Talk:Murder of Alayna Ertl/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Nominator: Sirdog (talk · contribs) 09:25, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Alexeyevitch (talk · contribs) 06:58, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this article. I've been interested in this stuff for many years! e.g. Timmothy Pitzen, Dylan Redwine and so on. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask them here. Expect additional comments within a week. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 06:58, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for taking up this review! I look forward working with you. —Sirdog (talk) 22:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose is engaging, so a thumbs up from me
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lede section is good See MOS:AMPM. Also, U.S. style guides overwhelmingly prefer a.m./p.m.  Done Good to know! Wasn't aware of the AMPM guidelines. —Sirdog (talk) 04:59, 8 September 2024 (UTC) (optional but recommended) think the image loacation should be tweakeked or its size slightly reduced  Done Moved image to top of a section which I agree looks a lot better (moreso than I thought it would). Based on that I actually opted to make the image larger, albeit very slightly. —Sirdog (talk) 03:01, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Is ref 19 and 20 self-published? Indeed, 19 is from a website ran by the parents and 20 is functionally a press release. I believed them reliable for the information they are citing. I'll review my sources to see if I can get the same information from something more secondary. If I cannot, I've no issue removing if it isn't okay to keep in the article. —Sirdog (talk) 04:59, 8 September 2024 (UTC)  Done Found secondary source that provides the same information and refactored the relevant section. —Sirdog (talk) 04:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
	2b. 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).	(optional but recommended) - add archives to references  Done —Sirdog (talk) 18:56, 14 September 2024 (UTC) I don't see a problem with the reliability of the references
	2c. it contains no original research.	First paragraph in the aftermath section roughly don't mention the content in the source.  Done Good catch, I believe my refactor addresses this. —Sirdog (talk) 04:59, 8 September 2024 (UTC) Completed analysis of other paragraphs
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig spots nothing of concern
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	No issues
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No issues
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	I cannot see any issues of neutrality
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Y - No edit conflicts.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Y
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Y - Pass. No issues.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass. I've tweaked the content slightly, to make it less "bullet-pointy". Overall a thumbs up from me. ChristieBot will now do some further actions.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.