Talk:Kauhajoki school shooting/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   As mentioned above, you need to have a look at WP:RECENTISM. The quote above was a good example, but there are numerous parts in the shooting section such as A photo of them together has been circulating on the Internet. Have a copyeditor do a sweep of the article, either from WP:FINLAND, WP:CRIME or WP:GoCE. There should be no references in the lead, at least for non-controversial statements.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Some of the references use a different date format for access, eg, 01-01-08 and 1 January 2008.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Gets a bit sidetracked towards the end when discussing the response to the incident. Perhaps cut the unnecessary text on reform and put it into Gun politics of Finland or even Response to Kauhajoki school shooting

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   My only concern is regarding Image:Saari_you_will_die_next.jpg. I'm not too good on image policy, so I'll get a second opinion on whether it meets Fair Use criteria. Resolved, changed to yes. \ / (⁂) 10:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   On hold for now until concerns met. \ / (⁂) 08:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

   Concerns Met. Congratulations! \ / (⁂) 00:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Saari you will die next.jpg

There is little doubt that Saari shot this video himself, and wanted it to be used in the media after his death. It is a key part of media coverage of the incident, and falls within fair use guidelines even if it is copyrighted. On the other GA issues, I agree that there is some degree of forking towards the end, and it might be better to create a separate article looking at the response to the incident. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I was pretty certain, I just wanted to get a second opinion on the issue. \ / (⁂) 10:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Splitting

You're right, it's a bit redundant, however articles of events of the like usually don't have separate articles regarding the response of the attack, so it should rather be merged in with Gun politics in Finland. Cyanidethistles (talk) {Tim C} 17:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

At the moment it's looking a bit bare. Definitely split the article, whether to Gun Politics or Response to, but maybe add another paragraph to the response section here. On events like these, every man and his dog has an opinion, opinions we shouldn't necessarily care about. I think the response needs to have some opinions, but a lot of details about government regulation, gun laws etc. \ / (⁂) 20:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Recent Improvements

Great work on the improvement! One minor thing,

• Place am/pm after times. It's probably obvious, but it is explained below WP:DATED.

Other than that, it's looking fine. \ / (⁂) 05:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Alright, great, I fixed the am/pms. Cyanidethistles (talk {Tim C} 23:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)