Talk:Seattle Mardi Gras riot/GA1

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

Reviewer: Winner 42 (talk · contribs) 20:38, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Placing this under review, should be done in a day or so. Winner 42 Talk to me!  20:38, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry for taking so long, review is done now, placing on hold. Winner 42 Talk to me!  03:39, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No improvements in over seven days, failing GA review. Winner 42 Talk to me!  23:39, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Overall Comments

 * Only one dead link, I have tagged it
 * Overall, it is comprehensive and largely well written, but lacks the level of sourcing and the neutrality expected of a GA article.

Sectional Analysis

 * Lead
 * No real issues here, but a sentence or two focusing on the outcome of the investigations could be helpful
 * "It was the second serious rioting incident in over a three-year period" This could be more clearly worded though, it is a bit confusing


 * Background
 * Is ref 1 or 3 available online?
 * Fat Tuesday should be linked at its first usage


 * Fat Tuesday
 * the women as the women -> the women as they
 * "evening went continued" is poor and confusing wording
 * This section could use the inclusion of images of the event
 * "The police stood by and did nothing" The sources given do not seem to support this statement.
 * Reactions
 * "Its scale caused people to refocus their attention on earthquake recovery and away from the violence. Outside the Seattle area, the incidents attracted little media attention and have largely been forgotten" These statements do not seem to be supported by sources in the article
 * This section seems to heavily imply that the riots were racially motivated, is it providing proper WP:DUE weight to all views surrounding the topic?
 * "One man was charged with forcibly fondling a woman." Unsourced.
 * "criticism of the police department's inaction during the incident" This is unsourced and could lead to issues with neutrality
 * Investigations and legal proceedings
 * The use of primary sources is not acceptable in cases such as these as OR. Secondary sources should be used.
 * "The Seattle police force voted a resolution of "no confidence" in Kerlikowske when officers complained of being "held back too long"." is a BLP violation and I have removed it as it is unsourced and potentially harmful against Kerlikowske.
 * This source could be used more extensively in the article as it summarizes some of the currently unsourced statements.

Review
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail: