Talk:Virginia Tech shooting/GA3

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

Reviewer: SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 07:53, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Here is how the article currently compares against the GA criteria:


 * Is it well-written?: In the article body, it would be helpful to name Seung-Hui Cho in full for his first mention rather than later in body. In the lead, perhaps include detail on his motives for his actions. His firearms used should probably be in "Perpetrator" section rather than "attacks".
 * Is it verifiable?: There are many dead links, making much of the content more difficult to verify. Of the references used, the article seems to rely heavily on Virginia Tech's websites and news division (primary sources). Using them isn't necessarily bad, but it would be helpful to replace some of these with secondary sources since they are less likely to be biased/have conflict of interest. In terms of reliability, I'd try to replace Fox News (FN174), and is FN14 (Daily News and Analysis) a good source? Also, the following statements are missing citations:
 * "The shootings occurred in separate incidents, with the first at West Ambler Johnston Hall, during which Cho killed two pupils, and the second at Norris Hall, where the other 31 deaths, including that of Cho himself, as well as all the nonlethal injuries, occurred."
 * "Some teachers, having seen many troubled students over the years and sensing deep problems with Cho, attempted to "manage the situation" in such a way as to not alienate him and to allow him to successfully graduate with his reputation still intact."
 * "The parents of two students who were killed filed a wrongful death civil lawsuit that argued that lives could have been spared if school officials had moved more quickly to alert the campus after the first two victims were shot in a dorm."


 * Is it broad in coverage?: Very detailed
 * Is it neutral?: Seems OK
 * Is it stable?: No issues here
 * Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?: All images are relevant and are licensed appropriately, but I think it would be better to have a free image of Cho than a non-free image.

As there are too many verification issues, I'm sorry to say that this nomination is being failed. Repair all dead links and cite all statements before renominating, and be sure to take note of sources used.

Response: Analysis of Checklinks report
, there is one dead link (footnote 70) in the "References" section. The Checklinks tool doesn't recognize when the reference is linked to an archived version of the source. All the other so-called "dead links" in the "References" section listed by Checklinks actually contain links to archived versions. In the "External links" section, I have updated the status of the Newseum links since the original links are dead; the links now point to the archived versions. Note that the EQUITAS links in that section which contain dead links are so identified.

Therefore, the "verification issues" are practically non-existent. Had you checked these links, you would have found that they already contained archive-urls and clicking the link took you to the archive.

I will return to address the other items in your review at a later time.184.244.253.83 (talk) 05:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: The following are all found in the "External links" section and are not references; nor are they "dead links":