Jump to content

Talk:Killing of Mitch Henriquez

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

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 21:17, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:17, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great thanks for taking this on - as a headsup from Tuesday my internet access will be intermittent. Mujinga (talk) 10:09, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The only image is suitably licensed. It could do with rotation to make the horizon horizontal, but that's not a GA issue. Earwig finds no issues.

  • Anthropoliteia appears to be a blog, judging from a Google search, but without a link I can't be sure that's what the citation is to.
    I think I must have assumed Anthropoliteia was a journal. I just downloaded it from researchgate and you are right, it does seem to have been published on a blog, but an expert one judging from the editorial statement. The actual article is here, I'll add that now. And the author is an assistant prof at Radboud University. Mujinga (talk) 13:56, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rethinking SLIC also seems to be a blog.
    Rethinking SLIC is a blog, but one feeding back academic research. The principal investigator (and author of this piece) is Göran Sluiter who is professor of international criminal law at the University of Amsterdam. Mujinga (talk) 14:00, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which showed the police picking up Henriquez's limp corpse": the source doesn't support "corpse" -- I think we should use "body" instead, unless there's another source we can use that establishes he was definitely dead at this point.
    source (deutsche welle) says " limp, apparently unconscious body" so I can say "limp body" but that feels like close paraphrasing ... I'll try to rephrase Mujinga (talk) 13:33, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I went with "picking up Henriquez's unresponsive body and placing it in a van" Mujinga (talk) 14:09, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The anonymous public servants": is this a way of referring to the police officers, since their names are not known? If so I think it's a bit opaque.
    Agreed, I rephrased and lost that phrase Mujinga (talk) 14:02, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "although they expressed disbelief that the officers involved were still working for the force": presumably the convicted office is not working for the force any more? So this should be "other officers involved"?
  • That's an interesting point. Source says "The family does not understand why the officers were not prosecuted for failing to help Henriquez when he became unwell, or why they are still allowed to work for the police", so I suppose they were expressing shock that up to the point of conviction the officers were not suspended or anything. It's hard to know more, you'd think a convicted officer would be sacked, but I can't find that exact fact. Can I fudge it by saying "although they expressed disbelief that the officers involved had still been working for the force"? Mujinga (talk) 14:07, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that works -- it's not clear which officers we mean, and that's because the source is vague. I don't think we can pass on vagueness to the reader. I think it would be best to stop the sentence at "pleased with the verdict"; the journalist hasn't given us enough information to work with, and the only direct quote isn't really usable. And we already have "Henriquez's family responded that all five police officers should stand trial since they had not called an ambulance, despite the obvious need to do so" earlier in the article, which conveys the same information, a bit more precisely. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:32, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough - I took out the whole sentence Mujinga (talk) 07:41, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:06, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, I've made answers on everything Mujinga (talk) 14:10, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks:

  • FN 11 cites "The prosecution disputed this account, saying that the officers did not search for a firearm at any stage." Verified.
  • FN 1 cites "Henriquez's family responded that all five police officers should stand trial since they had not called an ambulance, despite the obvious need to do so." Verified.
  • FN 7 cites "On the Caribbean island of Aruba (a constituent country within the Kingdom of the Netherlands) the killing received much coverage in the media." Verified.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:32, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Last fix made; passing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:38, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Edge3 (talk) 16:05, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by Mujinga (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 20:01, 6 May 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Killing of Mitch Henriquez; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

  • New enough, long enough. Both hooks short enough, interesting, and sourced (as is every paragraph). No neutrality problems found, no copyright problems found, no maintenance templates found. QPQ done. Good to go.--Launchballer 08:41, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Mitch_Henriquez&oldid=1207976556"