Talk:Murders of Keona Holley and Justin Johnson - Wikipedia

This review is transcluded from Talk:Murders of Keona Holley and Justin Johnson/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Queen of Hearts (talk · contribs) 01:28, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Reviewer: PARAKANYAA (talk · contribs) 05:18, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I'll review this. Might take me a bit. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:18, 23 September 2024 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteriaReply

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):  

   all sources reliable and cited inline

   C. It contains no original research:  

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:  

   all sources are online and earwig shows no issues besides long proper names and quotes, pass

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):  

   no unnecessary detail, seems focused

4. Is it neutral?

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

   neutral, no detectable POV, reflects sources

5. Is it stable?

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

   good

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:  

   it is unusual for there to be NFCC photos of both murder victims, but the licenses are appropriate and it's not wrong, so pass. the free images look good

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

   good. One request, can you give some context for the photos in the captions (of the victims, the others are good), if the sources give them? any indication as to when the photos are from? it's fine if the sources don't give this information but it would be nice

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:  

First thoughts, will do deeper check later

• relative to the size of the article I think the lead is slightly too long. some of the details contained in the lead are, imo, unnecessary for the lead and should only be in the body. maybe trim it to only the more pertinent details?
  • tried to do this
• one thing that should be in the lead is, imo, stuff about the response to it beyond just proceedings, since the response to a murder is usually one of the things that make it notable and a key part of the event
  • the body doesn't really have that much response, just "some ppl held a vigil" and "some politicians 'cared'". I've added those to the lead, but I suspect there's more to be added to the body here (which I will try to do later)
• date is wrong on cite 16
  •   Done
• if you're going to have a verdict in the infobox you should also state the charges
  • body doesn't list all the charges, will add that then do this
• citation 9 has no date
  •   Done
• this is very pedantic but citation 4 is the only one without an archive
  •   Done