join in. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:45, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mujinga: - I think we've addressed all the bulletpoints? Have I missed a follow-up to-do item? How do we look? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:33, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work both of you, the article is looking much improved! I'll have more wikitime next week and will look the article over again Mujinga (talk) 21:24, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Minnemeeples and @Rhododendrites - please see my "second look" comments at the bottom of the review Mujinga (talk) 11:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Minnemeeples and @Rhododendrites, we are nearly there now! please see my "third look" comments Mujinga (talk) 14:15, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

On a first read-through, I'd say this article is well on the way to being a GA. I have much less prose comments than usual. It is focused, neutral and stable.

I do have a few queries though, mainly centred around recentism. I think it's normal for an article about a contronversial event such as this to at first be a list of what happened, then over time it is revamped into a more encyclopedic entry. This has been done to some extent here but there are still some "listy" bits eg "On April 14, Potter was charged ... After her indictment, Potter was arrested ... Attorney General Ellison's office took over the prosecution on May 21 ... On September 2, Ellison's office added the charge ...". I'm not saying this is terrible, I'm just saying it could be improved. Likewise, whilst there is a discussion of the impact on policing and what politicians said at the time, there isn't so much about the later coverage in mainstream media and academic work, so I feel we need a bit more on evaluating the events, if that makes sense.

The structure of the article isn't necessarily against MOS but could still be pulled together more. Do we need to start off with a "people involved" section or could that be merged below? There are a few one sentence paragraphs that could be pulled into a larger paragraph. There are a lot of subsections. Interested to hear what you think.

Copyvio check

[edit]
  • Some high hits of earwig, but it's mainly quotations and names.
  • we say "reached inside to grab the gear shift to prevent Wright from driving away" Minnesota Reformer says "Johnson grabbed the gear shift to prevent Wright from driving off" so I'd prefer that a bit more different, eg we don't need to use grab
  • we say "On April 13, Washington County Attorney Pete Orput said he was planning to complete a "thorough yet expedited" review of potential criminal charges in the case", Forbes says "Washington County Attorney Pete Orput said he’s aiming to complete a “thorough yet expedited” review of potential criminal charges in the case by Wednesday" so that's again a bit too close
    •  Done - This is one of those sentences that can just be removed, I think. The very next section is about the charges, so who cares that he said he would review potential charges (benefit of hindsight). Removed. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:59, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks and referencing

[edit]

On this version

  • 9 doesn't seem like a high quality source for Wright's race and we don't need 4 references on that sentence
  • At the time of the shooting, Kimberly Ann Potter, a white woman from Champlin, Minnesota (born June 18, 1972), was a 48-year-old police officer in the Brooklyn Center Police Department, and a mother of two sons.[1][14][15][16][17] - five refs seems excessive
    •  Done Cut a few, but we do have different pieces of information from different sources. Also had to add one to support being from Champlin. Removed birthdate because it's not in any of those sources. It's in a court document, but if it's only in a court document it's probably not that important. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:13, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 10 & 47 are the same source
  • Things like ABC News and Star Tribune are sometimes wikilinked, sometimes not so that should be standardised one way or the other
  • CNN is sometimes italicised sometimes not
  • 77 missing author name
  • 33 and 82 are the same ref
  • 99 and 102 are the same ref
  • 115 needs more info
  • 122 uses ISSN but you haven't used it elsewhere so that needs standardising
  • spotcheck 22
    • "On April 11, 2021, Wright was driving with his girlfriend in a white 2011 Buick LaCrosse that was registered to his brother" - "white 2011 Buick LaCrosse" - not backed by source
    • "After pulling the vehicle over, the trainee officer approached Wright's vehicle. Wright provided his name but did not have a driver's license or proof-of-insurance card." - mostly not backed by source
  • "Potter then discharged her firearm, instead of her Taser, a single time using her right hand, and subsequently said, "Oh shit, I just shot him."[30][31][36][37][38][39][a]" these 6 references seem unneccessary or should be bundled, perhaps into the note
  • spotcheck 62,63,64 - 62 and 63 are the same ref
    • On April 13, Potter and Gannon submitted their resignations from the Brooklyn Center police department, with Potter's resignation stating it was in the "best interest of the community" and effective immediately.[62][63][64]
    • 62,63, 64 all give quote as "I have loved every minute of being a police officer and serving this community to the best of my ability, but I believe it is in the best interest of the community, the department, and my fellow officers if I resign immediately." - suggest adding " the department, and my fellow officers"
  • spotcheck 118
    • The mother of Wright's son said: "His dad won't get to see him for his second birthday or for any of his birthdays. And I'm just so messed up about it because I feel like they stole my son's dad from him." - source backs info
  • spotcheck 122
    • "Wright's funeral was held in Minneapolis on April 22, 2021. In attendance were relatives of Breonna Taylor, Philando Castile, and Oscar Grant—black Americans who had been killed by police over the past dozen years—and the family of Emmett Till, a black American who was lynched in 1955. The eulogy was delivered by Al Sharpton. Jazz musician Keyon Harrold played an instrumental piece. Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar, and U.S. Representative Ilhan Omar attended the service." - all backed by source
  • spotcheck 157,158 all good
  • spotcheck 21,159
    • Including Potter's killing of Wright, there had been 16 known cases when a police officer in the United States fired a pistol at someone but claimed to have intended to use a Taser instead.[21][159]
    • 21 says "Potter's case is at least the 16th in the U.S. in which a police officer shot someone when they intended to use a Taser, and only the fourth time that someone died as a result. Nine of those cases did not lead to criminal charges, and a judge ordered charges dropped in a tenth." - which isn't quite the same. and we should date the claim since it may no longer be true
    • 159 - doesn't back claim of sentence
      •  Done - That New York Time source supports a sentence earlier to events in Penn. in the paragraph above. I moved it up to where it goes.
  • the spotchecks aren't going great, which sort of backs up my feeling that this article still needs revamping from the original version into a more evaluatory piece. pausing here to discuss. Mujinga (talk) 12:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mujinga and Rhododendrites: Several items have been address. What is the way forward? I think the article underwent a lot of copy editing, some helpful and some not helpful. A lot of content pieces were moved around. I think the cited sources didn't always follow the movement of information for a particular sentence and sometimes paragraph breaks were added or removed that affected alignment of sourcing. Curious of your thoughts on how to proceed and what help is needed to improve the article. Thank you! Minnemeeples (talk) 15:03, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I've seen the work going on which is great, it was needed I think. I'll be happy to re-read the article again, so when you feel it's time for that, just let me know! Mujinga (talk) 15:29, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh @Minnemeeples on re-reading what you said do you mean the article has real issues with verifiability still? On first read I thought this was something you had been able to correct, but maybe you were diagnosing the problem? Mujinga (talk) 19:38, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Mujinga, I think some parts have verifiability issues, yes. In particular, the "Incident" section could use a more detailed review. I think editors worked in good faith to provide a cohesive narrative of the incident, but the sources cited may have gotten jumbled up a bit. Also, some sources may also be considered primary sources at this point as they rely on a lot of initial reporting of details. Minnemeeples (talk) 20:05, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Minnemeeples yeah that was pretty much my impression too, as stated at the beginning of the review. In that case, either someone has to verify all the sources or I won't be able to make this a GA. I don't mind to give extra time for that to be done and I can already see the article is much improved, but we have to be sure everything is verified and not closely paraphrased. And that is quite a big job, so let me know what you want to do. I'll ping @Rhododendrites as well. Mujinga (talk) 20:12, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm content to give it another look. I haven't done as much as I would've liked on this review thus far as the timing has been tough (the past few weeks have been pretty chaotic and I'll be out of town for the next week. I won't necessarily be away from Wikipedia, but the amount of time I'll have is as yet unclear). It's the old "time when I nominated it != time when the review comes along" problem. :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:15, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Mujinga and Rhododendrites: Try giving it another look now. I think the Incident section now more closely aligns to the sourcing. While many of the sources are fairly complete, more consistency is needed. I suggest adding the WikiLinks to the name of the source. Some of cite website should be cite news instead. Not sure if there is a way to make these edits in bulk. What else should be done? Minnemeeples (talk) 18:10, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I think I got all the wikilinks now (and fixed a few miscellaneous source style things). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:46, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[edit]
  • Would be great to have ALTs added for all images.
  • All images are relevant and appropriately licensed, I think the fair use rationale is justified for the ones where it is needed

Prose

[edit]

Public figures and institutions

[edit]
  • This bit is a good example of where some editing is required - do we need all the reactions now there is distance from events? And for example Al Sharpton doesn't need his own paragraph.
  • "Although earlier in the day the Minnesota Twins had issued a statement postponing their Target Field home game, after the announcement of the curfew, the Wild postponed their home game in Saint Paul's Xcel Energy Center and the Timberwolves postponed their game in the Minneapolis Target Center.[111] The Minnesota Vikings released a statement..." - the switch to sports teams was a bit surprising and as a non-US reader I had no idea what these teams were until I clicked through

Trial

[edit]

Changes to policies

[edit]
  • In August 2021, Minneapolis, Minnesota, police announced they would not make traffic stops for minor infractions - could just say In August 2021, local police announced they would not make traffic stops for minor infractions
[edit]

lead

[edit]
  • pretty good lead
  • " The events led to several changes in Taser policies, in Brooklyn Center and elsewhere in the United States." - since the impact section is comparatively large, I think this deserves expansion by a couple more sentences

infobox

[edit]

second look

[edit]
  • Right I'll have another look now thanks both for your patience. I'll scan the article then do some spotchecks and check if anything above still needs resolving

spotchecks

[edit]
  • On this version
  • 25 She was up to date on her annual recertification for the Taser and firearm weapons she carried, and had completed two Taser-specific trainings in the pervious six months - can you give an alternative source? WP:BLPPRIMARY reads in part: "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person."
  • 60 The Hennepin County medical examiner's office released a report on April 12 that determined the manner of death to be homicide and concluded that Wright had died as the result of a gunshot wound of the chest - all in source
  • 68&69 Police established a security presence around the house and erected cement barricades and fencing. - backed by sources
  • 147 In late 2022, the Minnesota Board of Pardons declined to consider Potter's application to have her sentence commuted - backed by source

References

[edit]

structure

[edit]

Previously I said "The structure of the article isn't necessarily against MOS but could still be pulled together more. Do we need to start off with a "people involved" section or could that be merged below?. There are a few one sentence paragraphs that could be pulled into a larger paragraph. There are a lot of subsections. Interested to hear what you think." I think I'd still like to hear the rationale for using so many subsections and one or two sentence paragraphs, it makes reading the article a bit disjointed

third look

[edit]
  • I'll read through the article again, and I'll make small-scale changes I regard as uncontroversial but feel free to rever and discuss if you want. Mujinga (talk) 13:55, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was sitting in the passenger's seat of the vehicle" as a British english speaker, "was sitting in the passenger seat of the vehicle" would seem better, but if the original works in US english then no problem
  • the overall structure is much improved, but if you start to read the article at the body missing out the lead, we jump in at a strange point. I think this could be resolved quite simply just by moving the "People involved" section up above "Black Lives Matter movement" and "Taser and handgun confusion". i also remain unconvinced these three subsection headers are really needed, but I'm fine with making this a GA and allowing discussions to continue on structure, pending any further issues I find
    • I reordered them. I tended to agree that the BLM and taser/handgun sections are odd right at the top, but didn't see an obvious place to move them. Looking closer, they actually make sense in the protests and impact on policing sections, respectively. Went ahead and removed and renamed the top section. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:36, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Potter and Gannon submitted their resignations from the Brooklyn Center police department" - resignations to?
  • "commenting the pattern of unarmed Black men killed by law enforcement" - commenting on?
  • "Frank was also the lead prosecutor for the trial of Derek Chauvin" - at the trial?
  • "Proposed measures included creation of unarmed traffic enforcement and community response teams, to prohibit arrests or vehicle searches in certain traffic-related encounters." - and prohibition of?
  • Thanks for the fast response! @Rhododendrites and @Minnemeeples it's been a pleasure working with you both to improve this article, congrats on the GA Mujinga (talk) 14:47, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Daunte_Wright&oldid=1253428578"