Talk:2011 Helmand Province killing/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Freikorp (talk · contribs) 12:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Initial review complete. Putting this one hold for one week to give User:It Is Me Here a chance to address the concerns. Freikorp (talk) 01:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Initial review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   Lead:

   The word 'later' in "Later, on 5 December" seems redundant.

   The only borderline close paraphrasing issue I found was the eight word match "judges sitting at the high court in london lifted". Suggest using a synonym for "sitting" or "lifted"

   I used duplicate detector to check every online source you use for copyright violations and close paraphrasing. The only significant exact match of prose I got was the nine words above. There's nothing awkward about the phrasing, the problem is it's an exact match of what the source says. In retrospect i'm being rather picky here; it's not a bad match, it's just the biggest match I got so I thought i'd bring it up.

   First section:

   "and two other Marines". Do any of your sources specify which two? This would be helpful.

   It's a shame Persistent Ground Surveillance System is a redlink, but considering that it is, I think it would be good to have a brief explanation of exactly what this system is and what it does. Where is the system? As I read this section I am confused about this and wish to know more.

   I strongly think you should add the rest of the quote "Shuffle off this mortal coil, you cunt. It's nothing you wouldn't do to us." It gives the reader good understanding of the marines motivation.

   Second section:

   Marines D and E surprisingly only make their first appearance in the article here. Is there any indication whatsoever of where these two marines were and or what they did in relation to the incident?

   Third section:

   "The move had been opposed by elements of the UK media." Can you give us any specifics here? Which elements? What did they say?

   I understand your concern regarding this not being reported in the media, but I think in this case it is OK to cite the court documents themselves - they are not given too much weight and it's better than not giving an indication at all.

   "The question of the continuing anonymity of Marines D and E will be addressed at another hearing." Firstly it would be good to clarify when this was stated. Secondly it's been a year - are you confident that this hearing has not taken place yet?

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   As per MOS:NUMERAL, integers from one to nine should be spelled out (eight years, not 8 years)

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   External links three and five give "page not found"

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   Article has good sources, and is not lacking any inline citations.

   C. No original research:

   No original research found.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   There must have been reactions to both the incident and the conviction. In particular did a representative from the Royal Marines or an insurgent group release a statement to a media organisation regarding it? Was anything mentioned in parliament about it? These reactions should be included.

   B. Focused:

   Good.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   I don't see any issues here.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Obvious from article history.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   All good here.

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

   The top image has relevance. I'm not sure if the other one is helpful or necessary, a court building is a court building after all, but I'm still happy to pass this issue overall.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I'm satisfied all concerns have been addressed and this article now meets GA criteria. Freikorp (talk) 13:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Reply 1

1. 1. 1. 1. The word "later" is meant to draw the reader's attention to the difference in the dates, the date offset presumably due to the fact that there were two legal proceedings going on in parallel here: the criminal trial, and the anonymity order battle. This is addressed in detail later in the article, but that one word in the lede is meant to briefly foreshadow it.
         2. Sorry, I don't quite understand what the problem is that you want me to address? Is the sentence phrased awkwardly?
      2. 1. Having re-read the BAILII account, I can see that the sentence as it stood was misleading. By "two other Marines" I had originally had in mind Marines B and C, but, phrased that way, the sentence implied that it was only those three (or five) alone there. In fact, the BAILII account records that the five defendants were part of a larger Marine patrol in the area (the rest of whose members' names were not protected by any anonymity orders), but the MoD only decided to prosecute A–E. I've now re-phrased that sentence.
         2. Done.
         3. Done.
      3. Not really; the article contains as much information as the sources do. E.g. the May 2014 judgement just says that they, like B (Watson) and C (Hammond), were part of Blackman's patrol and were subsequently charged, but that, unlike with A–C, the charges against them were dropped before the matter got to court.
      4. 1. I've added some information from the 2012 court order about the press's arguments against protecting the defendants' names. But these legal arguments were not reported in the media AFAIK – they are only listed in the court documents, so I'm worried that including them in the article is going into too much detail?
         2. Looking again at the 19 December 2013 judgement, the media seems to have misrepresented what was said: D's and E's anonymity seems to have been upheld, rather than the issue postponed. N.B. also that the latest document at judiciary.gov.uk relating to the matter, from May 2014, still talks about "Marine D" and "Marine E" only. So, they still appear anonymous, and I've re-written the sentence to remove the suggestion that their anonymity is imminently up for review.
   2. Right, but that guideline also says that "comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all in figures" (N.B. the three deaths and 206 injuries example).
2. 1. Done; the EL tool in the GA toolbox now indicates that there are no more dead URLs in the article.
3. 1. OK, I've now added a Reactions section, although, FWIW, I don't really think that the creation of Facebook groups etc. is that notable, even if it is mentioned by the press (which is why I didn't create such a section initially).

It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 11:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Reply 2

1. 1. 1. 2. Now re-phrased.

It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 11:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)