Talk:Seattle Jewish Federation shooting/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: AIRcorn (talk) 06:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can work through this one over the next week or so. I can tell straight away that the lead is too short per WP:LEAD. I don't review the lead until last so if you want to add any more information in the next couple of days that won't interfere with my review. AIRcorn (talk) 06:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, finished my first read through. I have left some comments below. I see this as a collaborative process and you can question any of the comments. If we can't come to an agreement on any points we can seek a second opinion. AIRcorn (talk) 12:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA criteria[edit]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
More needed on lead. A few prose issues under comments.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
References are present and reliable enough. There are a few statements I could not find in the references.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Broadness is fine, but there are a few occasions where it tends to lose focus. It repeats itself a bit too.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
A few issues here.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Comments[edit]

Events[edit]

Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske alleged that the suspect, Naveed Afzal Haq, had selected his target by researching "something Jewish" on the Internet. Why does it say suspect? Would change "target" to the name of the place as this is the first sentence anyone skipping the lead would read.
Haq is said to have legally purchased two semi-automatic handguns in Tri-Cities area stores, receiving the weapons on July 27, 2006, after the mandatory waiting period had expired. Who said? What are Tri-Cities?
Haq allegedly received a traffic ticket on the way to the shooting, but did nothing to arouse the officer's suspicions. Why allegedly? The source does not suggest there is any doubt.
With a gun to her back, Haq reportedly told the girl, "Open the door," and "careful", as she was buzzed into the building. Haq then said, "I'm only doing this for a statement," and proceeded to follow the girl up the stairs to the second floor. This is redundant with the previous sentence.
Her niece, in the bathroom, heard her and dialed 911. Heard her. Should it not be heard the gunshot?
Witnesses reported that Haq began shouting "I'm a Muslim American; I'm angry at Israel" before he began his shooting spree. I would put the appropriate reference right after this sentence. Muslim American should not be linked if it is in a quotation.
Haq is reported to have walked down the hallway, shooting into offices as he passed by. Haq then shot three more women in the abdomen: Layla Bush, Stumbo, and Christina Rexroad. From reading the source these two sentences are not clear. The source suggests that he shot the women while walking through the offices. If so "then" does not work. Maybe the sentences should be combined.
Pamela Waechter received a gunshot in the chest. More context needs to be given to this sentence.
As the wounded Waechter attempted to flee down a flight of stairs, Haq allegedly reached over the railing and shot her for the second time in the head, killing her. Wording is too close to the source, except the source says "up" the stairs not down.
Haq fired at her abdomen, but the bullet missed, Not in the source
There is a large quote and then most of the same information is then repeated in the next paragraph, some with similar quotes. Feels like overkill. I like the summarised info better, just because he rants against Jews does not mean we have to repeat it word-for-word. A few selected words could be quoted to supplement the summary if necessary.
At 10:38 PM he was booked into King County Jail on one count of investigation of homicide and five counts of investigation of attempted murder "on one count of investigation of homicide" is awkward. Earlier the article uses p.m. Should be consistent.
After the shooting, a SWAT team entered the building, looking for other victims or suspects Not sure what the other refers to. Were there victims outside the building?

Legal proceedings[edit]

King County, Washington District Court Judge Barbara Linde found that the King County Prosecuting Attorney's Office had probable cause to charge Haq with one count of murder and five counts of attempted murder. Don't need King County twice in this sentence.
The prosecution, however, ultimately decided not to seek the death penalty because of Haq's history of mental illness. Needs a reference and the prose could be tightened up
One of the most difficult decisions faced by King County Prosecutor Norm Maleng was whether to charge Haq with the death penalty. One of the most difficult decisions is original research as no where in the reference does it suggest that it was difficult decision.
Additionally, prosecutors in Washington are required to consider "mitigating factors" when deciding whether to seek the death penalty. Not in citation
His second trial commenced in late 2009, and he was found guilty on all counts, including aggravated first-degree murder, on December 15, 2009. Does all accounts include the Carol Goldman attempted murder he was found not guilty of previously?

Victims[edit]

Five of the women were taken to Harborview Medical Center, where three were initially listed in critical condition and two in satisfactory condition, with one of the victims 17 weeks pregnant. Not sure why the pregnancy is tacked on at the end like that?
Waechter was shot first in the chest and then in the head while she was fleeing. This has already been mentioned in better detail.
Christina Rexroad, a 29-year-old bookkeeper[26] for the Federation and resident of Everett, Washington and Cheryl Stumbo, the Federation's 43-year-old[18] non-Jewish director of marketing and communications, were shot in the abdomen and critically wounded. Not sure "and resident of Everett, Washington" is necessary, plus it reads awkward with the second and close by.
As of August 28, 2006 Bush, who is not Jewish, but wanted to work for charitable organizations, remained hospitalized with a bullet indefinitely lodged in her spine. This is out of date now. Can it be updated?
35-year-old Carol Goldman was shot in the knee. Would either reword or spell out 35 so the sentence does not start with a number.
The sixth victim was Dayna Klein, a 37-year-old pregnant woman responsible for development and major gifts to the organization. What does development and major gifts to the organization mean? Is there a grammatical error?

Jewish Federation[edit]

Jewish Federations are social service organizations that raise and distribute money for Jewish causes, particularly in their local communities, but also in Israel, and elsewhere in the world. Don't need "but also in Israel" if it says elswhere in the world.
The Federation was the organizer of a rally on July 23, 2006 in support of Israel during the 2006 Lebanon war Have to agree with the tag. Why is this relevant to the shooting? Unless he used this as motivation, and reliable sources confirm this, it should probably go.

Reaction[edit]

Bit of a quote farm here. Understandable as it is the easiest way to ensure accuracy, but it is a struggle to read.
Coincidentally, the July 2006 Seattle Jewish Federation shooting occurred on the same day as another major antisemitic incident in America, the Mel Gibson DUI incident, though, according to one opinion piece, the deadly attack received far less media coverage than the Gibson DUI incident. This is a stretch. Opinion pieces should not be used for reaction and there is no direct tie between the two.
The large joint statement should be either turned into prose or in a block quote.

Motivation[edit]

This section consists almost solely of quotes. How were they chosen?
- The background behind this is that some commentators in the media (such as Daniel Pipes) argued that this case and a few others (including one at the University of North Carolina[1]) were genuine acts of Islamist terrorism and that by classifying these incidents as hate crimes or the work of a mentally unstable lone gunman, the government was essentially ignoring or downplaying the threat of Islamist terrorism out of a desire for political correctness. On the other hand, the police and others in the media have argued that Haq was a mentally ill individual and that there wasn't any kind of Islamist plot or indoctrination here, he just made statements about Israel and the Jews because that's what his mind happened to seize on in its deluded condition. I think the quote from the prosecutor and the two quotes from the media were chosen in order to show this debate fairly - by giving a voice to those commenters who think this shooting should be thought of as an act of Islamic terrorism, but also by showing that this isn't the official opinion and that others disagree. I think we can do a better job of presenting the background to the debate here. I think The Stranger quote summarizes that particular viewpoint nicely, while the Stillwell quote might be tweaked a bit or replaced, maybe to explain this background a little better. GabrielF (talk) 17:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I understand quotes are probably necessary as this is controversial area, but I was hoping they could be shortened some. They made reading this section a bit of a chore and are a little bit lazy. If the most controversial/important comments could be quoted with the rest provided in context it would greatly improve this article. Unimportant details or points established earlier could be omitted. I had a go at the Stillwell one as a possible example (this is just an example you can tweak or ignore it as you wish): Cinnamon Stillwell, from the conservative organization Campus Watch, wrote that while Seattle's Mayor Greg Nickels statement about it being "a purposeful, hateful act, as far as we know by an individual acting on his own" may be true, the attempt to "separate Haq's actions from the larger context of the war on terrorism is tunnel vision at its worst." Maybe something similar from Pipes could also be added? I don't know of any particular guidelines that address the use of quotes at GA (maybe something under prose - I will have a thorough look). The biggest concern I can think of here is avoiding WP:Undue by establishing why certain individuals/organizations are important enough to be quoted and whether the chosen quotes are not out of context. Your explanation above helps a lot in that regard, but I will also do some extra research to satisfy myself that representation is relatively balanced. AIRcorn (talk) 08:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the quotes are kept the wikilinks need to be removed.

References[edit]

Jacoby, Jeff (2006-08-06). "A tale of 2 stories about anti-Semitism". The Boston Globe. Retrieved 2007-06-27. DAB "Jacoby, Jeff".

Lead[edit]

Like I mentioned earlier it is a bit thin. Could mention more about the victims. More details about the event (that he gave himself up after talking to the police). More about the legal proceedings (Death penalty or Life imprisonment, Mental issues, Mistrial etc). Should be a solid two paragraphs at least.

Progress[edit]

There have been no comments here for three weeks. Are you planning on concluding the review. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have not heard from the nominator for a while so regretfully have n o choice but to fail this. AIRcorn (talk) 09:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]