Talk:Murder of Marwa El-Sherbini/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sanguis Sanies (talk) 10:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This seems an interesting article and has been on the Good Article Nomination page for a while, so I'll review it.

Criteria

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

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:
Insufficient lead
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):

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
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):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
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:
Not the best pictures, but they'll do

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Article has failed. The lead is insufficient and two prominent sentences (detailed below) could stand as BLP violations as they are not properly CITEd. Sanguis Sanies (talk) 23:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Major Changes still needed

I'm adding this so that those who edit the article will now the high priority changes that are needed to the article. The article is on hold until the 12 December 2009 if the changes are not made then the article will be failed.

My first thought is that the lead is way to short for an article this size, there should probably be three paragraphs for the lead, the current paragraph is really fine as is, but a second paragraph should be added to include a summation of her death and a third should be added to include a summation of the response (both local and international) to her death. Sanguis Sanies (talk) 11:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done by Tschild and Mootros (talk) 21:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"During the trial Wiens claimed mitigating circumstances for the act of insulting El-Sherbini, suggesting that "people like her" were not real human beings and therefore legally incapable of being insulted." has no CITE and could stand as a BLP violation. Sanguis Sanies (talk) 12:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done Mootros (talk) 17:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"mistook Elwi Ali-Okaz for the attacker and shot him in the lower leg." Really needs a CITE. Sanguis Sanies (talk) 12:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done (by Tschild, I think) Mootros (talk) 17:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Redress for victim's family" Since this is only a single sentence does this really needs it's own section, particularly a == level two section == I would prefer it to be integrated into the section above, but if it can be expanded then a === level three section === would be more appropriate. Sanguis Sanies (talk) 12:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done Mootros (talk) 17:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lead/Infobox

My first thought is that the lead is way to short for an article this size, there should probably be three paragraphs for the lead, the current paragraph is really fine as is, but a second paragraph should be added to include a summation of her death and a third should be added to include a summation of the response (both local and international) to her death. Sanguis Sanies (talk) 11:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done by Tschild and Mootros (talk) 21:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox picture is currently up for deletion from wikimedia commons. From what I can gather from babelfish's rather appalling translation is that the image is not a good enough picture of Marwa El-Sherbini, or rather, that too much of the image is taken up by the flowers. We shall have to adopt a wait-and-see-approach to how this turns out. Sanguis Sanies (talk) 11:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

apparently the rationale given in the original deletion request is that the photograph (of the photograph + flowers arrangement) is partly a photograph of a photograph and thus might violate the copyright of the rights holder of the photographed photograph ... Tschild (talk) 08:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a fun debate... like I said we'll have to wait an see. Sanguis Sanies (talk) 15:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A thought occurs to me; if this is deleted off commons, couldn't it just simply be uploaded directly to wikipedia? Sanguis Sanies (talk) 09:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The photograph in question has now been replaced by another of the memorial event, where the photographed photographs are much less prominent. I suppose that takes care of the contention that prompted the deletion request for the original photograph. Tschild (talk) 18:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for infobox-proper I have a minor question; her nationality is listed as Egyptian, whilst I have no doubt this was true was she also a German national? Sanguis Sanies (talk) 11:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No reference in any of the sources that I have seen that she had, or had applied for, German citizenship. She certainly was a legal resident in Germany (and the family apparently considered, before the murder, to stay in Germany), but that would not mean German nationality (as of the time of her murder). Tschild (talk) 08:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool Sanguis Sanies (talk) 15:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Early Life/Life in Dresden

My initial thoughts for these two sections is that there are only three sentences that are cited, running through a (again very badly translated) version the cites used, both support the claims made in each sentence and the refs should be added to the end of each sentence rather than the paragraph as this helps towards verifiability. Sanguis Sanies (talk) 11:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done Mootros (talk) 18:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"In 2008, the couple and their two-year-old son moved to Dresden" since the couple moved to Germany in 2005 this would imply there son was born in Germany, correct? Do we have any information to this effect? relatively minor detail. Sanguis Sanies (talk) 11:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"At the time of her death El-Sherbini was three months pregnant with her second child." Is there any evidence that the couple knew they were pregnant? I can't imagine an autopsy was the best way to find out. Again minor details. Sanguis Sanies (talk) 11:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done Mootros (talk) 18:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible for these two sections to be expanded a little? If not then that's fine, but it just seems a bit threadbare at the moment. Sanguis Sanies (talk) 11:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done through clarifying the above. Mootros (talk) 18:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Court Case and attack

[Note 1] states that German media called him "Alex" however ref 5 (and presumably others) also call him "Alexander" the same as the British press, could the note be reworded to something like "and was referred to as Alex W. and/or Alexander W. in the German and British media." Sanguis Sanies (talk) 12:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done Mootros (talk) 19:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"but claiming German ethnic origin" needs a CITE. Sanguis Sanies (talk) 12:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done (by Tschild, I think) Mootros (talk) 16:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"public playground for children" most playgrounds are for children, bit of redundancy. Sanguis Sanies (talk) 12:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done by Tschild Mootros (talk) 19:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"was called "Islamist", "terrorist" and (according to one report) "slut"." was called by who? A minor clarification is needed. Sanguis Sanies (talk) 12:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done by Tschild Mootros (talk) 19:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need [Note 3]? Maybe a better clarification is needed that German courts issue fines (rather than say the police, as in other European countries) and that no trial is held. Sanguis Sanies (talk) 12:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thought that was the clarification. The point was that "courts can penalise without hearing", if the accused person agrees admits deed and guilt "in the post", regardless whether the public prosecutor acts on be half of a "private person", a police officer, or on own accord. For a road traffic offence committed in England, the police might "tell" a magistrate about it, who may send out a letter asking to just pay up and one does don't need to turn up, if one thinks not being guilty of the deed in question. Still a judicial process. Mootros (talk) 17:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"During the trial Wiens claimed mitigating circumstances for the act of insulting El-Sherbini, suggesting that "people like her" were not real human beings and therefore legally incapable of being insulted." has no CITE and could stand as a BLP violation. Sanguis Sanies (talk) 12:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done Mootros (talk) 20:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"openly xenophobic character of the incident" maybe "openly xenophobic nature of the incident" is a better way of putting it? Sanguis Sanies (talk) 12:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could professional and lay judges be wikilinked? Sanguis Sanies (talk) 12:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately there is no useful English wikipedia article on the distinction in Germany (the Schöffe article isn't really useful.) Tschild (talk) 17:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"(this question was disallowed by the judge)." Could do with a cite. Sanguis Sanies (talk) 12:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Tschild (talk) 17:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Wiens attacked her with an 18 cm (7 in) long blade, which he had taken into the courtroom in his backpack." Could probably do with two CITEs, one to confirm the size of the blade and one to confirm he kept it in his backpack (as opposed to his belt, or wherever). Sanguis Sanies (talk) 12:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added one cite covering both facts. Tschild (talk) 18:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"mistook Elwi Ali-Okaz for the attacker and shot him in the lower leg." Really needs a CITE. Sanguis Sanies (talk) 12:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Tschild (talk) 18:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Her three-year-old son was also injured " Do we know the extent of the sons injuries? minor detail. Sanguis Sanies (talk) 12:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could involuntary manslaughter and denial of assistance be wikilinked? Sanguis Sanies (talk) 12:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Done Mootros (talk) 20:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the mother is dead and the father is in a coma for two days (and so presumably in hospital for a while longer) do we know what happened to the son in the intervening time? who looked after him, etc. minor detail. Sanguis Sanies (talk) 12:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Murder Trail

"perfidiousness" could definitely do with a wikilink, maybe to wikitionary if applicable. Sanguis Sanies (talk) 12:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"as the defendant in 1991 was declared" could do with a rewording, "as the defendant was declared in 1991" better? Sanguis Sanies (talk) 12:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done Mootros (talk) 11:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC) (i.e. 1999)[reply]

[Note 4]: is there an English language page for Nebenklage? Sanguis Sanies (talk) 12:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done Reworded note. Mootros (talk) 13:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why were French lawyers involved? Sanguis Sanies (talk) 12:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done Mootros (talk) 11:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC) Following note added: "According to EU regulations, lawyers from other EU countries can represent client's in courts in Germany, whereas lawyers from non-EU countries can merely give legal advice but not represent in court."[reply]

Very useful; it pointed out a minor inconsistency that not all eight lawyers were "representing", but were "present" on the first day. Thanks! Mootros (talk) 13:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"This was denied by a separate panel that had ruled on this motion." could do with a CITE. Sanguis Sanies (talk) 12:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done by Tschild. Thank you kindly! Mootros (talk) 17:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Wiens injured himself in a fit of rage," Do we know the extent of the injury? Sanguis Sanies (talk) 12:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"with a finding of particular gravity of guilt." What? Is this badly worded or a peculiarity of German law that a person can be found "more" guilty? Could this be clarified (either rewording or a [Note] added). Sanguis Sanies (talk) 12:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"particular gravity of guilt" is a translation of "besondere Schwere der Schuld", a term used in the German Criminal code (§ 57a (1) 2 StGB) as a condition for not being eligible for parole after 15 years. Tschild (talk)

Ahh, so its "found guilty of a heinous crime" would be the English equivalent, perhaps that information could be added to the article (even if as a [Note]) Sanguis Sanies (talk) 15:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thank you both. Mootros (talk) 12:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"This requires the convict to serve a minimum of 18 years before a board will review the possibility of parole for the first time.[4]" I'm a little iffy about this sentence, was it mandated in this case or it typical of all cases like this, and therefore subject to WP:CRYSTALBALL? Sanguis Sanies (talk) 12:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done Reasonable point! Here the replacement: "It meant that Weins was given the maximum sentence for this crime" Mootros (talk) 12:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Redress for victim's family" Since this is only a single sentence does this really needs it's own section, particularly a == level two section == I would prefer it to be integrated into the section above, but if it can be expanded then a === level three section === would be more appropriate. Sanguis Sanies (talk) 12:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done Mootros (talk) 17:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Responses

"only in the light of the vociferous protests" can "vociferous" be wikilinked, to wikitionary if appropriate. Sanguis Sanies (talk) 12:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are translations of the posters contained in the photo available? If they are can they be added to the caption. Sanguis Sanies (talk) 12:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done within wikimedia.org Mootros (talk) 17:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Response by Muslim and Jewish bodies" I can understand Muslim, but why Jewish? were other religious organisations not as vocal? Sanguis Sanies (talk) 12:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The response by the Central Council of Jews in Germany is notable IMO as other religious organizations were not in fact as vocal - that was IMO connected to the Zentralrat representative correctly anticipating at the time the Egyptian and Generally Muslim expectation of explicit statements denouncing the murder, while other parties were blindsided by these expectations. Basically, a lot of official Germany did not issue statements at this time because condemning such a heinous murder goes without saying; Mr. Kramer of the Zentralrat rightly saw that stating the obvious was necessary at the time, in view of Muslims' expectations. Tschild (talk) 18:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other thoughts and Comments

Ref numbers 20, 39, 47, 63 and 79 are all dead links and will need to be re-found or replaced. Sanguis Sanies (talk) 12:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the check. Replaced #20 and #39 with new URLs. Will look at the others later. Tschild (talk) 08:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

#79 http://ummatpublications.com/2009/07/23/story5.html looks to be dead for good - unfortunately it was in Urdu, is not old enought to be already in archive.org and the single source for the sentence "According to Karachi-based newspaper Ummat, there were protests in Istanbul and Paris, while a protest in Amman organised by the Islamic Action Front was allegedly cancelled as the Governor did not want to jeopardise a scheduled German aid programme.". What to do? Tschild (talk) 14:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are two possibilities; either find another CITE that states the same (or similar) thing, or simply delete the claim. Sanguis Sanies (talk) 06:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted #47, replaced #63 with another URL (now #62 due to #47 being deleted); deleted #79 along with statements not supported in another source. Tschild (talk) 19:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no See also section. Sanguis Sanies (talk) 12:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those editing the article seem not to have found related Wikipedia articles that could be linked in such a section yet. Tschild (talk) 18:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally not all (though to be fair most) CITEs are formatted properly. CITE templates can be a big help, especially {{cite web}} and {{cite news}}. Sufficient CITEs are formatted correctly for this not to affect GA status, but it is still nice to future editors to have it all sorted properly. Also the cite templates that are used are all put in vertically leading the edit page to be a bit difficult to navigate at times, can the extra line breaks be removed for the cite templates as this not only makes editting easier but shaves a few extra bytes of the article. Sanguis Sanies (talk) 12:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally <ref group=> does not need the "name=" parameter if it is only being used once. Sanguis Sanies (talk) 12:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the reasonably minor nit-picking above this is a very well written and exemplary well referenced article. Kudos all round. Sanguis Sanies (talk) 12:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]