Wikipedia:Peer review/Jean Charles de Menezes/archive2
Jean Charles de Menezes (first peer review) edit
Hello, I am requesting another peer review of this article, nearly one year on from the incident. The article's looking great, the facts are fairly "stabilized", and the story is no longer much of a current event, though the article may be a point of interest when the anniversary of the shooting comes about on the 22nd. KWH 05:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Very good well-researched NPOV article. I made some minor changes which I hope make it easier to understand.
- Some comments from my read through:
- "The officers were watching three men who they claimed were Somali or Ethiopian in appearance." - this doesn't appear to make sense in the context - "watching for" , perhaps? (or needs some further clarification)
- The section on the killing is confusing because of the use of "their" rather than "his" or "hers" (Difficult call as I assume we don't know the sex of the officer and "his/her" is ugly), "officers" to refer only to firearms officers (so you end up with "...officers and the surveillance officer...") and the interchangable use of Hotel 3 and surveillance officer. It also reads badly as Hotel 3 is 'dragged' 3 times.
- The timeline of the article has the police revealing the reason for the shoot-to-kill policy before the Muslim Council demanding to know the reason.
- The section on "controversy over police procedure" has no inline references which lets it down. It reads as much more POV and WP:OR than the rest of the article as a result.
- Personally, I'd leave it a while before going for FA status (although I'm sure it would qualify) because it is still current enough to need further work. - Yomangani 11:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks Yomangani... for what it's worth, I don't like the whole "Hotel 1,2,3" narrative either, but it is a paraphrase of a report of someone's leaked testimony, so there's only so much liberty to take with the wording. The bit on "controversy over police procedure" is probably one of the oldest parts of the article so although it's probably all from contemporary press reports, it wasn't fully cited. I do see how it seems different from other sections, though. Thanks again, KWH 20:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)