Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Danzig Street shooting/archive1

Danzig Street shooting

 * Nominator(s): Reidgreg (talk) 23:47, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

This article is about a 2012 shooting in Toronto, Canada. It occurred at a crowded block party and is considered the city's worst mass shooting, with 27 bullets fired and 26 people wounded, 2 fatally. All four people convicted in relation to the shooting were teenagers at the time of the incident. I am new to FAC and would appreciate any and all advice. I hope to bring this to FA in time for the 10th anniversary of the event on 16 July. Reidgreg (talk) 23:47, 16 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Image review—pass no licensing issues found (t &#183; c)  buidhe  03:39, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild
I have only just noticed this. I shall definitely be recusing to review. If it slips my mind, please nudge me. Good to see it here. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:36, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Lovely stuff. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:04, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * "when they were released back into the community around 2010". Does "back into the community" add anything?
 * A common probation condition for gang offences is to avoid certain neighbourhoods, to prevent the offender from re-associating with the gang. If they serve their full sentence, however, then there's no probation.
 * An interesting piece of information. Does it relate to my query? If so, how?
 * Ah; you're right, the timeframe gives a good indication that they'd served their full sentences. And it does seem like a bit of editorializing.  Removed.
 * "By September 2012 there was a 22 percent increase". Perhaps "was" → 'had been'? And over what period and compared with what period?
 * According to the source, this is from year-to-date police statistics (from an 11 Sep 2012 police press conference) compared to the same period in 2011. (ie: from 1 Jan – ?? Sept 2011 there were 133 shooting incidents and in the same period of 2012 there were 162). Most statistics are annual, and the high crime rate in the beginning of 2012 is offset by the low crime rate from the investigation and crackdowns, so 2012 taken as a whole can't show that. Now, how should I state this without being too wordy, and should I put additional detail in a footnote? How about:  From January to September 2012 there was a 22 percent increase in shooting incidents and a 41 percent increase in shooting victims in the city compared to the same period in 2011.  Footnote: Toronto Police Service statistics released at an 11 September 2012 press conference.  (Not to self: Toronto Star, Toronto had a (then) record high number of homicides in 2007, which fell for four straight years to a 25-year low in 2011.)
 * That works for me.
 * "one of thirteen areas of poverty and substandard city services designated as a priority investment neighbourhood". Either neighbourhood should be plural or rephrase.
 * "as some senior members of the rival gangs were being released from prison." We have already been told this. Perhaps 'since some senior members of the rival gangs had been released from prison' or similar?
 * Aftermath has several over-short paragraphs. Consider running some together.
 * I tried to do it one paragraph per topic: the medical response, initial investigation at the scene, the presumably related Whiteleas Ave shooting (short, but a topic to itself), charges laid against Nahom and Mesquito and related, and the search for gunmen. Hmmm. I checked sources and found a way to tie together the second and third paragraphs.
 * "Mesquito was found carrying a loaded .22 calibre revolver". Perhaps 'Mesquito was found to be carrying a loaded .22 calibre revolver'?
 * How about: Mesquito had been carrying? (less wordy; I may have initially written it before those charges were settled.)
 * Fine.
 * "Mesquito's family were evicted by TCHC for a lease violation." Is it known what the violation was?
 * Nope; TCHC doesn't release that information. Some sources gave examples which fit what happened (firearms violations, criminal or antisocial behaviour).  Per the peer review, I could not state a causal relationship but tried to give the context of the timeframe, leaving readers to make their own conclusion.
 * "There were concerns about violence during the 4 August Caribana parade". And ...? Don't leave us hanging.
 * Okay, found an additional source: no serious incidents.
 * "Officers built relationships with residents of these communities". Do you mean 'those', and lose the comma? If not which communities are being referred to?
 * You think there's enough separation for those? It refers to high-crime areas, the last words of the previous sentence.
 * I guessed that was the case. IMO it is clearer with "those".
 * Okay, done.
 * "Later that month Nahom Tsegazab was charged". Is the date not known any more precisely?
 * Hmmm. I have a 22 November news report that Nahom had been charged, and that the charges were discussed by police at a news conference that day. The charges were probably laid that day, but it doesn't actually say so.  Similarly, Owusu was charged "about a week before" 4 December.  I don't know if this has to do with their being youths, if they might have been shielded from the press at the proceedings.
 * Ok. It reads a little oddly, but that can't be helped.
 * Perhaps link "second-degree murder" for the benefit of non-North American readers?
 * Linked to . It seems underdeveloped, which may be why it wasn't linked previously.
 * "Naod Tsegazab pleaded guilty in 2016". Dates regarding Tsegazab seem to be nebulous.
 * Naod was the youngest of the four and reporting was limited until he was sentenced as an adult, at which point journalists were summarizing the entire story and the date that his guilty plea was entered (etc) may not have warranted the column space. (Put another way, the Chester Le shooting is only notable in relation to the Danzig shooting.) Will check sources (he was back in the news a couple years ago regarding another murder (link) but outside scope of article). Huh.  Glad I checked sources; I made a mistake, both sources for that paragraph indicate that he pled guilty in 2015, not 2016. Fixed.
 * "which had been severed in a pre-trial motion". Perhaps an in line translation?
 * Maybe that clause should be removed or placed in a footnote? I'll attempt the latter.  Haven't found a link for 'severing charges'. It is definition 4 at Wiktionary.
 * Yeah, 'I' understand it, but few non-North Americans would. The issue has now been bumped to the footnote. How would you feel about 'which had been severed (separated) from the murder charges'? Re Wikilinks, I am possibly more cognisant than most of the MoS guidance "as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence" and "Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links".
 * I think I was resisting because the words are synonyms, but you're right, it reads better like that. Done.
 * "other areas that struggle with gang violence". Should that be 'struggled'?
 * "shooting deaths declined from a seven-year average of 6.4 to 2". Is this the average for the seven-week period. And is the 6.4 the average for the previous seven years, or the seven years including 2012?
 * The number for the seven-week Summer Safety Initiative (2012) is 2. The average of 6.4 is for the same period in 2005 to 2011 (inclusive). Does this need to be more clear?
 * Probably not. I think that is how a reader would expect Occam's razor to cut.
 * "Neighbourhood Officers program". Should that be an upper case P? If not, why the upper case N and O?
 * I believe the guideline is to follow sources as to what constitutes a proper name and what doesn't, and that's how I determined it at the time. A search of the TPS website returns 30+ hits for "neighbourhood officers" but none for "neighbourhood officers program", so it seems that "program" is not part of the program's name.
 * Actually not. See MOS:INSTITUTIONS and I shall then leave it in your capable hands.
 * After much rumination, I've decided to capitalize it per the principle of least astonishment (WP:ASTONISH). – Reidgreg (talk) 19:11, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "D'Mitre Barnaby was gunned down in the parking lot". Just 'Barnaby' as this is second mention. Does "gunned down" mean killed or shot?
 * Changed to 'shot to death'. Agree with just "Barnaby" on second mention in list, but kept "D'Mitre Barnaby" for next mention, in case readers skip the list.
 * "Danzig Street shooting (16 July 2012)" doesn't need to be in bold. This only applies to the lead, and only to the first mention of each variant of the article title.
 * I'm not sure if there's a guideline for this or if I've just seen it as a practice. When you have a list in which one of the elements is the title of the article containing that list, that element is (sometimes) distinguished by bolding.  You see this primarily in navigation templates, which automatically unlink and bolden the article they're transcluded in, but I've seen it in regular lists as well.  It's kind of a "you are here" indicator in the list, providing a strong visual anchor point while scanning the list.
 * Unless you can find a policy or guideline suggesting that I think that it would be far better to assume that readers already have some idea of which article they are reading. See MOS:BOLD.
 * I agree; if I don't find any guidance, I'll change it as you suggest.
 * "one of the emerging leaders of the Galloway Boys". Is their name known?
 * Unfortunately, aside from Barnaby, most of those other shootings aren't really notable on their own; coverage is limited. Found a source that says he was 19, that's it.
 * I am not sure why the last sentence of Gang crackdown merits its own paragraph.
 * It probably (a) seemed like a conclusion for the whole section, and (b) I might have wanted to keep that one fact cited separately. Fixed.
 * "Akanimo Udofiya donated $150,000 over three years". Which three years?
 * From 'shortly after the shooting', 2012–2015. What if I change it to "donated $150,000 towards three years of funding for Our Space"?  Or perhaps "donated $150,000 to help establish Our Space"?  Our Space was still there afterwards, but I don't have a source for that or how it was funded.
 * Either of those sound good.
 * Hi, just checking that you have seen my comments. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:19, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Working on it now; had to rush a GA/DYK for today. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:30, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I made the changes where not commented upon above. If this passes, I shall rely on your advice for TFA. – Reidgreg (talk) 00:28, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * A few come backs above. The obvious date for a TFA is 16 July. But this has aleady been "reserved" at potentila and July nominations are currently being accepted. I must get mine in. I suspect that when (and if) this is promoted "No Panties" [!] will be entrenched for 2022. Although if you cared to make a case that the 10th anniversary of this trumped the 20th anniverary of the release of "No Panties" I would be happy to support you. (I'm not scheduling July.) Gog the Mild (talk) 15:34, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Source review
Footnote numbers refer to this version.
 * Suggest adding location to [55], [71], [77], & [102]; Scarborough is not a well-known location outside Canada.
 * I added the location as: Toronto, Ontario. Scarborough is a former city which was amalgamated into Toronto in 1998.
 * Add publisher and location to [22], as you do for the other CBC News quotes.
 * You have the CBA as the author of [87], but that should be the publisher; the PDF is actually authored by the National Immigration Law Section of the CBA.
 * The link to [2] gives a 404 error and there's no archive link.
 * Whoops! Looks like an extra 'v' was added to the end of the url when pasting it.  Fixed and archived.
 * [71] is dead and there's no archive link.
 * That's probably why I put the quote in the citation template, for verification. The url may have been lost when Metroland changed its website. I found it archived at, which should be accessible via The Wikipedia Library. Added that to the id parameter.
 * The archive link for [84] doesn't work.
 * Hmmm. I don't know how to address this. Reidgreg (talk)

Spotchecks: I'll look at every 11th footnote, more or less. -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:22, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 11: OK.
 * 22: OK, but you might consider replacing this source with one that post-dates the event.
 * done
 * 33: OK.
 * 44: OK.
 * 56: OK, but doesn't [57] cover everything needed? Not a problem if you want to keep both.
 * 66: OK; again it seems you don't need the other three cites for this short sentence, but it's not a problem if you want to keep them for some reason.
 * I believe those were to show a connection between the gun debate in Canada and the US at the time, a connection which was emphasized more in previous versions of the article and which had been challenged by another editor (I believe that went to a third opinion and resulted in this). Reidgreg (talk)
 * 77: OK.
 * 88: OK.
 * 99: this is used to support "and was released on 2 April 2013 as the third single from Snoop's album Reincarnated." As far as I can tell from other sources this is correct, but "third" isn't supported by this source.
 * Removed 'third' – too troublesome to source. Reidgreg (talk)

Pass. I would suggest just removing the archive link for [84]. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:25, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Support Comments from mujinga

 * I already gave comments at peer review so I'll see how much more I have to say here. Mujinga (talk) 11:12, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It's good you define blocko but "blockos are a form of block party based on a tradition of outdoor gatherings in the West Indies." is too close to the source which says "The block party ("blocko") or community barbecue is based on a tradition of outdoor gatherings in the West Indies."
 * How about: "In Toronto, blockos are a form of block party based on a Caribbean practice of outdoor gatherings."?  There are only so many way to state "outdoor gathering".  "outside" or "get-together" are too informal, while "plein-air" or "al fresco" would probably confuse most readers.
 * BTW, this year's Caribana has an official blocko with corporate sponsor Hennessy. Ouch.
 * I think that's still a bit close, since you have "based" and "outdoor gatherings" the same Mujinga (talk) 09:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I can't seem to get away from 'gathering', but how about: In Toronto, blockos are a form of block party derived from a Caribbean practice of open-air social gatherings. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:43, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * sure! Mujinga (talk) 13:48, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "and the evenings provide an alternative for residents who cannot afford to go out to restaurants, clubs, etc. " - where is this in source?
 * The source has: Her close friend Melissa, 37, a 10-year resident, says the blocko provided a welcome break for low-income residents, most of whom can’t afford many costly nights out. I thought I had something that stated it more explicitly, though.  Will have a look around.
 * Okay, there was a longer version of the news story (same byline, newspaper) the following day. While the shorter one was available free-to-access, the longer one is at  via the Wikipedia Library.  "Daytime activities are geared to the kids - freezies, hot dogs and water slides. Then, as evening approaches, the teens and adults take over with their music and socializing."  Added a citation, which, combined with the above, should cover it, I hope.
 * still not seeing where " to restaurants, clubs, etc. " is covered, that seems like original research Mujinga (talk) 13:51, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I suppose my thinking was that 'music and socializing' as an alternative meant that the 'costly night out' (ie: a paid venue for music and socializing) could involve going to a restaurant or club, as the two more likely/plausible examples, with etc thrown in as this was not meant to be exhaustive. Would 'bars, clubs, etc.' be any better?
 * Honestly I think I'd be happier just with "and the evenings provide an alternative for residents who cannot afford to go out", what do you think? Mujinga (talk) 20:29, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm concerned that "go out" might be informal or possibly ambiguous (for an international readership). What about the following: [...who cannot afford] "out of home recreation or entertainment" or "to spend time away from home for recreation or entertainment"? Reidgreg (talk) 12:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * in essence the sources are saying blockos were good for poor residents, so how about "and the evenings provide cheap entertainment for residents" ? Mujinga (talk) 10:18, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That's good! I've restructured it as:  These parties provide inexpensive entertainment for residents, with daytime activities focused on children and evenings activities for youths and adults.
 * Yeah that works, nice one Mujinga (talk) 18:13, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note e is great to resolve the confusion on how many wounded
 * "Meanwhile, from 7 July the Twitter account @2ToneShorty," could link Twitter
 * "Tenants contributed to the event, provided food, and ran activities for area children[16] such as face painting[20] and putting a water sprinkler on playground equipment for a makeshift water slide" - suggest breaking this sentence up
 * I'm not finding a natural break. How about: Tenants provided food and children's activities, including face painting and an improvised water slide.
 * great! Mujinga (talk) 09:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Done.
 * "the crowd had grown thicker" - I understand that sentence but "thicker" reads funny to me, maybe that's just a Br-Eng thing though?
 * Agreed. I rephrased a little, moving "crowd/gathering" down to that spot.
 * "Worried about people they did not know" - "Worried about the presence of people they did not know" maybe?
 * "Tsegazab then armed himself with a .40 calibre pistol" - .40 calibre pistol can be linked like in infobox
 * "and was confronted by Nahom Tsegazab," - don't need "Nahom" as he's just been mentioned above
 * To avoid confusion, I try not to refer to the brothers by surname alone. In this instance, since it's a new section and the one which is at the core of the article, directly describing the main part of the crime (which readers might skip to), I felt using the full name was best. (Similarly, I used full names in the convictions section; to be formal for the brothers and then the others for consistency.) Do you think this is excessive?
 * OK, seems fine to me, it is quite confusing Mujinga (talk) 09:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It's in line with MOS:NAME to include the first name for natural disambiguation, as needed. The main issue is clarity. Let me know if you have any ideas for improving this. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:43, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "Owusu opened fire with a 9 mm handgun," - 9 mm can be linked like in infobox
 * "shooting Tsegazab twice:" - don't think the colon is needed
 * Without the colon, it might read that he'd been shot twice in the biceps and an unspecified number of times in the abdomen.
 * OK so the full sentence is At approximately 10:40 pm, less than two minutes after arriving at the party, Owusu opened fire with a 9 mm handgun, shooting Tsegazab twice:[4] in the right biceps and abdomen (one of these bullets passed through Tsegazab and injured a bystander[28]). I would suggest: At approximately 10:40 pm, less than two minutes after arriving at the party, Owusu opened fire with a 9 mm handgun, shooting Tsegazab twice.[4] He was hit once in the right biceps and once in the abdomen; one of the bullets passed through Tsegazab and injured a bystander.[28] Mujinga (talk) 09:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, you're right, that sentence is unnecessarily long and complex. Done.
 * "recklessly firing eleven rounds" could say this is the opinion of the Crown attorney Tom Pittman that it was reckless
 * It does stand out as problematic, but I think it's okay. This was from an agreed-upon statement of fact which the CA read in court at Nahom Tsegazab's sentencing. Nahom agreed to it.
 * I put a wikicomment about this at that word, where editors could see if if they went in to edit it or tag it for neutrality. Do you think it needs something for readers, like a footnote that this derives from recklessness (law) or perhaps I should link to that somewhere in the article?
 * No I think it's fine since it gets clarified later Mujinga (talk) 09:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "Mesquito had been carrying a loaded .22 calibre revolver " - at the risk of me sounding like a gun fanatic, you could link .22 calibre to .22 caliber
 * Done. And no, I've encountered actual gun... fans.
 * "and police announced no serious incidents at the parade." could add "afterwards"?
 * I think that can be assumed. Or should it be:  Hundreds of additional officers were deployed to the parade and police announced no serious incidents.
 * "Twitter was flooded with posts referencing "Ledda" in connection" - who/what Ledda is needs explanation
 * There were Twitter/rumours that it is Charles's father. Perhaps "Ledda" should be removed?  Also Charles's first name and age in that sentence.  Done.
 * "On 23 January 2015 the murder and assault charges " - could add a comma after 2015
 * " The defense lawyer praised police and the Crown Attorney, and stated that he had never before been involved in a case where law enforcement, the prosecution, and the defence had worked together to uncover the facts" you've got defense and defence here
 * Whoops – thanks!
 * " and completed his sentence the following month" - what does this mean? seems odd to be released early and not be on parole for perhaps three years rather than a month?
 * He completed all but one month of his sentence, was released on parole in January 2018, and then completed his sentence in February – after which he was free of parole conditions.
 * I realize that the years don't match up with the sentencing. The closest I've been able to figure it out is if time incarcerated prior to sentencing counts as double time-served against the sentence.
 * Naod was subsequently arrested for another murder but it seems outside the scope of this article. Perhaps the parole is as well?
 * Thanks for the clarifications. I would imagine his sentnece could have been reduced for good behaviour but I don't know if that happens in Canada. As it stands, " completed his sentence the following month" just begs the questions why and maybe it's easier just to remove that phrase Mujinga (talk) 09:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Removed.
 * " three men were shot outside a Domino's Pizza parlour at Lawrence" - could link Domino's Pizza
 * Are readers of the article likely to follow such a link? I didn't link to Hummers or Jaguars, either.
 * I think we had a similar discussion at peer review, I would say link all three since it doesn't cost anything and makes it easier for people who don't immediately know what these things are, happy to see what other commenters say Mujinga (talk) 09:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, we're not at wall-of-blue territory yet. Done. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:43, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Danzig Street shooting (16 July 2012) - i agree with previous commenter that the bold isn't needed here
 * "RISE (reaching intelligent souls everywhere)" might make more sense as RISE (Reaching Intelligent Souls Everywhere)
 * The MoS suggests under "Expanded forms of abbreviations" that "Do not apply initial capitals in a full term that is a common-noun phrase, just because capitals are used in its abbreviation. Similarly, when showing the source of an acronym or syllabic abbreviation, emphasizing the letters that make up the acronym is undesirable." Gog the Mild (talk) 11:54, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * strange! Mujinga (talk) 09:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC)


 * The lead is a good summary, the last sentence " Police 43 Division (which includes Danzig Street) reported no homicides in 2013" tripped me up a bit since we are in 2022 and you are talking about 2013. I'd suggest something like "Police 43 Division (which includes Danzig Street) reported no homicides the following year"
 * A little wordier, but if you think it makes a difference.
 * Seems better! Mujinga (talk) 09:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Mainly nitpicks, let me know if anything needs clarifying Mujinga (talk) 11:46, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Nitpicks are great, the devil is in the details. Some comments, clarifications, questions and counter-proposals above. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:37, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Great, I've made some replies Mujinga (talk) 09:32, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * made a couple more replies, nearly there for me now! Mujinga (talk) 13:53, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * just one point left, replied above Mujinga (talk) 10:18, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * All resolved, switching to support now Mujinga (talk) 18:13, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

 * "the worst mass shooting in Toronto". I would prefer "in the history of Toronto", but that is just my preference.
 * "Some of these youths held a party with free alcohol following a children's barbecue at a social housing complex. After a series of confrontations, threats escalated into the shooting." I find this confusing. Above you say that the shooting was at a block party, presumably by local residents, here it is a party of the youths, implying that it was a different event, but the reference at the end to "the shooting" implies that it was the same event. (You explain below, but you need to be clearer in the lead.)
 * How about: The block party, which began as a children's barbecue at a social housing complex, was continued into the evening by some of these youths who attracted a crowd with a DJ and free alcohol.
 * That looks OK to me. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:00, 26 May 2022 (UTC)


 * "With the gang's leadership locked away". Preumably the leadership of both gangs were imprisoned. You should say which one you are referring to.
 * "in conflicts for control of the gang". Do you mean that they were using guns against the fellow members of their gang?
 * The sources aren't entirely clear, but I believe it's more like showing who's the toughest among the new generation of the gang, about who will commit the most violent acts of retaliation, convincing other gang members that he's to be respected/feared and will protect them, thereby standing above other potential candidates and earning a leadership position.
 * I think you need to explain it more clearly. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:00, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * How about "in conflicts for territory and for status within the gang"? (Change this in the lead as well.)
 * I think that would be better. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:50, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, done.


 * "From January to September 2012 there had been a 22 percent increase in shooting". September is after the shooting in July. "had been" implies before.
 * "Alcohol is prohibited in common areas without a special-occasion permit." Is "common area" AmerEng for outside the home?
 * Common area is a term in property law: areas for use by all the tenants. I'll link it.
 * "Le Side Crew". This is the first time you have mentioned this gang. It should be covered in the background.
 * Should it? Owusu is the only Le Side gang member mentioned in the article; they don't feature that much.  Also, I don't have anything source-wise that I could use to fill the background section. They're not that newsworthy, I'm not sure if the police considered them a "bona fide gang" at that time.  I felt it was important on first mentioning Owusu in the body to note he was a gang member and specify the gang as reported by sources.  Did a quick look for new sources, and all I found was the gang's participation in the 2019 tow truck turf war.
 * It should be sufficient if you say something like "a member of another gang called the Le Side Crew" to signal that you are mentioning them for the first time. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:00, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, done.
 * "As the fourth person charged in connection with the Danzig Street shooting, Naod was charged on 4 December with threatening death and weapons offenses but not murder." You covered Naod in the previous paragraph.
 * The previous paragraph were his charges for the Chester Le shooting, made at or shortly after his arrest. The mention you quote above are charges for the Danzig Street shooting which came a couple months afterwards.
 * You could just say "was also charged" Dudley Miles (talk) 20:00, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I liked having something that said 'a total of four people had been charged'. How about:  Naod was charged on 4 December with threatening death and weapons offences. Of the four charged in relation to the Danzig Street shooting, Naod was the only one not charged with murder.
 * "That same evening a lone gunman opened fire in a Colorado movie theatre, killing twelve.[67][68][69][70]" A simple statement of fact about a crime in the USA has four refs discussing the problem of gun violence. You should either expand the text to explain or leave it out.
 * Leave out the statement or the references?
 * The references were the result of a discussion just before GA, when the article made a stronger connection of Danzig and the Colorado shooting having a cumulative effect on the gun control debate.
 * Leave out the statement entirely or explain why it is relevant. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:00, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The paragraph which follows states why "the recent mass shootings and media coverage" and "the crimes" are relevant. The expert quoted, Rutledge, is an American who was working in California.
 * "Although data showed crime was decreasing nationally, a 25–26 July Forum Research poll for the National Post suggested that Canadians believed otherwise." People in Britain and probably internationally always believe crime is worse than it is.
 * Well, sources talk about this so I figured I should summarize it.
 * More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:41, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Dudley, how you going with this? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:24, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi . I am waiting for replies to my further comments of 26 May. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:30, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay. Replies above. – Reidgreg (talk) 19:58, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "Disenfranchisement of immigrants". This section is not neutral in tone. "Sociologist Paloma Villegas noted that Ford's comments fit an imported crime narrative" "argued that" would be more neutral than "noted that"
 * Done, thanks!
 * "stating in the aftermath of the shooting that "foreign gangsters should be deported [without] delay"". Did he say that he was specifically referring to the Danzig Street shooters? If so, this should be clarified.
 * The tweet is here: I agree w/ Mayor Ford: foreign gangsters should be deported w/out delay. That's why we've introduced Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act. I don't know how it works, to find out what's connected to that tweet.  This was posted three days after the shooting.  Would "three days after the shooting" be better than "aftermath"?
 * "dodging questions about his own connection to drug dealers". This is not NPOV.
 * How about "avoiding"? The source already has ignoring and refusing to answer.
 * Maybe just "did not answer questions". Dudley Miles (talk) 14:50, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Done.
 * "In 2013 Ford was the subject of a video scandal". It would be helpful to clarify that the video showed Ford smoking cocaine. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:12, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I don't want to clog it up with "according to"s and then have to explain who those sources are. What if I remove "video"?
 * Yes just say "In 2013 Ford admitted to smoking crack cocaine and associating with drug dealers. Dudley Miles (talk)
 * Done. BTW, do you think the section title "Disenfranchisement of immigrants" suits the section's contents?
 * It covers more than the disenfanchisement. Maybe just 'Aftermath'. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:18, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:18, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Hog Farm Talk 04:28, 19 June 2022 (UTC)