Wikipedia:WikiProject Law Enforcement/Peer review/United States Capitol shooting incident (1998)

United States Capitol shooting incident (1998)
I created this article following the debacle over whether to delete the John Gibson (police officer) article, which was kept. I decided to create an article which emphasizes the entire Capitol shooting incident of 1998, rather than the three seperate article which existed speaking to the lives of the two slain officers and the shooter. The article should be pretty well cited, but I would like some other editors to take a look at it. Thus far, I have had no help in creating it. There are enough sources on the web to make this a feature article in my opinion, but I think making it an A class or Good article article is a start (BTW, I self-assessed as a B class). Please provide comments and edits that you feel would be appropriate, but please cite your source in the reference section. Cheers, Daysleeper47 15:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

A review based on the format at the bottom of this page:
 * Comments

1. It is well written. There are a few commas that could be put in in places, however brilliant prose isn't such a necessity in an article which is heavily based on fact (as opposed to a very long article on a larger topic which requires a bit more of a brush stroke when it comes to prose). No major spelling or grammar problems leap out at me. Plenty of wiki links. Possibly the "After the shooting" made to flow a little more, as it is a little bullet-point-ish.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable plenty of references. However the phrase "Many of Weston's neighbours had disliked him, and often ignored him rather than communicate" might need a citation.

3. broad in its coverage No un-needed details leap out at me (isn't going to be a problem due tot he article size anyway). There's nothing I'm lacking in after reading it, did the shooter plan to assassinate the congressman though? He went into his office, but the motive is "mental insanity". Perhaps clarification?

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy I can't see any POV problems, there is no "heroic police officer" statements or "unstable sicko of a gunman" and so on.

5. stable the article is not being changed rapidly by anyone other than you, no streams of reverts or anything.

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic Good use of images, of the plaque and both officers. I am not too hot on the copyright side of things so another user might have to check that the images are okay.

All in all, good work. Covers every aspect as far as I can see. A couple of gaps in motive which could be clarified, make it flow a little more in a couple of sections. Possibly some of the introduction could be transposed into a section on "the shooting". Hope these comments are helpful, I'm sure another user will be around to add more. SGGH 17:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)