Talk:Uherský Brod shooting/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: BenLinus1214 (talk · contribs) 23:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Third on my "to review" list. BenLinus 1214^talk 23:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking this on your list. Consider me ready to do my best to fix any possible issues. Regards, Cimmerian praetor (talk) 19:19, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cimmerian praetor: I'm very sorry, but I forgot that I would be out of town for a few days. I'm sure to review when I get back. Thanks, BenLinus 1214^talk 14:58, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No need for apologies, @BenLinus1214:. It's been actually in the wait for review for so long I have forgotten about it and it was quite a pleasant surprise to see someone pick it up :) Many thanks, Cimmerian praetor (talk) 16:03, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cimmerian praetor: Ugh, I've been swamped with other stuff since I got back. But here I am! First review of round two…

@BenLinus1214: I will comment under the issues raised here first and then try to address them in the article.

General

There's a lot of sources in Czech, accepted AGF.

Infobox

Why is the image of the Czech Republic's placement in Europe necessary? Is there a relevant guideline that supports this?

I suppose many overseas readers may not be aware where exactly the country is. Many often think that it is a muslim country somewhere in Russian east (i.e. Chechnya)

That's kind of funny. Especially because it's on Commons, it's fine. BenLinus 1214^talk 16:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Should probably be "two deadliest mass murders". Also, link to mass murder.

Done.

Background

It's a bit odd if you start this section with "In the wake of the shooting"—maybe just "the shooting was eventually linked…"

Well, this part was completely different, but then some felt it is too much of a speculation. Please see the original content here and let me know what you think.

I agree with that user's revert--it was a bit speculative. However, I would still prefer if it started with my suggestion. BenLinus 1214^talk 16:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, how was it linked to the other shooting?

As per above, the deleted sentence was explaining that: "In the Czech Republic, pentagenarian and sextagenarian men are the group with the highest suicide rate, as well as the one that commits the largest murderous acts. Many of these men became economically unsuccessful after the Velvet revolution: both murderers in Frenštát and Brod were long-term unemployed, blamed society for their failures and had frequent conflicts with their neighbors."'

Just add that they were connected by similarities between perpetrators. BenLinus 1214^talk 16:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

"Just four days before the murders…" there's something fishy with this sentence at the end—maybe "to present a new health clearance under the threat of revoking his license."

Done. I don't like the word threat though. This is a legal process and he is bound to either be cleared or will lose the license. Please feel free to change it to something more appropriate.

Before entering the Družba restaurant…" what other venues did he enter?

This has not been specified, but they were both close by (walking distance).

That's fine. BenLinus 1214^talk 16:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Next sentence—are there any more details in the source?

In the other venues, he only entered, looked around and immediately left. Otherwise no more details.

Also fine in that case. BenLinus 1214^talk 16:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Družba attack

This section should probably be retitled "Attack" or "Shooting"—because the page is named Uhersky Brod shooting, a casual reader might not know the name of the restaurant and thus skip this over.

I renamed it to "murders". I would like to rename the whole article to 2015 Uherský Brod mass murder, what is your take on that?

I kind of like the current name, but you can change it if you want. BenLinus 1214^talk 16:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where is "the restaurant's busiest time" thing in the source—also, why is this relevant? The next sentence kind of contradicts it as well—twenty people is the restaurant's busiest time?

Most restaurants have two peaks - around midday as they serve lunches and then in the evening and night when people come mostly to drink. It should mean most busy during day. As regards 20 - it is a small venue with just a few tables, so it was relatively busy. Should that be clarified?

Yes, that part should be clarified. BenLinus 1214^talk 16:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

It's a bit jarring to skip to just "While on stairs leading to the restaurant" without explaining Kovar's next actions. Also, what does "got ahead" mean? Had Kovar already opened fire?

At that moment, he entered the building where restaurant is, but not the restaurant itself. He was not yet shooting, and the other guy (only who later survived) was rushing to defecate in the bathroom. He ran first directly to the bathroom and when he sat down, the shooting started.

I would put some of that in the article. BenLinus 1214^talk 16:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

The infobox image in the Uhersky Brod article might be helpful just to give the reader a visual clue.

I am not sure what you mean.

File:MasarykSquareUherskyBrod. Unless it's not the area in which the shooting took place. BenLinus 1214^talk 16:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is actually about 15 minutes walk from there. I could not find the street where it happened on commons.

"In the Czech Republic, all policemen…" reformat this a bit—"the policemen were armed with the standard equipment for Czech police officers:…"

Done.

"although all the people inside were most likely already dead." Were they? Also, are you speaking of all the people in the restaurant, including those who got away, or just the ones currently in the restaurant? Also, this kind of sounds like it's from the police's POV, so if that's the case, put a "the police believed" before this clause.

At that time, police believed that people inside are still alive. However, according to the autopsy everyone must have been dead by that time. Unofficially, the perpetrator shot each one of the victims in the head (apparently before the police arrived, since then he only shot on the first two officers and then on self at the end), this was however never officially confirmed, so I didn't include it into the article.

That's fine then. BenLinus 1214^talk 16:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The tactical team breached…" Was this the exact time he stopped communicating? If not, how long before was the last communication?

It took some time, I've edited that.

Also, combine that paragraph with the previous one.

Done.

Hiding in the toilet? Or behind the toilet?

It was bathroom originally and someone changed it to "in the toilet". Edited.

Perpetrator and victims

Probably "the couple" instead of just "them"

Edited.

Did the neighbors describe any specific incidents?

I didn't want to go into details on the murderer apart from what was necessary.

That's fine as well. BenLinus 1214^talk 16:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any names of the victims?

It is illegal in the Czech Republic to report their names without their consent, so we have only Gabriel who survived "in the toilet". There may be some known names, but I don't think its appropriate to report some and leave others out.

Oh, okay. You don't have to change anything then. BenLinus 1214^talk 16:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

Cool graph! Could you put a source in the caption?

Done.

Is the first paragraph of this section necessary? It's just background, and other than Kovar's license getting renewed, there's no real direct connection to the article's subject. If you want to keep it, can you persuade me why?

Well, it is general introduction into the part which deals with legal guns ownership in the Czech Republic. The following two sections show that the authorities were supposed to take the license & guns away a long time before, but you can't get to that point without explaining how the system works.

Hm. Well, it's difficult for the reader to keep that in their head for the whole section, so would it be possible to split up the relevant portions of that paragraph to the beginning of the relevant sections? BenLinus 1214^talk 16:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~I'll think about it.~~ I've added an introductory sentence to that part. Is that OK?

What misdemeanors did they commit?

It's called "misdemeanors against general order. These include disturbing "night peace" (being loud from 22PM to 6AM), "public indignation" (i.e. shouting courses at people during daytime), littering on larger scale, small damage to property, etc. It is difficult to translate. No details on what particular they did were published, apart from the complaints of neighbors which I intentionally omitted. Apparently the wife was often shouting on people from window, the guy was threatening them. The sources on this however vary and contradict themselves.

Okay, you don't have to change anything. BenLinus 1214^talk 16:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Use transitional language at the beginning of the second para of that misdemeanors section—The renewal of his license was due to the fact that…"

I am not sure what you mean. Could you please rewrite it yourself?

done.

26 February 2015 is a meaningless date—"as of two days after the attack"

I deleted the whole part; it is obvious that he didn't even try to pass, however I could not locate a source that would deal with it.

Does "Active shooter engagement" mean the conditions under which the police attack the shooter? Or not? Whatever it is, make it clear somewhere.

It is a manual how to engage active shooter. I am not sure how to make it clearer.

I think my criticism stems from the fact that the first two in the table do not have to do with the police. why are they in there?

I see, that is part of understanding the dynamics of active shooter scenario. So that the policemen at place realize that they need to act immediately and not stand around and wait, like it happened with Breivik in Norway.

"Police said the first responders…" Something's grammatically wrong in this sentence; put a semicolon between "perpetrator" and "they" instead of a comma.

Done.

"Since there are 8 tactical teams…" "Because" not "since"--I'm a stickler on that one

Done. Sorry for my poor English.

No, you're actually very good! Most native speakers don't get that one. :) BenLinus 1214^talk 16:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is almost all of that paragraph cited to one source?

Yes.

I might split the paragraph beginning with "On 10 March 2015"--it's a bit difficult to navigate.

Please feel free to do so. I put it into one because it all leads to the final sentence that explains that passing of command is under criticism.

If it's all cited to ref 39, you should pepper it throughout with ref names.

Done.

"didn't get the whole picture" is a bit informal

Done.

"the most popular Czech newspaper" is non-neutral—if you want to keep something like it, you need to source it and rephrase as "one of the most popular Czech newspapers". But I don't think that clause is relevant.

Done.

Reactions

I might actually flip the "aftermath" and "reaction" sections in order to preserve a vague chronological order—reactions tended to come first.

This is quite irrelevant part, I'd prefer it to be lower.

Alright. BenLinus 1214^talk 16:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of starting with "Terrorism was ruled out…" (because this is a passive claim) how about "Milan Chovanec ruled out terrorism as a motive for the murders"

I've deleted that sentence.

Also, why is Chovanec hyperlinked here but not in the previous section? It should be flipped.

Hyperlinked above.

A file of Chovanec might be nice in place of one of the quotes.

I think the quote has its place there. The fact that the president looks at it from the perspective from mental health and not firearms accessibility is important.

"Mayor Patrik Kunčar…" Mayor of what? Uhersky Brod?

Done.

See also

You should probably tell us why the linked page is related--I can't see a direct connection.

Well, it's another mass murder that happened in the Czech Republic and which has linked article. Link to the mass murder mentioned in intro would be welcome, however no such article exists in English. Since the murders were committed with gas and not a firearm it didn't get much of international attention (newspapers always focus on firearms).

I just made it clear how it is connected. BenLinus 1214^talk 16:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @BenLinus1214:

@Cimmerian praetor: I'm done now! Very close to passing. :) BenLinus 1214^talk 23:39, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Please look at my responses and let me know whether there is something more I should do.Cimmerian praetor (talk) 14:04, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cimmerian praetor: Just respond to my responses that need responding to and we should be good to go! BenLinus 1214^talk 16:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@BenLinus1214: I think I've addressed all by now. Can we proceed, please? :) Cimmerian praetor (talk) 18:21, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cimmerian praetor: I'm satisfied with everything now. Pass. By the way, I was wondering if we could do a quid pro quo arrangement at GAN--I have several articles nominated in the television section. However, if you are uncomfortable reviewing GA nominations because you are not a native speaker or are not familiar with the coverage of arts topics on WP, that's perfectly okay as well. No pressure! :) BenLinus 1214^talk 22:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@BenLinus: let me take a look at one (please choose yourself) and I'll see whether that is something I can do. Truth to be told I don't have much time for wikipedia lately, my current project is way behind what it should have been by now.Cimmerian praetor (talk) 06:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that "My Mother, the Fiend" is the oldest one, so that would probably be the best one to check out. Once again, no pressure! :) BenLinus 1214^talk 08:55, 3 August 2015 (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, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
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: