Talk:Panama City school board shootings/GA1

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

Reviewer: Cptnono (talk) 06:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

&#x2611; The second paragraph is not discussed in the body. The lead is intended to be a summary of the article so that information needs to be in the body as well. If the video was viral or anything like that it should be discussed. &#x2611; The format on the time is not inline with WP:MOSTIME. 2:00 pm would be better and adding a hardspace is advisable.
 * Lead
 * "In the attack, a disgruntled individual fired more than a dozen shots, but missed six school board members, including the superintendent. The individual, Clay Duke..." Might be better as simply "In the attack, Clay Duke..."
 * Incident

&#x2611; The quote from Husfelt needs the citation directly after it. &#x2611; A citation is not provided for "Duke was then shot by security guard Mike Jones. Subsequently, while on the ground, Duke shot himself fatally in the head." &#x2611; Overall this section is too short. It also might better in a "background" section but I am not positive. Either way, more information on the background of the assailant is needed to meet the GA criteria. &#x2611; "Duke was reportedly unhappy with the school board for terminating his wife's teaching job in the Panama City district. In addition, Duke felt the half-cent sales tax was unfair because it hurt lower-income families more than the wealthy. Prior to the shooting, Duke spray-painted a red circle with a 'V' inside it--an allusion to the film, V for Vendetta." is not sourced. The V stuff is touched on but I did not see details on the half-cent sales tax in the source in the next paragraph.
 * Clay Duke subsection
 * Motivation
 * The face book quote has several concerns
 * &#x2611; I don't know if I would classify it as a "suicide note" but cannot think of better wording
 * &#x2611; Linking should be avoided for various reasons. Please see WP:MOSQUOTE. V was also overlinked. It is not necessary to duplicate wikilinks so close together (WP:OVERLINKING)
 * A block quote without a border but with the indentation and reduced text size is more common.
 * &#x2611;"During the shooting, his aim was notably facing the floor, only once hitting the desk in front of the superintendent." Certainly needs a citation if it is being asserted that it was notably and implying that he was intentionally missing.

&#x2611; File:Clay Duke Gunman.tiff is a contributory copyright violation and has possible concerns with authenticity. If we are going to create a FUR it should be based of an image that is not from YouTube but from the original source or an RS who reaired used the original video. &#x2611; The uploader of the YouTube video is not RS and it is more than likely contributory copyright infringement. Another source is needed for that line. &#x2611; I am torn on if the Telegraph link is needed or not. It could instead be used as a source but having a link right at the bottom is nice. Consider using the External media template in the "Incident" section instead.
 * Images
 * Good licensing for the other. Nice work tracking that stuff down.
 * References
 * The formatting is inconsistent and publishers do not need to be italicized as newspapers do.
 * External links

I think enough work is needed on this article that it is not ready for GA and any work will significantly alter it to the point that a new review is necessary. I did consider holding it for changes but do not know if it can be done in a reasonable amount of time. However, if you do wish to run with this article, let me no and I would love to give a more in depth version a more thorough review.
 * Pass/Fail

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
 * Pass. I might have missed something but nothing jumped out.

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
 * Fail. The layout might need to be redone. The MoS needs some attention for the lead and then various minor issues.

Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;
 * Fail. Sources needed for multiple lines. Citation format is off.

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources 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—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;[2] and
 * Fail

(c) it contains no original research.
 * Unsure

Broad in its coverage: (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
 * Fail. It mentions some aspects that were interesting to learn about but much more is desired to hit this benchmark. This one of the primary reasons I am failing this article.

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
 * Pass

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
 * Pass

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.[4]
 * Pass

Illustrated, if possible, by images:[5]

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
 * Fail

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Cptnono (talk) 06:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Pass