Talk:Trollhättan school stabbing/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: PARAKANYAA (talk · contribs) 01:21, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I'll review this. I fixed one blatant citation problem just now. May take me a few days. From a preliminary look I'm a bit worried about the phrasing/breadth of coverage in this article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:21, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

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.	Significant issues relating to grammar: not unfixable, though. For example there are punctuation/flow issues just in the lead.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	No big issues.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	No big issues.
	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).	Most sources seem good, but I have questions about the reliability of Ekurd Daily and Rudaw, Though they aren't listed explicitly as unreliable or dubious sources anywhere I can see, and the articles seem solid, so they might be fine. I didn't check this completely (in light of the other issues), but there are a few issues here. The statement about the teacher dying several weeks later (and his actions) needs a citation The last statement in the article, about Eslov, needs a citation The whole background section needs more citations, could be expanded
	2c. it contains no original research.	From a cursory look, not an issue, though I didn't look too deep into it given the more pressing issues.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Significant issues (78% similarity) found from Earwig [[1]]. I am an idiot and did not use the "from page links" part of Earwig. I think this is plagiarizing 'from' Wiki, oops. From page is completely fine
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	From a cursory overview there seems to be quite a lot of relevant information in this article that could be included, that isn't. From checking the Swedish article there appears to be more information (from the book that is mentioned in the article) that is left out. Generally whatever the contents of the book are would be highly useful in expanding this article - though it likely would be difficult if you are not Swedish. I also managed to find an English language study that contains significant information on the perpetrator and the attack at large, some of which is relevant enough to be in the article. This is from a cursory search, so there may be more information. Overall it seems like this article needs to be expanded, which is probably an issue not easily fixable in this review.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No big issues.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No big issues.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No big issues.
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.	Adequate rationale provided - though I have questions over if it fulfills the biographical part, it seems fine to me.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The mask seems to be a big part of the coverage of the event, seems relevant. Maybe it should be placed in the perpetrator section, but that's just a suggestion.
	7. Overall assessment.	Not ready for GA status without significant work on the scope that exceeds the scope of this review.