Talk:Killing of Jay Abatan/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Vice regent (talk · contribs) 00:07, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Currently reading the article.VR _talk 00:07, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mujinga, good work on the article, a few comments:

The "Killing" section should be broken up into two sections, "Killing" and then "Charges and trial".
- Not sure if there is enough detail on the trial to justify it's own section Mujinga (talk) 11:18, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The charges and trial part needs more detail. When did this trial happen? Why was there no evidence for manslaughter? What explanation is given for this in RS?
  - Sources don't say exactly when the trial was. All the sources say is what is in the article, the charges were dropped for lack of evidence. I just had a scan of the sources and newspapers.com and couldn't find out more Mujinga (talk) 11:18, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - One of the sources in the article[1] says "However, by the time of the trial in May 2000, the men, Graham Curtis and Peter Bell, were charged only with affray and actual bodily harm to Jay’s brother, Michael, on which they were ultimately cleared." Is that the date of the trial? VR _talk 13:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      thanks, I've added in 2000 Mujinga (talk) 14:29, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"any help in finding the killers." I thought the two attackers had been arrested already? When did this happen? Again, dates would make things clear.
- No-one has ever been convicted of the crime, so the search for the killers continues (for the family at least, police have closed the investigation). The date for this is in the sentence you quoted from, it's 2003. Mujinga (talk) 11:10, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The immediate aftermath of the killing should be in the "Killing" section not "Aftermath". This is because the "Aftermath" covers events over 20 years and it makes things confusing. I would also give the investigations into police conduct its own section.
- I've made two new sections Mujinga (talk) 11:21, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are several key details from the article that are missing in the lead: that the killing was believed to be racially motivated, the result of the bodily injury trial, and many of the key details of the police failings (including the police hiding that an officer may have been connected to the killing).
- racially motivated - added
- the result of the bodily injury trial - I think that's too much detail for the lead since it concerns the borther, not Jay Abatan
- key details of the police failings - added a sentence about misconduct and a sentence about the police officer drinking with suspects Mujinga (talk) 11:32, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please address the above, thanks.VR _talk 09:45, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, I think I've replied on everything Mujinga (talk) 11:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently doing some quick research myself to determine if this article is comprehensive enough, as it is on the short side. Google scholar shows only 3 sources[2], only 1 hit[3] in Jstor and ~1000 results[4] in google in general (which is a low amount). At the same time, I see that more details can still be added. For example, The Guardian has details on the events are missing (for example, Jack Straw's refusal to meet with the family). But at this time I'm inclined to think that this article will be as long as RS allow it to be.VR _talk 16:43, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That Guardian article is an interview with the brother and I haven't found that Jack Straw detail anywhere else so I think I'd rather not include it Mujinga (talk) 14:31, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Also explain what was "operation dorchester" (see BBC source).VR _talk 16:54, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've added Dorchester Mujinga (talk) 14:43, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A stylistic note: the article uses a lot of semicolons to connect sentences that I feel would be better off as individual sentences. I won't hold up the GA review for this, but Mujinga would you please consider going through this article and reviewing those sentences? VR _talk 16:48, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree there were a lot so I've rephrased to omit a few Mujinga (talk) 14:28, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
I've read the article several times, I think it is well written and organized. The nominator has responded well to suggestions on improving writing and organization.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
I've gone through the sources, the content is verifiable, and there's no original research.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
The article is focused. Whether it contains all the necessary details is ongoing above. Please also see my explanation above on why it is ok that this article is on the short side.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
I don't see any neutrality issues
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Stable.
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
The main image looks copyrighted. I'm not yet sure if its ok to use it.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
See a couple of issues why this is on hold for now.

VR _talk 20:36, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I've replied to everything above. Hope that's covered everything! I don't think there needs to be references in the lead and would have preferred to discuss the changes you made, but I think the article has overall improved during the review so I'm grateful for that. It's always difficult to write about deaths and miscarriages of justice in a way that is objective and encyclopaedic, hopefully we have managed that here. Cheers, Mujinga (talk) 14:46, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Can you please comment on the issue of the image copyright?VR _talk 08:48, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's copyrighted and therefore used with a fair use license "to illustrate the subject in question". I'm not that fussed about it, I think the license is good but also don't mind to remove the image. Mujinga (talk) 13:11, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

VR just checking if you are continuing with the review? Thanks Mujinga (talk) 09:59, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let me ping someone far more knowledgeable about copyright than me: @Diannaa:. Is it ok to use File:Jay Abatan.jpeg in a good article? VR _talk 02:07, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's properly tagged for fair use, and it's unlikely there's any public domain images available. Should be okay. — Diannaa (talk) 13:42, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Status query

VR, Mujinga, what's the status of this review. Are there any outstanding issues now that the image seems to be allowable? It would be nice to get this review moving again—or concluded, if it's ready to be listed. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:48, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking in. I last queried what was going on September 4. I think we're there now but waiting on reviewer's opinion. Mujinga (talk) 09:11, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay, I was offline for last few weeks. Now that we know there's no issue with the image, this article is ready to become a WP:GA. Congratulations Mujinga.VR _talk 11:01, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]