Talk:Murder of Alayna Ertl

Murder of Alayna Ertl is currently a Law good article nominee. Nominated by —Sirdog (talk) at 09:25, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria. Further reviews are welcome from any editor who has not contributed significantly to this article (or nominated it), and can be added to the review page, but the decision whether or not to list the article as a good article should be left to the first reviewer.

Note: Pre-emptive thank you to anyone who decides to take this up. 2nd time using the GAN process, so any and all feedback is welcome regardless of review result. Article stands at roughly 1,200 words.

Short description: 2016 child murder in Minnesota, United States

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Murder of Alayna Ertl/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Sirdog (talk · contribs) 09:25, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Alexeyevitch (talk · contribs) 06:58, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be reviewing this article. I've been interested in this stuff for many years! e.g. Timmothy Pitzen, Dylan Redwine and so on. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask them here. Expect additional comments within a week. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 06:58, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking up this review! I look forward working with you.

—Sirdog (talk) 22:25, 2 September 2024 (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.	Prose is engaging, so a thumbs up from me
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lede section is good See MOS:AMPM. Also, U.S. style guides overwhelmingly prefer a.m./p.m. Done Good to know! Wasn't aware of the AMPM guidelines. —Sirdog (talk) 04:59, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Is ref 19 and 20 self-published? Indeed, 19 is from a website ran by the parents and 20 is functionally a press release. I believed them reliable for the information they are citing. I'll review my sources to see if I can get the same information from something more secondary. If I cannot, I've no issue removing if it isn't okay to keep in the article. —Sirdog (talk) 04:59, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply] Done Found secondary source that provides the same information and refactored the relevant section. —Sirdog (talk) 04:38, 9 September 2024 (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).	(optional but recommended) - add archives to references I don't see a problem with the reliability of the references
	2c. it contains no original research.	First paragraph in the aftermath section roughly don't mention the content in the source. Done Good catch, I believe my refactor addresses this. —Sirdog (talk) 04:59, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig spots nothing of concern
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	No issues
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No issues
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Y - No edit conflicts.
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.	Y
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Y - Pass. No issues.
	7. Overall assessment.