Talk:Disappearance of Lars Mittank/GA1

GA Review[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Congratulations Display name 99, I have decided to promote Disappearance of Lars Mittank to good article status. The article is well written, well sourced and meets the standards of the good article criteria. Some changes were made throughout the process of this review the ones which the nominator chose not to implement weren't significant enough to warrant failing the article.--Llewee (talk) 16:09, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Reviewer: Llewee (talk · contribs) 19:03, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Notice[edit]

Your GA nomination of Disappearance of Lars Mittank[edit]

Hi there Display name 99, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Disappearance of Lars Mittank you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Llewee (talk) 19:13, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.	The prose was broadly well written and easily understandably. I've made some slight changes to the wording to make certain parts a bit clearer.--Llewee (talk) 21:40, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply] Update:As I said the prose is broadly very good, I don't want to get into a argument about any of the changes which you explicitly objected to but I will suggest the following improvements... Change first title from Lars Mittank to Background This is a more typical title for a section describing the context of a event and is more accurate (the other sections are also about him) Change "He grew up in Itzehoe, Schleswig-Holstein, and lived there for his entire life." to "and lived there until his disappearance." As its obviously unknown if he remained alive or where he lived after his disappearance.--Llewee (talk) 11:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply] Update: I'm happy to pass now that one of the two requests has been completed.--Llewee (talk) 14:30, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead section is a concise and complete summary of the article's major points. No particular issues with the articles layout. I've taken out one instance of using a potentially unhelpful term, their were a couple of other examples which I felt were used reasonably in their respective contexts and not causing any tone or neutrality issues. Fiction and list incorporation doesn't apply here.--Llewee (talk) 22:24, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply] Update: Only potential issues are with the "words to watch" policy, their are a couple of examples which I feel are used appropriately in context as I said above. The only example which I am somewhat concerned with is the second heading which reads "Mysterious behaviour and disappearance". This comes across as unencyclopedic and editorialising, I would recommend changing it to a more literal description of his behaviour such as "unusual behaviour" or "change in behaviour". This is a small issue but as it is quite prominent in the article I will hold of passing this section until it is dealt with.--Llewee (talk) 11:49, 9 June 2022 (UTC) Update: Change has now been made.--Llewee (talk) 14:30, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	No issues here.--Llewee (talk) 22:29, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
	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).	I'm seeking advice in relation to quality of one source.--Llewee (talk) 13:05, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply] Update: I was concerned about the reliability of "culturecrossfire.com" as a source and after seeking advice on the matter another editor also felt that it wasn't reliable. I would recommend taking that source out or, if you don't agree, asking for a third opinion on WP:RSN.--Llewee (talk) 20:28, 9 June 2022 (UTC) Update: Source has been removed.--Llewee (talk) 14:30, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
	2c. it contains no original research.	All information is sourced.--Llewee (talk) 13:05, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply] Update:Passing this will have to be put on hold whilst the source issue is dealt with.--Llewee (talk) 20:28, 9 June 2022 (UTC) Update:Removed source has not caused any lack of citation issue.--Llewee (talk) 14:30, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	The copyright detector mainly picked up quotes from sources.--Llewee (talk) 13:05, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Covers the background, content and aftermath of the event appropriately.--Llewee (talk) 13:47, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	It uses a sensible degree of detail for a article focused on one event and avoids going of topic.--Llewee (talk) 13:47, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	This isn't a particularly controversial issue and the article is written in a fairly dispassionate tone. Potential reasons for his disappearance are presented with counterarguments. --Llewee (talk) 13:47, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Reasonably stable, no major edit conflicts.--Llewee (talk) 13:47, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.	The one image used is tagged with its copy right status on its page.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The image used depicts the man who disappeared, is captioned with his name and the year it was taken.--Llewee (talk) 14:00, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
	7. Overall assessment.	Overall, I think this article is close to passing. I've requesting some minor wording changes and an issue with a source be dealt with and I'm putting this review on hold until that's done.--Llewee (talk) 20:38, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply] Update: I feel the article is ready to pass.--Llewee (talk) 14:30, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Llewee, thank you for reviewing this article. I have reverted the recent changes you made. Here are my reasons:

Your edit to the final sentence of the lead had two problems: There was a comma where there should have been a semi-colon to mark a separation between two independent clauses and a period later on where there should have been a comma.
Moving the physical description of Mittank from the end of the article to near the beginning is inappropriate in my opinion. The information has been included because authorities see it as important to finding Mittank; it should therefore be placed at the end of the article where information about Mittank's potential fate and reported sightings are detailed.
In the section about the meeting with the doctor, you combined two separate sentences and attached them with a comma. Because both are independent clauses, they must either be separate sentences or be linked with a semi-colon, not a comma.
I disagree with changing "captured by airport security footage" to "recorded by airport security footage." "Recorded," though not incorrect, has a connotation to audio.
"For long outdoors" is preferable to "for an extended period in the wild" for two reasons. Firstly, it is less wordy. Secondly, the area where Mittank disappeared wasn't exactly the wild. He was filmed running away from an international airport in a large city towards a small area of woods adjacent to a major highway. That's not the "wild."

A few of your edits were improvements to the article. I will restore them. But the rest, even if they didn't harm the article, also in my opinion did not help it.

I look forward to you continuing your review. As the GA review process generally consists of the reviewer proposing changes to the nominator rather than making them himself, perhaps you can consult with me about any additional changes that you would like to see here. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 03:12, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I made some edits because the guidance for reviewing suggests that it is acceptable for a reviewer to make minor edits to the text as you objected I will refrain from doing so again. I have made some suggestions for improving the article in the first two sections of the review. Though I think they're very close to being achieved, I will delay passing both sections for the time being until that's dealt with.Llewee (talk) 11:49, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Display name 99, forgot to link you sorry--Llewee (talk) 14:43, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Llewee. I will try to address your concerns within the next 24 hours. I don't object to GA reviewers making minor changes. I just did not like most of the changes that you made. Anyhow, I will address what you have said shortly. Display name 99 (talk) 12:19, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Llewee, here is my response to your comments.

The source that you identified as problematic was added by a different editor. I understand your concerns about it and have removed it.
I have elected not to change the statement that he lived in a town for his entire life to he lived there until his disappearance. I feel that the change potentially implies that he did not die and remained alive after his disappearance, which is of course not known. I believe that the context makes it clear that the sentence is only referring to his life prior to his disappearance. I certainly do not think that the change improves the article, and I think that it arguably makes it worse. Thus, I am opposed to it.
My reason for preferring "Lars Mittank" as the title of the original section as opposed to "Background" is because all of the background information is about Mittank. It isn't background on the disappearance (meaning the circumstances surrounding it) so much as the person. i Have chosen to rename it "Background on Lars MIttank."
I have changed the section title from "Mysterious behavior" to "Unusual behavior" as you suggested.

Thank you again for your review. Display name 99 (talk) 03:12, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.