Talk:2011 White House shooting/GA1

GA Review[edit]

The following discussion 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.

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

Reviewer: Prhartcom (talk · contribs) 05:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be happy to take on this review. I have an interest in American politics and I followed the 2014 events that occurred later. I have read the article and looked over the sources. I am quite familiar with the GA criteria. @Freikorp:, it looks like you are quite familiar with it also. Give me a day or two to begin the review, and we'll talk then. Prhartcom (talk) 05:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citations to reliable sources, where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
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:

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

Review notes[edit]

Here are some suggestions; I hope these are helpful and lead to an improved article. Do not mind if I make suggestions that are not strictly a part of the GA criteria; as this article is mostly in great shape, I believe these suggestions will take the article to an even higher level. You may object to any of these suggestions if you must and we can then discuss it.

Do you have enough sources? I would say the minimum number is here but not a comfortable maximum, if only to confirm (if not add to) the facts on the page. No need to solely rely on someone else's source list as if it is exhaustive. Use a web search and consider every result it returns. (In articles I improve, I provide plenty of overlap, multiple sources saying the same thing, both to confirm a single source and to provide readers with a larger variety of follow-up reading.) You are quite fortunate that a plethora of sources for this topic are readily available online, so please take advantage of this. (For articles I improve, the events took place decades earlier and I typically must rely on borrowing or purchasing books.)

Added four more sources. Freikorp (talk) 05:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great job; that should do it. Prhartcom (talk) 15:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of Julia Pierson? While she was not the director at the time, she needs not only a mention, but I would say an entire paragraph or section needs to be added or expanded. Perhaps the last paragraph of the Shooting and response section needs a subheading to draw the readers attention that we are now three years later and we are describing how the fallout and repercussions of this event and other failures led to the next director's resignation. I'm sure you know this article is really short and wouldn't be hurt by some more sensible expansion, even more than has already been done. A quick web search of "Julia Pierson Ortega-Hernandez" brings up plenty of sources. This isn't straying off topic, it's putting this event in perspective with history. Without it, an omission like this could cause the article to fail "broad in its coverage".

Added new paragraph. Freikorp (talk) 05:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great job; see notes below. Prhartcom (talk) 15:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Consider breaking the lede into two paragraphs. Perhaps the first could end after the second sentence. If so, I would then suggest an additional sentence be added there to expand and close out the first paragraph. Then look closely at the second paragraph and decide if it might need an additional sentence also (especially after considering the note above).

Done. Freikorp (talk) 05:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Better, but now I see that we are letting Mark J. Sullivan off the hook in the lede as we mention Julia Pierson. In that case, he would need to go in the first paragraph, in the new third sentence that we wondered about. What to say about him? I suppose the fact that he hadn't brought the matter up to the first lady; hopefully you can work this out. Prhartcom (talk) 15:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"left his home ... three weeks prior to the shooting." We'd better say what date that was after the word "home", because a date is mentioned in the next sentence and it leaves the reader scrambling to determine how soon after he left home did that date occur. Here is a source you can use.

Done. Thanks for the source. Freikorp (talk) 23:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are some facts in the some of the sources used that can be incorporated into the article to bring a little more human interest. The Leonnig Washington Post article, for example, mentions a woman actually saw the attacker shooting and tweeted it.

Added info on tweet. Freikorp (talk) 05:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The lede mentioned Francisco Martin but the body never did, which is an oversight (the lede should summarize the body).

Fixed. Freikorp (talk) 00:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please go through the article and insert " " in the place of certain blank spaces where you don't want a line break to occur. That would be places like here: "text ... text", here: "9 pm", and here: "A. B. Lastname". This technique is recommended by the Manual of Style and is explained here: MOS:NBSP.

I added one in between 9 pm. I've never done this before, so just clarifying, you want one in between each persons first and last name and before every semi-colon? Freikorp (talk) 05:29, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. First, you know how an ellipsis has a space before the three dots and a second space after? Replace the first space before with a non-breaking space and leave the second space after the regular way. In HTML, a non-breaking space is: " " So replace the first " " with a " " and leave the second space alone, like this: " ... " That way, if the ellipsis winds up near the end of the reader's line, the first space is non-breaking and the second space isn't, so the ellipsis will be glued to the first space but will break at the second, leaving the ellipsis at the end of the line, which is desirable, instead of wrapping it to the beginning of the next line, which is undesirable. I started seeing a picky copy editor doing this to some of my articles, and had to figure it all out too. I now see the advantage of doing it. It does make the wiki-source look weird, though. The MOS says we can do it another way, using a template, for example: "{{nbsp}}... " Maybe I like this way better, actually. What do you think? You did the "9 pm" correctly, and it could have done it like this: "9{{nbsp}}pm". As for the person's name, don't worry about it. Prhartcom (talk) 15:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Reviewer script is saying, "please use standard abbreviations". I believe it could be talking about "9 p.m.", which is supposed to be "9 pm" according to the MOS (explained here: MOS:TIME). After you make this fix, check the script again to see if this complaint went away (or perhaps there is another wrong abbreviation somewhere else).

Changed, but it didn't remove that notice. I'm not sure what is flagging it. Freikorp (talk) 00:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Consider using the following {{cite}} template usage (and I appreciate that this template is being used; I personally consider bare URLs unacceptable for GA): Consider "last" and "first" instead of "last1" and "first1" unless more than one author is present. Consider placing the date parameter after the title or after the author (the date is so critical to identify a source it is placed next to the author in the Harvard referencing method). I appreciate that the author's last and first name parameters are placed before the title parameter. You could also consider putting a space at the end of each parameter, before the next "|" (sometimes you do, sometimes you don't). None of this is truly important, but it is a nice detail to get right.

Done. Freikorp (talk) 07:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Consider archiving the online sources and providing the archive to the cite template. The sources for a topic such as this could easily rot away over time and hurt the article. This is done by going to Wikipedia's accepted archival tool (WP:WBM), entering the URL of your source, and seeing if it is already archived (and if so, check the date and see if it meets with your approval). If it is not, then archive it. You will then have the archive URL. Place it into your cite templates as follows: After the "url=" parameter, insert "deadurl=no", "archiveurl=[your archive URL]", and "archivedate=[date of archive i.e. today's date]". This is then followed by your usual "accessdate=" parameter.
Completely and totally optional, no need to even comment on this suggestion: Consider using Shortened footnotes and the {{sfn}} and {{sfnm}} inline referencing method, which I believe is a preferred and ideal way to handle references. It provides many advantages over using "<ref>" (i.e. allowing for sources to be listed alphabetically by author, allowing several footnotes to refer to a single bibliography entry, and allowing several footnotes to be combined into a single footnote, among others). This article is only one example.

A few more:

Please see new notes above.
What do you think about adding the photo of Julia Pierson immediately below the photo of Mark J. Sullivan? You could use the {{Multiple image}} template.
I checked to ensure this article is not an orphan and it almost is; it is linked to twice and one of those is a redirect (see here); both of those are essentially in the "See also" section. It is missing from the List of United States presidential assassination attempts and plots article despite that one listing a 2010 and 2013 attempt on this president; consider adding a mention and link to this article there. Other than that, I can't think of another article it should be linked from.
Ensure you like the summary of this article at Assassination threats against Barack Obama#2011 and make any changes there if necessary.

Copy edit[edit]

Lede section:

"nobody" → "no one"
Consider adding a phrase such as "avoiding the charge of attempting to assassinate the President" after the existing phrase "during a crime of violence."
"pleaded" → "pled" ("pleaded" is UK, not US) (I keep Wiktionary handy while writing: pled) However, there is some disagreement on this, as some believe "pled" is colloquial. I prefer "pled" as it is more pleasing to the ear and in more common use in the US than "pleaded". This word appears in the article again further down.

All done. Freikorp (talk) 00:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Background section:

"son with his former fiancée ... separated from his fiancée"; redundant word "fiancée" (nice spelling, BTW)
"someone reported suspicious behavior"; does any source provide any more details that this?
"questioned him the on morning of the shooting"; you probably meant for "him the on" → "him on the". Do any sources say whether this was before or after he fired the shots? (This and the note above are from the same sentence, so the sentence is apparently a little less clear than it could be.)

All done. Provided as much detail as my sources provide. The Washington Post actually says it was after, though two other sources say it was before. It must of been before though, as after firing the shots he immediately sped away from the crime scene and crashed his car, while police reported he refused to let them search his car when they questioned him. Freikorp (talk) 01:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting and response section:

First sentence: Provide the all-important date.
Mention the number of yards away the attacker was from the White House (750 yards, according to the Washington Post). (Don't add this to the lede.) This, with the provided photo, helps readers gather the important fact that the attacker is not immediately in front of the building but is quite far away.
"Gunfire was reported"; if it is interesting, say by whom.
"initially rushed to respond;" would be slightly more dramatic ending with a period (full stop) instead of the semicolon.
"A supervisor, who believed that the noises"; → "A supervisor decided that the noises"; subtly better and hopefully causes the reader to feel an emotion. (An "and" will then be needed in front of "told the agents".)

This hasn't been fixed properly yet. "A supervisor who decided" → "A supervisor then decided"; the first way is not as good as it places the perspective later looking back at the action, while the second way keeps us in the action. This will then need: "told the agents" → "and told the agents" Prhartcom (talk) 15:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"no shots have been fired. ... Stand down" → "no shots have been fired ... stand down" (remove the errant period and make the "S" lower case).

This hasn't been fixed properly yet. Remove the period after the word "fired". (And then should then be followed with the non-breaking space and the ellipsis) Prhartcom (talk) 15:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"called emergency services, and"; generally never insert a comma before an "and" when two phrases are on both sides of the "and" like this. (Note: Do insert a comma if this is the conclusion of items in a list, a different circumstance.)
"The evidence was noticed when a housekeeper"; perhaps insert an "only" or a "finally" before the "noticed". This could be an example of pushing the limits of encyclopedic writing, but in my opinion it is still within the bounds and leads to a better article.

Which one do you like better: "The evidence was only noticed when" or "The evidence was noticed only when"? I actually struggle with this one. Here's another one I just can't decide is better now that you have fixed it, which one do you like: "he still was not suspected of shooting the White House" or "he was still not suspected of shooting the White House" Prhartcom (talk) 15:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"President Obama was still traveling" → "President Obama was traveling" He had been traveling? The article hadn't previously told us that.
"when the discovery was made, but Michelle Obama" → "when the discovery was made. Michelle Obama"
"The Washington Post released a report in September 2014" → "In September 2014, The Washington Post released a report"; you may even want to say "Three years later, in September 2014" (see note above about improving this paragraph).
Say who wrote this 2014 Washington Post exposé.
"and stop future attacks. [9]" → "and stop future attacks.[9]" The inline reference is accidentally not up against the prose needing to be cited (the MOS explains here WP:FN that there should be no space, which I am sure you already know). Check to ensure this isn't the only occurrence of this type of error.
"such as personnel and physical changes, and the installation of additional surveillance cameras" → "such as personnel changes, physical improvements, and additional surveillance cameras"; this creates an easy-to-read list of three things that were done (instead of two things followed by a third thing) and any word similar to "improvements" can be used. However, the resulting sentence begs the question "what are the physical improvements and don't they include the surveillance cameras?" So perhaps the "physical improvements" phrase should be replaced with a more intuitively descriptive phrase to set it apart from the surveillance cameras.
In the photo caption: "Director" → "director". Elsewhere it is correctly lower-cased. I notice the article has it wrong. (We only capitalize a title when we are referring to the person, as in "Hello, President Obama" but not when referring to the occupation "I greeted the president".) See WP:JOBTITLES (I had to consult it just now myself).

This section done. I was also confused about what the physical changes could be in addition to the security cameras, but the article doesn't clarify this. Have a look at how i've reworded it accordingly. Freikorp (talk) 00:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arrest and trial section:

"He left his firearm inside the vehicle"; Does that mean he had abandoned his vehicle? The text should have said.
"in regards to" → "regarding" or "with regard to"
"although he was not suspected of shooting the White House at that time" → "although he still was not suspected of shooting the White House at that time"; again, may help the reader feel an emotion.
" at that time. Around the same time"; redundant "time"
"On November 16 he was arrested in a hotel in Indiana, Pennsylvania, after" → "On November 16, he was arrested in a hotel in Indiana, Pennsylvania after"; move one comma.
"antichrist" → "Antichrist" (since he said "the Antichrist") although I notice the source has it wrong.
Please change the source URL with title " White House shooting suspect called Obama 'the anti-Christ'" to the following URL, as I notice the website redirects: "http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2011-11-17/obama-assassination-attempt/51271096/1"
Good images, Infobox, See also, portal bar, categories, Checklinks, Dablinks, Reflinks.

This section all done. Freikorp (talk) 00:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A few more:

Please see new notes above.
Background section: "inclusion" → "including"
"Ortega-Hernandez arrived in Washington on November 9"; new paragraph break immediately before
"After someone called and reported a man behaving suspiciously in a local park, police questioned him on the morning of the shooting. Ortega-Hernandez refused to let police search his car." → "The morning of the shooting, he was reported for suspicious behavior in a local park. Police questioned him, but he refused to let police search his car."
Shooting and response section: "On November 11" → "On November 11,"
"according to USA Today"; I don't think we need this, unless it was the only source that said so and if you feel it is important, otherwise it interrupts the action for no good reason
"Three years later, in September 2014" → "Three years later, in September 2014,"
"A Secret Service agent who asked to remain anonymous" → "An agent who asked to remain anonymous"; I think the second way is better because it helps imply that the "agent" is going against the previous statement of "the Secret Service"
"A former Secret Service agent" → "A former agent"; same thing
"stated that the agency" → "stated that the Secret Service"; same thing and should help a bit
"security breachers" → "security breaches"
"an agent was unwilling to doubt the assertion that shots had not been fired"; this is a double-negative Gordian knot, can you please fit it?
"feel more comfortable, apparently, from what I’m hearing, coming to members" → "feel more comfortable ... coming to members"
"Pierson resigned from her position on October 1; the 2011 shooting was cited as one of the controversies leading to the resignation" → "As a result of the the 2011 shooting and other controversies, Pierson resigned from her position on October 1, 2014."; Helps the section end with a resounding chord.

Good job expanding this article! Enjoy expanding it a bit more and fixing all of the above. Let me know what you think. I'll provide the ratings in the criteria list soon. Prhartcom (talk) 20:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Prhartcom: I think i've addressed everything that is required. Thanks a lot for your review. Freikorp (talk) 05:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See additional review above; it's looking really good Freikorp; you are a pleasure to work with. Prhartcom (talk) 15:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Prhartcom: I think I got everything again. I found expanding the first lead paragraph to accommodate a mention of Sullivan to be a bit tricky. Freikorp (talk) 11:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You were not kidding. As you also discovered, I found that writing the mention of the former director causes a realization that several other things needed mentioning as well. I managed to improve it, reaching several internal versions of before I settled on what you see in the article now. I also realized that Leonnig's September 2014 Washington Post article was no mere news story, rather, it was investigative journalism and it set many events into motion. (I also noticed with amusement that we were citing the Post article everywhere except where it was deliberately mentioned.) If my assertions are not correct please let me know. Please check my changes and see if I did anything incorrectly and to see if everything meets your approval. I believe these changes we are making have improved the article dramatically.

I also re-read the article and found several more things that needed copy editing. I have noted every fix and improvement you have made, but I saw that you hadn't fixed one typo that I had pointed out. Rather than hound you about these remaining issues, I went ahead and fixed them, but I would appreciate your inspection of all my changes to see if you agree. Please re-read the entire article yourself with a very critical eye and make any further changes if necessary.

I am impressed with this article and with your ability to write it and to endure my review (you have given me no push back at all). I actually think that this article is now far beyond GA quality; it could be FA quality by now. I recommend you check the FA criteria, and if you see the article meeting the criteria, consider submitting it for FA.

After you reply below that you approve of my changes, I will promote the article to GA. Prhartcom (talk) 17:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I reworded one sentence I thought was awkward (feel free to discuss or modify) though otherwise i'm very happy with your changes. Even though I always cringe a bit when I see a GA review is extremely thorough it does make the article a lot better, so thanks again; the article is much better for it. I currently have an article at FAC, and have already chosen my next FAC (which is currently waiting for a peer review, see here, just throwing it out there i'm happy to trade a review of anything you have nominated for a peer review of that article) but i'll consider nominating this article for FAC after those two are ether passed or closed. Great working with you too. Freikorp (talk) 03:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I liked that Final Fantasy movie. I don't know the Australian movie; let me take a look at it. Glad you see you have a lot of work in the pipeline. I do too, and I would be happy to trade with you; I have one comic (here), one video game (here), two albums (here and here), and one economics and business article (here) waiting for GA at the moment.

This article has passed GA. (P.S. I wish you would now archive the web refs; it's very easy work and it pays respect to future readers.) Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 04:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Prhartcom: I tried to archive all the URLs. Four of them wouldn't work, they either timed out of strangely redirected themselves to another page at the website (in one case the page for all the comments on the article). I'll review your video game article in exchange for a peer review of the Australian film. If you review either (or both) of my two current GA nominations (Sarah Kerrigan and Resident Evil 5) i'll review another one (or two) of yours in return. :) Freikorp (talk) 06:05, 26 January 2015 (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.