Talk:Forensic firearm examination/GA1

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

Reviewer: Felsic2 (talk · contribs) 17:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

It's a pity that this nomination has lingered for so many months. I will read over the requirements and begin reviewing it this week and next. It may take me a little longer than normal, but at least it'll get done. Felsic2 (talk) 17:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I've used the four automated tools on the right. The only area of concern is three dead links: The first one may have a WebCite version. The other two apparently went dead recently. While I can't necessarily verify the information, I can assume good faith that they were used correctly. Felsic2 (talk) 17:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * https://www.isp.idaho.gov/forensics/documents/currentAMs/Firearms/Section%207%20serial%20number%20restoration%20rev%200.pdf
 * https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ncic/ncic_files
 * https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/forensic-science-communications/fsc/april2000/index.htm/schehl1.htm
 * Two fixed with archives, one switched out for another source that says the same thing. --Majora (talk) 02:34, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. When I finish running through this checklist, I'll loop back and try to do as much of User:Ealdgyth/GA review cheatsheet as I can handle. Felsic2 (talk) 21:21, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for being so response. I've worked through almost everything in the checklist below, suggesting a few improvements. I'll start on Ealdgyth's list and see if anything shows up there. Some of the items there are very trivial, so I might skip over parts. Felsic2 (talk) 16:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I went through most of the items on the checklist. Here are some issues to note: The quoted admonitions are pretty picky. I wouldn't fail the article for them, but they're present and may come up in an FA review. Otherwise, everything looks good. Felsic2 (talk) 19:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No easter egg links
 * Red links appear suitable
 * Unnecessary links: California
 * "Watch qualifiers at the start of sentences. However, In regards to,"
 * ""While" should only be used when emphasising that two events occur at the same time, or when emphasising contrast. It shouldn't be used as an additive link."
 * "Beginning a sentence with "there", when "there" doesn't stand for anything, leads to wordy prose, e.g. There are ten houses in the village → The village has ten houses. The same applies to "it"."
 * "Avoid using "not", eg. "songs previously not heard" → "songs previously unheard""
 * Adding to an "FA wishlist", the account of the St Valentine's Day massacre may have some unnecessary details. I'd be more interested in seeing additional coverage of the success of forensic firearm examination - both other famous cases and statistics. Felsic2 (talk) 15:52, 23 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I am "holding" the review pending a rewrite of the NAS criticism, and the addition of bullet-lead analysis, firearm function testing, and perhaps distance determination. Felsic2 (talk) 19:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I just want to apologize for the delay Felsic2. This weekend turned out to be more hectic than I thought and I just finished off the bulk of a FA review that was ongoing at the same time. I will have the changes you requested done by tomorrow. Thank you for your patience. --Majora (talk) 05:25, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It's your schedule. Nice work on the comparative bullet-lead analysis material. Felsic2 (talk) 15:28, 30 December 2016 (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:
 * There is a reasonable difference of opinion over "traveling" versus "travelling", as used in  For slower-travelling bullets... In US English, the preference appears to be for the single 'l' version. In British English the preference is reversed. Both are correct, but the article appears to use American English elsewhere. Otherwise, I don't see any questionable or incorrect grammar or spelling. The prose is free from clichés and idioms. The article conveys technical information efficiently and understandably. Felsic2 (talk) 19:28, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Huh. I've definitely been American my whole life and I have always spelled it travelling. Guess I have a little British in me. Today I learned I guess. Fixed. --Majora (talk) 20:33, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It looked fine to me too but my word processor spell check flagged it so I investigated. We both learned today. Felsic2 (talk) 21:19, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The paragraph in the "Criticisms" section about the National Academy of Sciences report seems excessively oblique. It's hard to find the gist of the criticism, which appears at the end of the paragraph in obscure language. That criticism appears to be that that examiners have exaggerated the certainty of their determinations which are based on insufficient sample sizes. It has been repeated in other settings, most notably by courts. Here's another report, from the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. There was just a case the other day in which an examiner in an old case had to revise his testimony to reduce his certainty that a match excluded all other possible matches. Would it be possible to revise this paragraph to make the basis for the criticism clearer, and perhaps present the details after? Maybe start with something like, "Examiners have been criticized for..." then provide the source. "A 2009 NAS report said that....". Felsic2 (talk) 16:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I will work on this this weekend. Just wanted to let you know that I have seen it. Oh and while the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology report did have a lot of criticisms about forensics it had exactly zero practicing forensic scientists on it. Unlike the NAS report that actually asked those in the field about the issues they were seeing. Regardless of how it was portrayed in the media, to me, as a practicing forensic scientist, it is far down on the "reliable" scale. I'll include something about it simply because my opinions are OR and hold no weight whatsoever (and I know that) but I do so under protest. --Majora (talk) 02:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * A) We don't get to pick our critics. B) I didn't mean to put special emphasis on the President's Council Report. It's overall weight is indeterminate since it's one report recently issued in one country. Maybe it could be summarized very briefly, just something like, "The field has also been criticized for..." tacked on after the NAS coverage.  C) The main issue with the NAS report coverage is that it "buries the lead", as critics of reporters would say. The amount of space devoted to it is fine, or could even be shorter, IMO. Felsic2 (talk) 15:52, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I cut out a lot of the fluff in that section. You were right, it really didn't need all that. And I added a line about the PCAST report. All it really did was confirm the NAS's finding and stating that there needs to be further testing to confirm validity and reproducability. Was that what you were looking for? --Majora (talk) 06:22, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Shortening the NAS material made it more readable, I think. Good work. The brief PCAST mention is fine. Felsic2 (talk) 16:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * The lead section does a reasonable job of summarizing the main points of the article. The layout seems compliant, with the usual appendix sections. The headings are correctly formatted. I can't spot any "words to avoid", except for the unnamed "experts" covered below. Felsic2 (talk)
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * Check. Felsic2 (talk) 21:19, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * I have reviewed all of the references. (Interesting reading!) Each one appears to be a reliable source for the cited information. All information in the article appears to come from those sources. Felsic2 (talk) 16:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * Regarding this tag: However, experts in the field postulated that there were microscopic differences on each barrel left during the manufacturing process.[who?] . I checked the source, "Steele", and that sentence is a fair summary of it. Since the source itself simply refers to "experts" without naming them, it would be inappropriate to try to name them, even if it were possible. For that reason, I am going to remove the tag as moot. Felsic2 (talk) 18:36, 18 December 2016 (UTC) PS - This could be considered a "weasel words"/"Words to watch" issue listed under #1B, but the outcome is the same. Felsic2 (talk) 19:11, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I knew this would come up. Can't make the source say what isn't there I'm afraid. I tried looking at additional sources to see if they name anyone but I couldn't find it. Not much I can do here. --Majora (talk) 20:33, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * I have used automated tools and have spot checked some sources and have not detected any copying. Felsic2 (talk) 21:23, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * In a comparison of this article to Ballistic fingerprinting, which was merged in, the only obvious omission appears to be the material on shotguns. However that section mostly says that shotgun pellets have no ballistic fingerprinting though the cases may have firing pin marks. That's a minor omission which could be corrected in the future, and isn't sufficient to fail the article. WP:RGA: A good article "is not required to be comprehensive."
 * It wasn't carried over because the source that was being used for it on the ballistic fingerprinting article was offline. I couldn't verify it and I couldn't find any additional sources that said that. Regardless of the common sense nature of the claim it is my viewpoint that A) all sources should be online unless absolutely unavoidable (this allows our readers to verify it without having to go searching for it) and B) that while it may be common sense to me or you it may not be for others. An unverifiable claim also presents problems later at a potential FA review regardless of the common sense nature of the claim. --Majora (talk) 02:34, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That's fine. I'm just noting issues as I go. While I'm on the topic of scope, I'll just note that the history section ends with 1929, which seems a bit premature. Again, not a problem for GA but maybe something at think about before FA. Felsic2 (talk) 18:31, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The article does a good job of including non-U.S. material. I count two U.K. sources. Felsic2 (talk) 19:36, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * And an INTERPOL one . Thanks for the note on the history section ending at 1929. I'll keep that in mind for future expansions towards FA status. --Majora (talk) 20:33, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * FYI, this website in the reference section could provide more history for future expansion: . Also, I won't list them all, but some of the other websites and publication currently used as sources have additional information that could be used for article expansion. Felsic2 (talk) 00:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that! I'll keep that in mind when I move on to the next stage. --Majora (talk) 05:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * After reviewing all the sources, I have a few more suggestions. Several sources list topics related to firearms and forensics, and those lists often include "Distance Determinations" and "Firearm Function Testing". Firearm function testing is pretty simple and well-within this topic and probably should be mentioned. Distance determinations involve examination of the victim/target, so may be outside the scope of this article. Felsic2 (talk) 16:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * FWIW, distance determination does seem relevant to shotguns, which we discussed earlier and that connection is covered in the existing sources. Felsic2 (talk) 19:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * See my comment below regarding the overlap between this and trace analysis. You are right, distance determination would be out of scope for this article in my opinion. --Majora (talk) 05:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The scopes of this and other forensic articles may be drawn such that they inadvertently exclude some significant areas. That's a broad issue to consider for future editing on the topic. For a GA, the article does not have to be fully comprehensive, so I think this now passes. Felsic2 (talk) 16:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Another significant omission, in the "Criticisms" section, is the controversy over Comparative bullet-lead analysis. I suggest adding a mention of that issue. It can be brief since there's already an article on it. Felsic2 (talk) 16:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Alright, I added a little bit on comparative bullet-lead analysis. The determination of distance is very closely related to GSR testing which is actually in the purview of trace analysis (the article is on my list to rewrite). The sections do overlap quite a bit and technically CBLA is part forensic chemistry but at least that has been discontinued. We are really getting into a different area of expertise if we go down the distance determination road and I'm not sure I want to include a still practiced technique in this article when it really doesn't have anything to do with what forensic firearm examiners look at (it is a different field after all). --Majora (talk) 05:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * While reviewing the sources I found a number of details which I thought might be added to a longer article, but I also appreciate having an article that's short enough to be readable. I think this article strikes a good balance. Felsic2 (talk) 16:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * See my comments above about the "Criticism" section in 1a and 3a. I'll mark this as "hold", however if it's inconvenient to spend time on this over the holidays I'd be willing to pass it without those changes. Felsic2 (talk) 16:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Now fixed. Felsic2 (talk) 16:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * Check. Felsic2 (talk) 21:26, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * All images are tagged. I am concerned with the copyright claim at File:Goddardcomparison-wiki.jpg. It seems unlikely that the uploader,, is the actual copyright holder. It might be possible that the copyright has expired. However I don't believe that a GA review needs to make a determination of this issue. Felsic2 (talk) 21:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC) PS FWIW, the image may be a cropped version of a picture on this webpage: . It is listed as being in the personal collection of the webmaster, but there's no date or copyright info. Felsic2 (talk) 22:28, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That is troubling and I have commented out the photo pending an investigation. The photo is probably public domain (most likely PD-US-no notice or PD-US-not renewed) but I would rather it not be there until I can go through the copyright registry files. --Majora (talk) 23:16, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * Check. Felsic2 (talk) 21:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Good work! Thanks for responding promptly and constructively. Felsic2 (talk) 16:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)