Talk:Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold/GA3

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Spudlace (talk · contribs) 20:02, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination
This article has failed its Good article nomination. This is how the article, as of July 11, 2022, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?: There are still prose issues as noted in the earlier review. "Leading it to become" should be "Leading to it becoming". "Harris, during his freshman year, met Tiffany Typher, who was in his German class." should be "During his freshman year Harris met Tiffany Typher". Did they meet in German class? "Sue later assured herself that the feeling she had that her son would bring her immense sorrow, was that her son would be physically ill." I'm not sure what this is trying to say so I can't suggest a revision.
 * 2. Verifiable?: The term "moral panic" occurring in the first paragraph is not cited in the article. The citations should be in the article.
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: As the previous reviewer noted, there is room for improvement on the breadth of coverage. The statement about moral panic is found in the first paragraph but no where else in the article text. The "media accounts" section discusses the Trench coat mafia but not the moral panic or media frenzy from the lede. Another example would be improving the discussion of the killers diaries from the current version: "Harris and Klebold wrote some about how they would carry out the massacre, and less about why".
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: The journal article I found from Paedagogica Historica states "Moral panic assumptions that media violence or the availability of guns are the immediate causes of shootings in middle‐class, white American suburbs are questioned." but this does not support the statement in the first paragraph "with the ensuing media frenzy and moral panic leading it to become one of the most infamous mass shootings ever perpetrated." I was not able to locate any citation in the article for this. Based on my additional source check the statement in the article appears to fail NPOV by stating a controversial point (being "questioned" by the source) as an established fact.
 * 5. Stable?: Symbol support vote.svg Pass
 * 6. Images?: Symbol support vote.svg Pass

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— Spudlace (talk) 20:57, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Acekard, I appreciate your work on this article. I know it can be frustrating to hear that an article is not ready for GA however the issues raised in the last review have not yet been resolved. The reviewer suggested a copyedit/peer review and if you have not already done so this is a good idea before renominating. The article can benefit from these tools. Spudlace (talk) 20:57, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment: Spudlace, I provided all of the fixes you suggested, also some others. Let me know what you think. Thank you. Acekard (talk) 4:00, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It needs more than what can be fixed during the review process. You added the Springhall citation but still have not provided the context in the article to show how it supports the statement "with the ensuing media frenzy and moral panic leading it to becoming one of the most infamous mass shootings ever perpetrated". (The fix I provided was "leading to it becoming"). Are the sources about why the shooting is well known or "infamous"? What is the scope of this article? As noted by the previous reviewer the article could be more focused instead of general information about the shooting. At least a copyedit before renomination is recommended. Spudlace (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2022 (UTC)