User:Muttnick/sandbox7


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Muttnick (talk) 03:43, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Muttnick (talk) 03:43, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Muttnick (talk) 03:43, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Reference points because I am a new GA reviewer
I will be using Dalj massacre, Kandahar massacre, No Gun Ri massacre, and the Boston massacre articles as reference points for massacre articles that are GA-certified.

Lead Review
The lead properly identifies the topic, establishes the context, well-balanced with proper wikilinks, establishes that the event was notable (international manhunts will do that), and summarizes the most important points. But I believe it can be made better.
 * Number of dead : One thing that is universal in the articles is an identification of the number of people killed in the massacre within the first sentence. I believe this is useful placement but not necessary. Use your discretion.
 * Second sentence: The lede is overall concise and well-written. However, the second sentence is by far the weakest of the bunch and should be reworked. There are three issues. First, "[d]uring a night of gambling" reads as-if the men were executed throughout a period of gambling but in reality their gambling had ceased when they were killed. Second, I wonder if it is necessary to indicate that they were even gambling at all. The fact that they were in a gambling den should raise that inference without it needing to be said. And finally, "in the basement-level gambling room" is unnecessarily specific and should be omitted. I believe the use of the word "gambling", three times within 21 words is inefficient and wordy.
 * Citations: Everything in the lede is sourced and supported in the body of the article. It may be a good idea to cite to the page for citation 25. (It was page four that supports the fact.)
 * One sentence paragraph: I believe this is one of the rare circumstances a one-sentence paragraph is OK.

Overall, the only change that I believe is direly needed is the second point regarding the second sentence. The other points are just suggestions

Background Review

 * No typos, grammar checks out.✔️
 * All sources are conventional and reputable. ✔️
 * Opening Every background section in my reference set begins by mentioning the location of the massacre. And while the perpetrator subsection is necessary for the reader to keep track of the participants, it is ill-suited to serve as the first section in the body because it is essentially a list in the form of prose. Instead, the article should open with the Gambling den subsection and then followed by the Perpetrators subsection. This change should not have too much of an effect on the perpetrators subsection because none of the perpetrators are mentioned in Gambling den.
 * Perpetrators table This is excellent. Good job.
 * Nicknames I do not believe it is necessary to always include the nicknames of people in the body of the article. For example, "Yu Man Young (翁宇文, aka 'Chou Pei Man')" is used in the Gambling den subsection, and then in the Motivation subsection "Yu Man 'Chou Pei Man' Young" is used. This is unnecessarily wordy. Either use parentheses to designate his nickname with the first reference and then refer to him only by that nickname going forward or leave out the nickname altogether and just reference it in the table. Another example is "Hung Tien Pham (Chinese: 范進雄, aka 'Hung Sook', 'Uncle Hung')." In In the Shadow of the Dragon, (citation 1), the Boston Magazine does not reference the "Uncle Hung" nickname which indicates to me that it was not particularly important. It may be better to get rid of it from the body of the article and instead merely keep the nickname in the table for readability sake.
 * Motivations: This section is comprehensive and well-done. Good job.
 * One small suggestion: "Bac Guai" John Willis, who was close to "Dai Keung" Luu and had ties to the Ping On...

Massacre Review

 * No typos, grammar checks out.✔️
 * All sources are conventional and reputable. ✔️

Repeated information issue
There is a repeated information issue. Check this sentence in the first paragraph: "After he was returned to Boston in 2001, Tran told local police that he did not have a gun and that he did not kill anyone during the massacre, claiming that his brief departure from the gambling den was a failed errand to purchase cocaine."

And then in the third paragraph there is the sentence: "Tran later claimed that he only entered the club to buy cocaine, he did not have a gun, and that he did not shoot any of the victims, as demonstrated by the recovery of only two guns, neither of which bore his fingerprints."

Obviously it is repeated information. I believe the first time this information was given as an explanation for why Tran left. And the second time the information was used to give Tran's account of the event. However, the information should be used more efficiently and not repeated. Further, I believe the bolded phrase in the first sentence ought to be in quotation marks because it is directly lifted from the article.

Narrative issue
It seems to me that the third paragraph of this section would be better if it focused on the shooting of Lee and the survival of Young and did not digress into the claims of either Tran or Tham. This change would maintain chronology: the second paragraph would be on the beginning of the massacre, the third on the shooting of Lee and surivival of Young, and the fourth on the immediate aftermath. The paragraph structure could be something like this:

Lee's testimony on being shot and what he saw. -> Both Tran and Tham separately claimed to have let Young flee. -> Young's testimony that they ran out of bullets.

Simple Suggestions:

 * Distinguish which Tran "entered the club for the first time at 2:30 AM with David Quang Lam" because it is a tad-bit confusing.
 * David Quang Lam (aka 'Dai San Wai' or 'Big Mouth Hao' )
 * Pak Wing "Bruce" Lee. Lee was referenced at least three times in this section before the nickname "Bruce" was added.

Final three aftermath subsections

 * Arrest and extradition is good to go ✔️
 * Trials and convictions
 * Suggestion: Maybe combine the final two small paragraphs.


 * Reactions
 * Everything checks out in this section. But I feel like this section would be better with additional information on the neighborhood's reaction to the massacre. I believe In the Shadow of the Dragon discussed this.