Talk:Assault of Ermyas Mulugeta

GA Review

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

Nominator: Mujinga (talk · contribs) 13:45, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Reviewer: Grnrchst (talk · contribs) 11:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Noticed this was at the top of the World history GAN list, so thought I'd give it a review. @Mujinga: Hope you've been doing well! Good to see you again. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

how do thanks for taking this on - i have internet woes currrently, so won't be able to get to this until next week, hope that's ok! Mujinga (talk) 15:54, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

i've left some replies and will go away and look at the sources again! Mujinga (talk) 22:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

@Grnrchst I'm not finding much to add in terms of broadness - otherwise answered/queried where necessary. Hope your week going well! Mujinga (talk) 10:01, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Hey! Apologies for the lack of response. My computer suffered some physical damage a few days ago, so is being repaired. Week has been busy even aside from this. I promise I´ll give this another look before the end of the week. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

oww dear that sounds more worrying than my internet issues! hope it resolves, I'm really not in a hurry on this so if it's next week that's fine by me. cheers! Mujinga (talk) 15:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

It's not great, will end up being quite expensive. In any case, I'm using a workable (if noisy) substitute for smaller bits of work, so I can finish off this review. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

One last check before tying this review up. Are there any images that we could possibly add into the article? Even a low-res fair use image would go a long way. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Comments

Assault

• Spotcheck: [1] Verified. Article published in 2019 said he was 50 at the time. Other sources says he was 37 at the time of the attack in 2006.
• Spotcheck: [1] Verified.
• Might be worth providing an interlanguage link to Bornim.

   Done Mujinga (talk) 22:12, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

• Spotcheck: [2] Verified.
• Consider linking to German nationality law.
• If there's more detail that can be added about his biography before the assault, then it may be worth splitting the biographical information into its own section.

  not sure if there is, it was its own section, changed by AirshipJungleman29 in this edit. I'm easy either way. Mujinga (talk) 22:15, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

  haven't found more infos Mujinga (talk) 08:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

• Spotcheck: [3][4] Seems like the details of this are partially verified by each of the two citations. Consider moving them each inline with the specific information they're verifying, just to make verification easier. Parts of this are also verified by [2].
• Consider adding a direct link to the cited source

  I'm not sure if that's a legit hoster or not? Mujinga (talk) 22:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

  Ah no, that was a mirror, my bad. Here is the pdf on the official website. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• Spotcheck: [5] Verified.
• "the victim" Any reason we're not using his name here?

  no just to mix it up but it perhaps introduces ambiguity, so changed to Mulugeta Mujinga (talk) 22:12, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

• Spotcheck: [2] Verified. Might be worth mentioning that the police offered a reward for information about the perpetrators, which led to their arrest.

  since the arrests followed quickly and the reward wasn't claimed, it doesn't seem necessary to me to mention Mujinga (talk) 08:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

• Might be worth putting "racially motivated attempted murder" in quotes?

  not seeing the need, I wouldn't put GBH in quotes, or maybe i misunderstood Mujinga (talk) 08:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

• Spotcheck: [5][6] Verified.
• "apparent racial element of the attack" Hrm, this reads a bit odd to me. My instinct would be to say "apparent racist motivation for the attack". This is backed up by the cited source.

  sure! Mujinga (talk) 22:12, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

• Spotcheck: [1] Verified.
• As you're translating "heinous crime" from the German source, you should probably put the German original in brackets ("abscheuliche Verbrechen").

  nice point, thanks! Mujinga (talk) 22:15, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

• Spotcheck: [7][1] These specific quotes are verified by [7], but not by [1]. The second source does mention Schäuble and Schönbohm downplaying the attack and questioning its racist motivation, but it uses different quotes and mentions Hubertus Heil and the Central Council's condemnations of their remarks.
• Spotcheck: [8] Verified. This also includes further remarks from Schönbohm and more reactions to his comments.

Trial and aftermath

• Spotcheck: [5] Verified.
• "Giving evidence," Maybe "While giving evidence,"?

  sure Mujinga (talk) 22:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

• Spotcheck: [7] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [2][5] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [6] Verified.
• "this is a classic case of the principle: when in doubt, give the accused the benefit of the doubt" Another case where the German original may need to be provided, as you're quoting a German language source.

  added in ref Mujinga (talk) 10:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

• Spotcheck: [10] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [1] Verified.

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This is a relatively short article, but it packs in a lot of information and gives a very good overview of the case.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   All good on the prose front. I only had extremely minor comments.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Appears to comply with the manual of style, on all counts.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   All references are properly laid out.

   B. 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):

   All sources are cited inline. Only one case where they could be brought a bit more inline, but it's a minor issue.

   C. It contains no original research:

   Every spotcheck verified the information. No apparent OR here.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   No issues observed with copyvio, either in my own spotchecks or with Earwig.[1]

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   In my spotchecks, I've gotten the feeling that there are bits of information that would be helpful to add, that aren't currently included. Do consider giving the sources another look over and adding in any information that you think is relevant. I found some extra English language sources that may be worth looking at: [2][3][4][5] And there's more on Google Scholar as well: [6]

- happy to do another sweep and have a look at the sources you kindly suggest - i did another sweep in february so it'd be worth doing again Mujinga (talk) 22:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC) -- not really seeing anything to add here - i've used the bruce-jones book elsewhere but it seems this case get mentioned in basic detail quite a lot but always the same details Mujinga (talk) 08:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

1. B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   Very focused. As above, I think if anything, it could do with a bit more detail.

2. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   Exceptionally neutral for such an emotive subject.

3. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   No major changes since the GA nomination was created. No reverts in entire article history.

4. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

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

   No images included.

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

   No images included. Is there anything in the public domain that we could include? Or an image that's perhaps covered by fair use?

5. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I learnt a lot reading this article, as I hadn't even heard of this case before coming across this. It is stellar on the fronts of prose, verifiability, neutrality and stability. Aside from my comments, I think the only thing that's holding this back from a quick-pass is broadness (3a). While reading the sources, I was left wondering if there was more that we could be including. I'd advise the nominator to give them another look over, and maybe check some other sources, to see if there's anything else worth adding in. Ping me once you think you've addressed my comments, and I'll be happy to give this another look. All the best. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)