Talk:Hungerford massacre/GA1

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

Reviewer: PARAKANYAA (talk · contribs) 00:26, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi! I'll review this.


 * Thanks, PARAKANYAA. Will be chipping away at your recommendations (particularly the reliance on the report source) when I can! Just wanted to leave a note here to show I wasn't neglecting this! MIDI (talk) 11:41, 16 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Yeah, no rush. I'll get back to the prose and "main aspect" check soon. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Source review:

News sources
 * 1, 9, 28, 33, 40, 48, The Guardian - good
 * 2, 41, 43, BBC News - good
 * 5, 11, 51 The Daily Telegraph - good
 * 7, Gazette and Herald - I am unfamiliar with the british local press but this seems like a bog standard local newspaper. probably fine
 * 12, The Herald (Glasgow) - good
 * 18, BerkshireLive, local paper, seems fine
 * 19, UPI - good
 * 21, African Concord, seems to be a very very obscure African newspaper. Okay I think
 * 26, Daily Mirror. Seems to be no consensus (described as the "least bad" of the british tabloids, not a ringing endorsement). It's not too big of a deal here I think, as it's only citing a family member of his about where his ashes are. Maybe should be replaced if you can find something else saying this.
 * 29, Police Professional, seems ok
 * 32, Evening Standard, no consensus on reliability, but said to be more reliable than most tabloids and newspapers like that, so replace if you can but if not too big of a deal
 * 39, Associated Press - good

Books
 * 3, looks good
 * 14, looks good
 * 15, Cawthorne, seems fine
 * 17, looks good
 * 25, looks good
 * 37, looks good
 * 42, looks fine but I remember hearing something weird about this publisher before so I should probably check - checked, looks good
 * 45, looks good
 * 46, this is an SF publisher? check later - looks good
 * 47, looks good
 * 49, looks good

Other
 * 4, - the official report - good, mostly, reliable but primary, can be used just maybe a bit less as I said before
 * 6, is this a documentary or a reenactment/dramatization?
 * 8, this one confuses me. is this some guy's random website? does he have relevant credentials? if not i think this has to be replaced. Does he have credentials?
 * 10, 12, Crime Library. I've used this site before but I have no idea if this site is considered reliable by Wikipedia, but I've never had any issues with it. I'll check later
 * 16, Crime + Investigation UK, unsure, - update: seems okay?
 * 20, 22, 24, this is just a press photo
 * 17, the act itself, which is fine, good to have secondary source that backs it up though
 * 34, Recherches Sociologiques et Anthropologiques, seems good
 * 36, looks good
 * 38, looks good
 * 44, unsure of the reliability of stuff like this but probably good, will check later - seems fine
 * 50, this is a zine, unsure of how this works out, will check later - seems fine

I'll finish this later.

Besides the source review one thing I'm curious about with the coverage is the reactions: did the royals really not say anything? I know they did with the Cumbria shootings, but I'd be quite surprised if they didn't say anything about this one, which seemed to have a more dramatic effect on society. Generally I feel the reactions section could probably be expanded. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:35, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Right now I think the biggest thing is swapping out ref #8 (Josephs) – the article relies on it for a few statements and I agree its authority is questionable. To answer your question, #6 is a documentary. MIDI (talk) 09:36, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @MIDI (sorry for the late response) yes that looks good. If #6 is a documentary that's alright then. The report being cited a lot isn't that big of an issue now that I think about it, since it would be the most accurate on what events happened when. I will continue with the prose review and check the sources I wasn't sure about. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)


 * @PARAKANYAA, @MIDI, what's the status? -- asilvering (talk) 02:13, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * On this now. MIDI (talk) 09:36, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @MIDI I have some minor prose suggestions and questions about the sourcing (see table above) PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:57, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I should have some time today (or more likely tomorrow) to throw at 1a and 2b, which look like the (main) sticking points at the moment. MIDI (talk) 10:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @MIDI It's been a while and my worries over the sourcing remain unaddressed. I think I may have to fail this. Apologies :( PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)