Talk:Murders of Keona Holley and Justin Johnson

GA Review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Murders of Keona Holley and Justin Johnson/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Queen of Hearts (talk · contribs) 01:28, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: PARAKANYAA (talk · contribs) 05:18, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi! I'll review this. Might take me a bit. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:18, 23 September 2024 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   correct enough to pass; i have a few minor quibbles, see below

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   layout, yes, fiction, not an issue, list incorporation not an issue, words to watch is good. some minor suggestions for the lead, see my notes below, but generally fine and summarizes why it is notable. once those are addressed it is a pass here

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   good

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   all sources reliable and cited inline

   C. It contains no original research:

   passes given my spot check below

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   all sources are online and earwig shows no issues besides long proper names and quotes, pass

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   with the stuff you have added, seems a good overview of the event showing its significance

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   no unnecessary detail, seems focused

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   neutral, no detectable POV, reflects sources

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   good

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   it is unusual for there to be NFCC photos of both murder victims, but the licenses are appropriate and it's not wrong, so pass. the free images look good

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   good. One request, can you give some context for the photos in the captions (of the victims, the others are good), if the sources give them? any indication as to when the photos are from? it's fine if the sources don't give this information but it would be nice

   hmm, I've added that the pic of Holley was a selfie, but I couldn't find anything to add to Johnson

   that's fine

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

First thoughts, will do deeper check later

• relative to the size of the article I think the lead is slightly too long. some of the details contained in the lead are, imo, unnecessary for the lead and should only be in the body. maybe trim it to only the more pertinent details?
  • tried to do this
• one thing that should be in the lead is, imo, stuff about the response to it beyond just proceedings, since the response to a murder is usually one of the things that make it notable and a key part of the event
  • the body doesn't really have that much response, just "some ppl held a vigil" and "some politicians 'cared'". I've added those to the lead, but I suspect there's more to be added to the body here (which I will try to do later)
    • done and done, although I fear the lead is far too long now
• date is wrong on cite 16
  •  Done
• if you're going to have a verdict in the infobox you should also state the charges
  • body doesn't list all the charges, will add that then do this
• citation 9 has no date
  •  Done
• this is very pedantic but citation 4 is the only one without an archive
  •  Done

round 2 (sorry for the delay)

• lead:
• Both perpetrators had previously been imprisoned for armed robbery and Shaw was set to go on trial for a firearms charge four months after the shooting. - maybe specify that this is an unrelated-to-the-murders firearms charge because as it seems weirdly ambiguous
  • clarified that the firearm charge was in 2020, which should do the trick
• from life support the day after and declared dead soon after - too many afters, maybe replace the first with "the following day"?
  •  Done
• information in the footnote in the lead should probably be in the body instead
  • which one (or both?)
• otherwise idk, it seems relatively long but i also can't think of anything to cut without making the lead worse. the specific lead length rules were recently removed from the MOS anyway so uhhh... i think it's fine.

• grammar stuff in body:
• received a certification to be a nursing assistant - "to be a" feels weird here. maybe "as a"? or just say "nursing assistant certification"?
  • changed to as a; nursing assistant certification would create a MOS:SOB
    • makes sense
• "possibility of parole on the same day" - maybe just "the same day"
  •  Done
• in the Kurt Bjorklund paragraph there are two successive sentences starting with "He also cited". rephrase somehow?
  •  Done
• crime even if they did not commit it - maybe change to that they did not directly commit, awkward phrasing
  •  Done
• crime to make it happen - change just "to happen"
  •  Done
• Several city and state officials, including then-commissioner of the Baltimore Police Department Michael S. Harrison, Governor of Maryland Larry Hogan, then-state's attorney of Baltimore Marilyn Mosby, and Mayor of Baltimore Brandon Scott, offered their condolences, with Hogan saying that "our hearts are broken" over the loss of Holley, while Scott said that "Baltimore will never forget Officer Holley’s sacrifice and commitment to making a difference in her beloved city". - i feel there is a way to split this that would improve the flow, it feels a bit long
  •  Done
• he was going through Baltimore on a Greyhound bus, was from upstate New York, and had no known ties to Elliot. - this sentence is very confusing, how do the Greyhound buses disprove the tie
  • they don't; I've just removed that detail
• The bill was endorsed by Michael S. Harrison and Holley's family testified in favor of the bill to the Judicial Proceedings Committee, with Lawanda Sykes, Holley's sister, describing Holley as someone who "went out every day and left her four children to make a difference within the community of Baltimore City." - split into 2 sentences maybe, the stuff from the sister seems awkwardly attached to the first sentence
  •  Done
• Holley was removed from life support on the next day - "on" is superfluous here
  •  Done; also reworded the other "on the"s
• he had no idea why Shaw killed Holley, bursting into tears in the interview room - the burst into tears bit seems awkwardly attached to the first sentence. can you find a way to rephrase this? not a dealbreaker just awkward
  • not really; it feels weird for the crying thing to be its own sentence
    • fair enough that might make it worse.
• before leaving in 2019 and joining the Baltimore Police Department (BPD) academy, claiming her motive for joining the department was bringing change to an embattled department, serving her second year as an officer at the time of the shooting - i would recommend splitting the sentence before claimed.
  •  Done
• completely unrelated suggestion: make the perpetrator's names redirect here. i usually do that for crime articles i write. unrelated to GA i just think it is regular practice and the names have no other targets onwiki
  •  Done; completely escaped my mind
• also there's about a paragraph in an academic book here about the response. i feel like this could be an interesting bit, but not required
  • I'm disinclined to cite a book that cites the New York Post, but added a short paragraph on this.

• spot checks:
• 1 - Johnson's mother, Justina Lawrence, described him as "just a young man trying to make it in this wicked, wicked world". - supported by src
• 2 - Elliot M. Knox[a] and Travon Shaw, the two perpetrators, were born in 1989 or 1990 and 1988 or 1989, respectively. - supported by source in the sense that it is basic math given their ages, however basic math is exempted under WP:OR
• 3 - Justina Lawrence, Johnson's mother, claimed that the $100 debt was for a car. - supported by source
• 4 - Knox was sentenced to two back-to-back life sentences without the possibility of parole on June 4. - supported by source
• 5 - Rumors spread on social media that Knox had been related to a man that Holley had previously helped arrest; an investigation by The Baltimore Sun found that while Holley had been listed as a witness during the arrest of attempted murder suspect Eddie Knox, he was going through Baltimore on a Greyhound bus, was from upstate New York, and had no known ties to Elliot. - supported by source
• all good here

• Queen of Hearts once these last few issues are addressed seems good to pass! PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:52, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
  • i see no issues now, good job! i now feel good to pass this. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:37, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

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.