Talk:Murder of Russel Timoshenko/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: H1nkles (talk) 18:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

GA Review Philosophy

When I do an article review I like to provide a Heading-by-Heading breakdown of suggestions for how to make the article better. It is done in good faith as a means to improve the article. It does not necessarily mean that the article is not GA quality, or that the issues listed are keeping it from GA approval. I also undertake minor grammatical and prose edits. After I finish this part of the review I will look at the over arching quality of the article in light of the GA criteria and make my determination as to whether it is GA quality.

GA Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   the Plaxico Burress reference is tenuous at best.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   After much work I will gladly pass the article to GA. H1nkles (talk) 21:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Lead

Per WP:Lead the lead is to be a summary of all the points brought up in the article. As such I don't feel the lead in this article meets the current standards. I don't see any mention of the manhunt, mourning or trial in the lead. This should be added to help the lead meet this standard.

• Addressed [1]

This looks good. H1nkles (talk) 22:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Murder incident

This section is fine, I don't see any problems.

Sorry I know I said this section was fine but after reading it again I had a question, at the end of the section when talking about his death you indicate that he died while on life support machines but then in the next sentence you say the respirator was turned off. It's a bit contradictory. H1nkles (talk) 22:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• Addressed [2]

Aftermath

• I thought there were three suspects (driver and two shooters), but the first sentence in the "Manhunt" subsection says two suspects.

• Addressed [3]

• The map in this section does not seem to clearly outline the manhunt. Most of the towns mentioned in the section are not on the map, and I don't see Pennsylvania (where Bostic and Ellis were arrested) on the map. Am I miss reading the information?

• Comment I'm not sure what to do about the map; I can't find any labeled with more areas that are listed in the manhunt section. Do you think this one would be more helpful? It unfortunately doesn't label Bridgeport. I think they should show Long Island, Long Island Sound, and Connecticut. I can't find any that are specific enough to feature Pennsylvania together with those areas.—DMCer™ 21:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• So here's the main problem with the map (in my opinion): it doesn't show Pennsylvania. That's not good since that is where they were ultimately found. The map in the link here is better, more detailed and clearer, but it still doesn't show PA. I don't know enough to create a map that would encompass the entire search area so personally I would say take it out altogether. Giving a map with only part of the area outlined is confusing and potentially misleading. I welcome your thoughts. H1nkles (talk) 22:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• OK, I'll keep looking, but I've removed it for now.—DMCer™ 18:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• Fugitive is linked at the end of the Manhunt subsection even though the word is found earlier in the paragraph. Recommend moving the link up in the paragraph.

• Addressed [4]

• I added a template to the end of the Manhunt section about not charging the neighbor because he/she didn't know they were fugitives. This should have a reference.
• I'm not really sure if the details of what food they actually bought is necessary to the article. Seems a bit too specific. It's probably a matter of taste than an actual MOS issue so I'll leave it to your discretion.

• Addressed [5]

• I see "NYPD" used in the Awards and recognition section. Please put the acronym next to the New York Police Department in the Mourning section so that people not familiar with the acronym will be informed.

• Addressed [6]

• You have added a photo, which is very topical and a good addition but it spills over into the next section. See WP:access for information on image placement. Can the caption be cut down perhaps taking out the commissioner and mayor information? Just a thought.

• Addressed

• Take the one line sentence about his grave and combine it with the preceding paragraph. Not good to have one sentence paragraphs (stubs).

• Addressed

• You mention twice in consecutive sections that he was promoted to detective. Is once enough? I'll leave that to you. H1nkles (talk) 22:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• Addressed

Trial

Is there no sentencing information on Bostic? I would assume he got the same as Woods but that is a hole given the fact that the other two have sentencing information. More to come. H1nkles (talk) 18:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• Addressed [7]

• Looks good.

Was there ever any discussion as to why they did it? I don't recall reading that in the article. A motive is a huge missing piece here that I didn't think to bring up in the previous review. H1nkles (talk) 22:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• Addressed Murder_of_Russel_Timoshenko#Motive—DMCer™ 20:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Gun legislation

• There is a grammatical error in this quote, "If this is the true, it is an outrage. If it is true, it is a horrible example of gun laws gone wrong", the first "the" shouldn't be here. Normally I would remove it but since it is a direct quote this needs to be examined and a (sic) should be placed after the "the" if it is truly in the quote.

• Addressed [8]

• This seems like one long paragraph covering senate hearings, new legislation and Plaxico Burress (who's connection to this whole article is tenuous at best but I'll leave that one alone). Consider breaking the paragraph into at least two for better organization of the information.

• Addressed [9]

Looks good. H1nkles (talk) 22:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

References

• Per Cite The reference format requires at least a publisher, site name and accessdate for all websites. Wherever possible the title of the article, date and author of the article are also important. The references will need a major reformatting to meet MOS compliance.

• Addressed. [10]

• Refs 29 is a dead link that will need to be repaired. Also Ref 20 does not appear to link to the article in question. Please confirm. My ISP isn't linking to ref 30, there seems to be some issues with this link. If it's me just let me know.

Comment. I'm not sure why this would be, but I wonder if this is an issue specific to your computer/ISP. All three aforementioned links work fine for me, provided the numbers are correct, and I can confirm they link to the relevant stories. Let me know if you'd like to see screenshots.—DMCer™ 06:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Overall

I feel that the article is succinct and well-written. I made some fixes as I went through, minor stuff mostly. I don't feel it meets the GA Criteria right now but I'm willing to hold the article for work to be done. I know you've been waiting a while for the review and you should have some time to make corrections or discuss the review. One issue beyond what I've raised above is that of overlinking. This is more of a pet peeve of mine. Per WP:Link words in common English usage do not need to be linked. I went through and delinked some of the words but there are others like "cracker" and "tuna fish" and "jail" that I would delink. It's a judgment call. It's not a huge deal but I thought I'd bring it up.

• Addressed some link overkill here.

The big deals that you should really address to bring the article to GA standing would be the reference issues, the lead, the need for a reference for the neighbor fugitive transport issue in the Manhunt section, and the map problem. I'll hold the article for a week or so and I certainly welcome discussion on the issues I've raised. I'm a fairly pragmatic reviewer and would be happy to hear any dissenting opinions. H1nkles (talk) 19:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment. - Thanks for the review; you're right, it's been quite a wait. I have sporadic Internet access at the moment, but I'll be sure to work on it over the next 7 days or so. Thanks for holding it; revisions coming!—DMCer™ 03:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

If 7 days is not enough please advise, the hold can be extended. The important thing is that work is being done. Cheers. H1nkles (talk) 17:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. Using a friend's computer, I've addressed a lot of the minor things for now. Since my hard drive crashed this morning, I appreciate the offer to extend the week if necessary. Hopefully I'll be finished before that point, but we'll see.—DMCer™ 06:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Just shoot me a note on my talk page when you're done. H1nkles (talk) 03:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Second Review Overall Comments So the article is coming along nicely. Unfortunately some of what I didn't catch in the first read through is coming up in the second run. I apologize for this and I know it means some more work. Not all of my suggestions in the second read through are critical for GA. I would say the comment about motive is a big glaring comprehensive hole. Were they involved in a crime, did they steal the car? What possessed them to just open fire? If there is no motive then say that and reference it. Also there is no Fair-Use rationale for using the NYPD badge at the top of the page. The FU rationale is for use on the NYPD article, a separate one has to be made for this article. The contradictory statements in the Murder Incident section should be addressed as well. Other than that the rest are good things to consider and look at but not make or break for GA. I hope that helps and let me know if you have other questions. I'll keep it held for at least another week, let me know if you need more time. H1nkles (talk) 23:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• Addressed the NYPD logo rationale. [11]
• Addressed the contradictory statements, added a motive section (much needed), and fixed some other minor issues (Edit - added some major information, but things should be all set).—DMCer™ 18:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick work. Unfortunately I am away from a computer until Monday. I will try and finalize the review beforehand but if I can't then I'll do it on Monday. H1nkles (talk) 03:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

OK.—DMCer™ 20:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The article looks good, you have done all that I asked so I will happily pass it to GA, congrats. H1nkles (talk) 21:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)