Talk:1984 New York City Subway shooting/GA1

GA Review

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: Freedom4U (talk · contribs) 17:51, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I will be doing this review over the next few days. :3 F4U (they/it) 17:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   One instance needs a page number.

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   New York Post and Malcolm Gladwell book needs to be swapped out.

   c. (OR):

   See commments below

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

   No signs of copyright infringement/plagiarism found during my spot check and earwig doesn't turn up anything of note, except that this article relies way too heavily on quotations. All of which need to be paraphrased/cut dramatically down.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   A few bits and bobs need to be incorporated, but generally it fits this requirement.

   b. (focused):

   A few minor details are included that don't really seem to have any importance to the topic at hand.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   So far appears to be the case.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Will take a look later.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   No media, no media found with a readily acceptable license.

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Not applicable

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

General comments/First round

• I haven't gotten through most of the article yet, but I do want to write down some of the things I noticed on first glance.
• You've got some massive unnecessary quotes in the article that at the moment go against WP:OVERQUOTING (Overuse happens when: a quotation is used without pertinence: it is presented visually on the page but its relevance is not explained anywhere; quotations are used to explain a point that can be paraphrased; the quotations dominate the article or section., all three of which are present here) In particular, the long quote in Subsequent developments comes from a primary source (his campaign website) and its relevance isn't demonstrated. I think all of the information that is currently presented through the quotes can easily be paraphrased into the article without quotes.

• If you decide to keep the quotes, but shorten them (I'd advise against it), do remove the ellipses with spaces in between the dots ( . . . ) for ....

• The Part of mass shootings in the United States and the article being in the mass shooting categories doesn't make sense to me. Mass shootings are generally indiscriminate killings, which isn't what happened here.
• "Civil rights" is linked twice.
• There are two [citation needed] tags that need to be addressed. The New York Post is also a depreciated source per Wikipedia:RSPS so a different citation needs to be found for that sentence.
• In popular culture also needs in-line citations, for the entries that currently lack any. And I feel like the entry on the Joker is going into a bit too much depth.
• Maintain consistency on whether or not to capitalize Black/White. I would favor capitalization, as the article uses Hispanic once.

Background

• By this time, the family had relocated to Orlando, Florida; Goetz joined them and worked at his father's residential development business. Awkwardly phrased. Let me know if you need me to elaborate.
• Goetz struggled with one of the teens until police arrived, and the alleged attacker claimed that Goetz had, in fact, assaulted him. The first part of the sentence phrases it like fact, while the second half phrases it like an allegation
• denied for insufficient need Awkwardly phrased. Let me know if you need me to elaborate.
• There has to be a better way to incorporate this information without the Goetz had previously used racist language: Myra Friedman...

Subsequent developments

• ...with Rudy Giuliani emphasizing reduction in crime as mayor Not stated in source, looks like WP:OR
• Barry Allen being arrested is cited to what's essentially a police blotter entry. I don't think its relevant to the article.

General comments/Second round

• Do audiotaped and videotaped really need to be wikilinked? Also don't wikilink screwdriver.
• It needs to be made clearer that He bought a 5-shot .38-caliber revolver during a trip to Florida. is the gun he used.
• Unsure about why Goetz called New York City "lawless" and expressed contempt for its justice system, calling it a "joke", a "sham", and "a disgrace". is included. The source its cited to is dead, but I'm AGF that it does state that.
• Drew wide support should be elaborated on. This article includes a few pieces of information that could be incorporated. A New York Times survey conducted shortly after the shootings found that 52% of New Yorkers overall — including 56% of whites and 45% of black respondents — believed Goetz’s response was justified.

• Also there is a lot of good secondary sourcing on this topic. Sections like Goetz replied, "My intention was to murder them, to hurt them, to make them suffer as much as possible." should be cited to the Time magazine article, rather than the original New York Times interview when possible.

• The lede of the article should explicitly state that the shooting victims survived.
• I think this article is in desperate need of some sort of picture. Since the Goetz is still alive, at least a picture of the crime scene could be uploaded and added through WP:FAIRUSE.

Incident

• Allen had previously pleaded guilty to breaking into a video-game machine, and each of the teenagers had been previously arrested or convicted of various charges. doesn't make sense in the incident section. The incident section should really give a play-by-play of what happened, not background information to the event.
• Troy Canty approached Goetz and made some overture for money: According to Canty, he said, "Can I have $5?" The Britannica article on this event states that The incident began when Canty asked how Goetz was doing. Goetz interpreted the inquiry as a prelude to a mugging. Is there a reason this isn't in the article?

Cabey v. Goetz

• United States Bankruptcy Court wikilinks to the general concept of the US bankruptcy court.

Goetz's defamation claims

• The suit was dismissed. Passive/active doesn't mean much for Wikipedia, but in this scenario it would make much more sense to make it active. It wasn't something that just happened, the judge decided it.
• Amongst other claims, Goetz objected to the book's description of him as a "paranoid" "murderous vigilante" who had "developed a hatred for blacks." Is cited to a primary source and doesn't appear WP:DUE

Subsequent developments

• Troy Canty acquired a criminal record of petty offenses before entering drug-rehabilitation and vocational-training programs. Article states that criminal record (of fare evasion and "stealing $14 from a video game" (whatever that means)) were before the shooting.
• In 2017, Greenfield blogged that he had lost touch with Canty. Primary source
• In 2010, Goetz was interviewed and did a dry fire shooting demonstration on the inaugural episode of The Biography Channel's documentary show Aftermath with William Shatner. is cited to a primary source and the other is IMDB. Sourcing should be improved or the sentence removed.

Spot check

I'm not done reviewing yet, but I'm gonna do a spot-check on the references...of the few things I've picked up there's been several issues regarding sourcing.

13 randomly selected references of 124

6. New York Times article. All good.

9. New York Times article. All good.

23. Failed verification. The source states The judge kept this information from the jury presumably because he thought its risk of undue prejudice substantially outweighed its probative value.

26. Interview with Goetz. All good for uncontroversial material.

27. All good. Mentions Canty being the one to approach.

• The article also states By Goetz’s own admission, he replied, "Sure, I have dollars for each of you." He then fired five shots in rapid succession.

30. New York Times article. It states assaulted four years ago, rather than mugged. Is there a better source for this? (One that's more recent?)

• The article should include from the article that it was this call that led him to be wanted by the New York City police for questioning

68. New York Times article. Failed verification. The source calls him a bilious aggressor but no mention of race. This whole section is talking about a particularly important court case. There should be better sourcing out there than news reports that came out as it happened.

87. Opinion article, unclear what is being used for. It appears that its WP:OR trying to back up that support for Goetz wasn't universal, which it never was in the first place. See what I mentioned wrt opinion polling on this case. Support for Goetz, immediately after the shooting, was a pretty slim majority.

91. medical evidence introduced at trial showed that he had been shot only once, in the left side. While the correction issued by The Times does state that he had been shot only once, it makes nothing with regards to anything else in that statement.

93. Can't access as a result of EU GDPR. I'll take a look at 94 instead.

94. All good. Mentions the screwdrivers.

106. This was a 1996 interview. He also answers possibly yes which isn't the same as admitting something.

109. Neither citation 108 or 109 mentions the 194/210 figure. I would also advise against paraphrasing "least crime" into safest.

118. Ooooof Malcolm Gladwell....I'm not gonna check the source since this is a pretty uncontroversial claim, but I'd consider replacing that with a different source. Gladwell's been known for publishing books that oversimplify cases and feature less than accurate results.

Five of the thirteen sources here don't line up with what is said, which is not a very good rate. I'd recommend you go through the article line-by-line and verify any statements that haven't been directly added by you. No signs of copy-vio or too close paraphrasing, outside of the way too many quotes in the article.

Responses

Thanks for all the feedback! And sorry for the delay—I somehow didn't catch that the talk page had been edited. I'm making a few of the changes you suggested now! I'm also happy to report that a few of the points you make seem to resolve some disagreements on the page, so I appreciate you being a tie-breaking vote (including on the overquoting and incident section details).

General comments

I didn't add the mass shootings category, although I'm not sure if mass shooting are inherently indiscriminate (I'd actually lean towards saying that they're not? I'm not sure if this event qualifies as a mass shooting, but I can, off the top of my head, think of a few mass shootings in which the victims were targeted—either on an individual or group level).

As to the quotes, I tend to think that at least two of the three Goetz quotes shouldn't be in the article or should be dramatically reduced—the quotation he gave to Friedman and the quotation from his campaign website. Editors on this page previously disagreed as to the campaign website quotation, with the editor supporting that quotation saying, "[I]t[']s a significant source with the most detailed description of the shooting." As a compromise, that quotation was moved from the incident section to the aftermath section, but I'm certainly okay further reducing or even eliminating it (unless of course you agree that the level of detail inherently makes its detail relevant). I do think the FBI quotation and the Kirk Johnson quotation should remain—the FBI quotation because lines from it became famous after the fact, and the Johnson quotation just because I think it very accurately sums up the key issue at the trial.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 14:55, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

• I'm gonna be honest, the whole campaign website quote feels completely unnecessary and the editor's reasoning is unpersuasive. It needs to be cut down or paraphrased in some way. Right now earwig's giving me three alarm bells simply because of the number of quotes on this article. Sure, I support your reasoning for the FBI quote, but it's not the entire quote that's notable. Most of it should be paraphrased down except for a few key portions really. :3 F4U (they/it) 16:33, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Agree on the picture—I have no familiarity with uploading pictures but I will look into that.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 14:55, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

• No need for the GA status itself, but I'll probably upload one tonight. :3 F4U (they/it) 16:33, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Background

• The "insufficient need" quotation is basically verbatim from the article (free version) Here's the relevant quotation: "Later that year, Goetz applied for a pistol permit. Although he cited the fact that he routinely carried large sums of cash and valuable equipment, his application was rejected on grounds of insufficient need. Goetz was bitter. On a subsequent trip to his family's Florida home, he bought a nickel-plated, lightweight Smith & Wesson .38-cal. revolver." I wasn't the one who added this article or claim to the article, so I'm not too familiar with it, but I'll look for a more detailed source.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 14:54, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

General comments

• Hardest issue has been the poll you mentioned. The state of the article before I started working on it, and almost every reliable source I've found since, talked about how Goetz received nearly unanimous early support until the transcript was released—even sources critical of that support. (In fact, before I worked on it, the article strongly seemed to suggest that the second indictment was attributable to the switch in public opinion, but I deleted that since I couldn't find sources confirming it.) But the polls conducted don't really bear that out; even Morgenthau's comment—that he, post transcript release, his office was "still" getting letters "3 to 1" in Goetz's favor—is a little confusing if only 52% of the city supported Goetz prior to that transcript. I'll do more research.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 14:54, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
  • My idea, which is completely hypothesizing, is that potentially it could be like 52% justified; 20% don't know; 28% unjustified? Obviously we need secondary sourcing on public opinion here, but I don't necessarily think 52% support is necessarily incompatible with the statement of wide support. :3 F4U (they/it) 16:33, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
    • So, plenty of sources describe Goetz as having received "wide support" from the public in the early going. But that support was never universal, although certainly a logical connection, I couldn't find any sources directly attributing a split in support to the FBI investigation excerpts being released (that connection was in the article before I began working on it—I'm not totally sure where it came from). Additionally, based on the polls I did find—Goetz's support largely held up, except for among African Americans (to be clear: that's not my synth of the sources—that's directly stated by the UPI source I added). As such, I've removed mention of that connection and toned down the language on the early support Goetz received.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 14:54, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Incident section

• Issues resolved except for the "how you doing?" point. As I'm sure you can tell, each side has a very different version of what happened on the subway train. If I recall, Goetz might have provided the "how are you doing" quotation, but Canty did not (I could have that backwards—I'll check the famous trials website transcripts). In order to keep the incident section as straight as possible, I thought it would be best to only include undisputed facts—with a slight exception for the precise wording Canty used when making some overture for money.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 14:55, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
  • If only one party claims that, given that its still given attention by secondary sourcing, I think its significant enough to include -- with substantiation. :3 F4U (they/it) 16:33, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

• • • Happy to add a Britanica cite! Although I'm not seeing it in this article [1]—is there a more specific article I'm missing?--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 15:04, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Cabey v. Goetz

• I think that's the correct wiki link? The bankruptcy courts are a separate set of courts in the U.S. system—they're Article I courts rather than Article III courts—and I don't think any particular bankruptcy court is notable enough to have its own article (I could be wrong!)
  • Ohhhhh, I get what you were trying to do there. In that case, bankrupty court should be lowercase. I was reading it as a proper noun because it was capitalized. :3 F4U (they/it) 16:33, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
    • Fixed!--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 16:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Goetz's defamation claims

• Admittedly, legal issues are my expertise, so this is somewhat embarrassing, but I could not find much on this first defamation claim; the reason that the sentence is in passive tense is because I couldn't find the name of the judge who oversaw the case (even the source only says "a judge"). (Also, "the suit was dismissed" is fairly common in legal writing, though I'm not sure if that translates to encyclopedic language.)--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 14:55, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Alright, that was a minor gripe, and definitely outside GA criteria. Looks good then. :3 F4U (they/it) 16:33, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
• As to the second sentence, given that those claims were the claims that were highlighted in the judicial opinion, I figured it was fair game to highlight them. I'm also not sure if that reference is serving as a primary source—it's a judicial opinion, true, but it's commenting on the Complaint that Goetz filed.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 14:55, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
  • See comment below for this. And court cases are generally considered primary sources, you would need some sort of secondary source, newspaper or journal article, discussing the case to show significance. :3 F4U (they/it) 16:33, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
    • I'd definitely agree that the judicial opinion would be a concern if the sentence it was being cited for was, itself, commenting on the content of the judicial opinion. (I.e. "a court dismissed the suit"[citation to judicial opinion]). But here, the court is commenting on Goetz's complaint. And, unfortunately, there are only a few true secondary sources on the defamation complaint—though each of those quotations mentioned is in the UPI article, which I'll add as a reference at the end of the sentence in question. Therefore, the only portion of the sentence that's being directly supported by the court opinion is the fact that Goetz objected to those statements, which I think meets the requirements for WP:PRIMARY--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 16:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Subsequent developments

• Fixed except for the Greenfield source. Does Wikipedia policy indicate primary sources should never be relied on, or simply that secondary sources should be preferred where possible. I can't find any second source reporting on Greenfield's blog.
  • Primary sources can be relied upon for uncontroversial and factual information (date of birth, for example), but the thing with primary sources is that things attributed to them are generally outside of the scope of the article. If secondary sources aren't covering the fact that they lost contact, 99 of 100 times, that means that information is unimportant to the article. :3 F4U (they/it) 16:33, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
    • Fair enough! Removed!--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 16:45, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Reply

• I've gone through and replied to some of your notes-- I'll go through the article again sometime tonight or tomorrow. It's looking good though! 👍👍 :3 F4U (they/it) 16:33, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

• • Awesome—I'm taking a break till tomorrow as well. Also—apologies if you meant for me to reply directly under your comments above; taking that approach from here on.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 16:51, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Source issues

• Footnote 23
  • I have to take full credit for the failed verification on 23—I think I added "hearsay" long after I added the sentence and source without double checking—and, looking back, I got Friedman's testimony confused with Amanda Gilbert's.
• Footnote 68 (now 66)
  • This footnote was only meant to support the sentence it was attached to—I've added a fact tag to the prior sentence.
• Footnote 106 (now 104)
  • Fixed!
• Footnotes 108/109 (now 106/107)
  • I suspect the same is true here as per FN 68. While I didn't add those footnotes, I know my practice is to add reference tags at the end of every sentence, such that each reference supports only that sentence. As such, I think the problem here is really missing fact tags, which, fortunately, is fairly easy to handle—I'll go through the article and add fact tags to any sentence that isn't sourced. In this case, I just deleted the sentence, since I don't think it added much to the article.
• Footnote 87 (now 85)
  • I think footnote 87 (now 85) was meant to show how the release of the FBI transcript (including the "You don't look so bad" quotation) impacted the view of Goetz.

For what it's worth, while I am the one who added the Malcolm Gladwell source, I only did so begrudgingly, and I have the same thoughts as you on Malcolm Gladwell generally. (Also, just to note—it's a WaPo article being cited, not one of his books.)

--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 15:10, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

• @Jerome Frank Disciple: Also, just to note—it's a WaPo article being cited, not one of his books. 116 cites The Tipping Point? There's two citations to Gladwell in the article FYI. The rest look good. :3 F4U (they/it) 16:36, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Shoot, I missed that one! I don't have a copy of the Tipping Point or any Gladwell book, so I can't even verify that. That has been replaced.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 16:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Section break

@Freedom4U: I added the table below so I could better keep track of all the to-do list items—with your comments / my responses I was afraid I might lose track. Two things I think we haven't discussed above:

• The "struggled with" sentence. I'm not sure I see the issue: It was undisputed that Goetz struggled with a teenager before the police showed up. I was hesitant to claim that the very person Goetz struggled with was an attacker, since it didn't seem to me that the source went that far—according to the Times source (cited the sentence prior), a police spokesperson said Goetz was mugged, but that the case went to mediation and she didn't know the outcome. Not sure what to do with that.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 14:53, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

• I've tried editing that section myself. Is there anything that discusses what is disputed and by whom? :3 F4U (they/it) 15:53, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  Sadly not that I can find. It seems like ( understandably), the incident wasn't reported at the time, so all we have is the statement from the police spokesperson and Goetz's various statements.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 19:32, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

• The pop-culture section. I've never worked on a section like this, and I'm a bit apprehensive about it. Specifically, I have some notability concerns. Usually, when I see pop-culture sections on Wikipedia, they're just lists of mere references to the subject supported by, if anything, primary sources—a television episode that's supported by a citation to that television episode—or, at best, weak tertiary sources—a song that's supported by a citation to a Genius lyrics page. Here, the Joker connection (which, per your request, I shortened) stands out as being supported by strong reliable sources, but that's about it. Can you help me understand what should be in this type of section? For example, if I find a review of a tv episode that mentions Goetz, is that sufficient? Do you think lyric pages are sufficient? Or, assuming I can't find true reliable sources discussing the significance of a connection between the works provided and the subject, should the Joker connection be the only thing mentioned?

Thanks!--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 14:53, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Passing mentions and brief references generally shouldn't be included (unless notable for some other reason, such as Goetz expressing displeasure at the reference). As well, unless the references can be verified in secondary sources, they are likely to not be notable. :3 F4U (they/it) 15:38, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Sounds great! Unrelated: I have uploaded an image of Goetz, but, given my complete unfamiliarity with free use and Wikipedia's image policies in general, I'm hesitant to confidently say that it will be accepted by whatever patroller/administrator ultimately checks it. Nonetheless, I've added the image the article. Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 15:44, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Oof the reason I suggested a picture of the crime scene is that pictures of living persons are pretty much never acceptable for non-free use on Wikipedia (under the rationale that if the person is still alive, its still possible to obtain a free image). That image will probably have to go through deletion. Again the image isn't necessary for GA, I just thought it would be a nice improvement! :3 F4U (they/it) 15:51, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Shoot I completely blanked on that—I'll add an image of the scene now!--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 15:58, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Table for Keeping Track

Issue / Efforts at Resolving	Complete	Incomplete	Further Guidance Requested	Resolution confirmed by F4U
General
Category		x	x
Overquoting	x
Picture	x
Civil rights double linked	x
Race capitalization consistency	x
Lede
Mention survival.	x
Shooter
Relocation sentence awkward.	x
Struggle sentence fact / allegation.	x
"denied for insufficient need"		x	x
Gun clarity	x
Incident
"Lawless" quote should be removed	x
Remove Allen's prior conviction.	x
Add "how are you doing?" quotation.	x
Public reaction / Intersection with race
Elaborate on "wide support"	x
Screwdrivers link	x
Legal aftermath
Fix bankruptcy court capitalization	x
Source for Goetz's defamation claims	x
Subsequent developments
Troy Canty convictions predated shooting.	x
Remove Greenfield "lost touch" sentence.	x
Remove/improve Shatner appearance.	x
Giuliani claim unsupported.	x
Barry Allen sourcing	x
Replace NY Post.	x
Replace Tipping Point.	x
In pop culture
Citations	x

Comments

• Barry Allen looks good.
• Defamation claims looks good with the addition of the secondary source.
• Re: Britannica - The article states The incident began when Canty asked how Goetz was doing.
• Re: Categories - Per WP:CATV, Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories. Unless there are secondary sources discussing this shooting as a 'mass shooting' (and those sources are incorporated into the article), the article does not belong in the category.

First round, I'll respond to some of the other parts later. :3 F4U (they/it) 16:03, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Whoops, I was looking for a direct quote in Britannica, not a paraphrase. Noted and added!--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 16:31, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Category

As to the category ... I'm not sure if "[i]t should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories" accurately translates to "[you must have] secondary sources discussing this shooting as a 'mass shooting'". The lede in mass shootings in the United States reads: "Mass shootings are incidents involving multiple victims of firearm-related violence. Definitions vary, with no single, broadly accepted definition." Certainly there is verifiable information that this incident involved "multiple victims of firearm-related violence". This all said, I have no dog in the dispute here—I didn't add the category, and, frankly, I don't pay much attention to categories.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 16:31, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Inclusion on that basis would be original research/synthesis. :3 F4U (they/it) 16:36, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree there might be a synth issue there. I've double checked at the the CATV talk page (discussion linked), just because something seems off about having a stiff SYNTH application to categories to me, but I could very well be wrong! (Saying that an article should have a "clear indication for inclusion" almost seems to invite synthesis, at least on my read.)--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 17:14, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I've figured out why "denied for insufficient need" felt awkward to me, which was that it was a bad attempt at covering up too-close paraphrasing of the Time magazine article

Compare Goetz subsequently applied for a permit to carry a concealed handgun, on the basis of routinely carrying valuable equipment and large sums of cash, but his application was denied for insufficient need (The article) to Although he cited the fact that he routinely carried large sums of cash and valuable equipment, his application was rejected on grounds of insufficient need. (TIME)

I've gone ahead and updated the article per "gun clarity" and the bit over "struggle", feel free to alter/revert my edits. I still find that everything in the article between Goetz told police that he felt... to something that had been speculated on by the press. relies too heavily on quotes from Goetz. The amount of quotation there needs to be trimmed. :3 F4U (they/it) 05:04, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

@Freedom4U: Sorry—somehow missed this and only noticed your vote below. Just finished editing that section—I removed the cquote template and heavily trimmed the quotation within it (taking out Goetz's description of the first four shots). I kept the "You don't look so bad" sentence, given the amount of media attention that received.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 13:05, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Good job on all your work on the article and I'm willing to pass it now. The category stuff will sort itself out and the article fulfils all of the GA criteria. :3 F4U (they/it) 19:07, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

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.