Talk:1993 Solingen arson attack/GA1

GA Review

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

I'd be happy to review this article for GAC. H1nkles (talk) 16:36, 13 February 2009 (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 the overall quality of the article.

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:

   Stub paragraphs, better in-line citations

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:

   see above about in-line citations

   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):

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:

   See the comments about stub paragraphs and better citation of part of the article. It's very close to please consider resubmission.

Regarding Lead

• It's a bit brief, you may want to include something on the social context in the lead, why did the skin heads do that? Also something on the books/films made about the event. Otherwise it's fine.

Regarding Social context

• This sentence, "Three days before the attack, on May 26, 1993, the German Bundestag, with the required 2/3 majority, resolved to change the Grundgesetz to limit the numbers of asylum seekers.[5]" is a stub paragaph, consider expanding or combining. H1nkles (talk) 16:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Events of May 29

This section should be referenced better. You have one in-line cite near the end of the second paragraph. You refer to the police report, if you have access to this then please cite it in this section. I'm not sure if reference #5 is the police report as I don't speak German. H1nkles (talk) 16:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding defendents

• Reher grew up in "institutions", what do you mean by institutions, could you be more specific?
• What is a "jobber"? I'm not familiar with this term. H1nkles (talk) 16:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Trial

• How did the police mess up the investigation? Are there specific instances of how they handled the scene so poorly?
• This sentence, "The Turkish family sued for civil damages and won; they received about 270,000 DM and a monthly pension for one severely burned victim." is a stub paragraph. H1nkles (talk) 17:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Aftermath

• "The case was reported in the international press, and after a radio campaign in the Netherlands, several million postcards with "Ik ben woedend!" ("I am angry") were sent to German Chancellor Helmut Kohl." Another stub paragraph. Otherwise this section is good. Photo is good. H1nkles (talk) 17:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding References

• Links check out.
• Format is good except ref 5, accessdate is 22/2008. Please check that.

Over all review

• This article is very close.
• Check those stub paragraphs.
• If you can clarify some of the questions I had above that would be great. I'll put the article on hold and check back in a couple days. Well done. H1nkles (talk) 17:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

GA fail

This article has been on hold for a week with no work. It is close but I can't pass it due to non-compliance with the MOS. Please make the fixes and resubmit. Thanks. H1nkles (talk) 16:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)