Talk:Danzig Street shooting/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Barkeep49 (talk · contribs) 23:38, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Criterion

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): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Review Comments

Lead

These comments are being made off of the text on proposed lead on the talk page

• The first sentence is perhaps a bit longer than strictly necessary but probably OK with MOS:FIRST
  • If needed it breaks pretty naturally at "that".
    • When I was mulling this, that was the clear division point. The LEAD is one of the places where it's important to hold the line on reviews. Ultimately I decided it's OK which means it doesn't need to be changed (but could be split).
• "Some of these youths held an open-invitation free-alcohol block party at a social-housing complex.[7]" Think this is misleading given that the blocko was organized by non-gang residents and it was only "after" that portion of the party that the gang took control
  • Good point. Also, do you think the second paragraph gives a good enough lead-in to the subject of youth violence? I was wondering if the raising of this subject might be unclear until the third paragraph when it's explained that the perpetrators were teenagers.
    • That's a good point. Maybe including Owusu's and Tsegazab's ages at the time of the attack in the first paragraph?
      • Added their ages; it's a little busy but I think it works.

• • How about: Some of these youths held a free-alcohol party following a childrens' barbecue at a social housing complex. (Will change the next sentence's "following" to "after".)
    • I think that works.
• "Although initially believed to be the resumption of a 2003 gang war between the Galloway Boys and the Malvern Crew" only needs one citation. Frankly I'm not sure I agree with Wing about which sentences need citations per WP:LEADCITE but regardless if this sentence is going to have a citation it can be supported by a single source (the multiple sources are great in the body).
  • I absolutely agree.
• I think the Toronto Star article alone sources "it later became clear that the Danzig Street shooting..."
  • I believe that's "PoissonWar" which is the one source I cited for the sentence in the original write-up.
    • Yes. I missed that was a point of disagreement. Despite having read it all the way through twice I won't pretend to have deeply absorbed all the points that passed in the rewriting of the LEAD.
• Suggest you have 1 sentence to summarize the investigation to reflect the weight in the article given to that topic.
  • Okay, so just before The four young men how about: "Police initially received few tips from frightened witnesses but were able to make two arrests that month; two additional arrests came following a reprisal shooting in September." (May swap retaliation/reprisal with the previous sentence.)
    • Works either way.
• Suggest "Despite falling national crime rates a poll taken the following week showed that a majority of Canadians were in fear of "a violent crime wave".
  • Good idea. I'll wait for responses before updating the article lead with the 5th writeup proposal modified as per discussion. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:49, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Think you should have my full set of responses. Let me know if you have any questions. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:55, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
• I am not asking you to change it but for the record if I'd been doing the WP:3PO I'd have nixed the Aurora shooting reference as not being pertinent to the lead. I actually do think you need all three sources for the "renewed debate" clause.

Background

*In topic sentence should it be are, were, or were in 2011 describing notoriousness of the Galloway gang?

• • I'm changing are → were. Of the two references, "DoucetteGalloway" says they were notorious before the gang was dismantled in 2004. But the gang still existed in jail, where they continued to be violent and keep up their reputation, per "TorstarFight". Another source, "NationalGalloway", describes them as being notorious at the time it was written (2012). Almost six years later, I think "were" would be better, and the article goes on to describe the peaks of their power (and resultant crackdowns) in 2004 and 2012.

*Source for "dramatic" decrease in crime while leadership was locked away?

• • Source is the same as for the sentence which follows it. Should I use the same citation for two consecutive sentences?

Nope that's fine, just making sure.

*"not afraid to use them" comes from the source but could be worded more factually to comply with [[MOS:WORDS]

• • were not afraid to use them → unreservedly used them
    • That's better but is any adverb necessary at all? If you like it I'm fine with keeping it.
      • Wow. I must have some strange tunnel vision, trying to paraphrase material instead of asking if actually necessary to the article. You're right, of course. Removed.

*"Toys and bicycles fill the tiny yards of the young families packed into the complex." is a journalistic detail not necessary for this encyclopedia article. Recommend deleting.

• • Changed → The crowded complex is home to young families with children often playing outdoors. (I understand the tone issue with the original but thought it set context to include the crowdedness, with young families and children commonly playing in the small outdoor spaces.)
    • Yeah I get what you're doing and would want to do the same in other contexts but think a Wikipedia page is different.
      • I suppose children are inherent to young families, and kids play outside in the summer. I was going to cut the last half but that leaves a short sentence, so I incorporated it into the previous sentence as: "The 101-unit townhouse social housing complex at Danzig Street and Morningside Avenue is called Morningside Coronation by TCHC and D-Block by the young families that reside there." (It's all covered by the same reference.)
        • Looks good.

Event

* "By 7 pm the crowd had grown thicker, with hip hop music blaring and alcohol flowing. An hour later there were Jaguars and Hummers parked around the block, marijuana smoke in the air, and more than 200 people packing the complex's narrow internal lane." needs MOS:WORDS editing

• • I didn't find any of those words on the words-to-watch lists. Could you be more specific? Is it blaring and flowing?
    • It is.
      • Gotcha. → "By 7 pm the crowd had grown thicker and alcohol was being consumed to loud hip hop music." That sounds more encyclopedic to me.
        • Agreed.

*"The crowd was filling in " where/when?

• • I'd hoped that was understandable from context. I don't have a specific when. That source says "late that evening" but I didn't want to use that as it seemed misleading; context from other sources indicate the G-checking had begun before 9 pm. From the earlier section, the crowd had grown thicker by 7 pm, and I take that to be about when the G-checking began. (This fits the timeline.) The where is the narrow internal lane of the complex where the blocko occurred.
    • That where is probably worth saying and is supported by the source. I'd include it.
      • The crowd was filling in → The crowd in the complex's lane was filling in

*Source for "confronted by Nahom Tsegazab, who displayed a handgun and challenged Owusu to commit to a fight if he did not leave" (also is "commit to a fight" common Canadian English? It's meaning isn't clear to me as an American).

• • Source is the same as for the sentence which follows it. Simplified: to commit to a fight → to fight

*"recklessly firing eleven rounds" isn't neutral it's the characterization of the prosecutor

• • Aha! The prosecutor was reading from "an agreed statement of facts" so I believe this is okay.
    • I missed that. I agree it's fine.

*Is the third shooter unidentified as in not found or as in name hasn't been released?

• • As in nobody knows who it was – or those who know aren't telling.

*"spray of bullets" MOS:WORDS

• • Changed: she ran into the spray of bullets from the third shooter. She collapsed and died → she ran into the line of fire of the third shooter. She was struck by several bullets and collapsed and died (A bit wordier)

*Is there a reason that those two victims are called out specially?

• Have you considered putting the list of victims into columns?
• Why is it noted for some victims where they were shot but not others?
  • The fatalities were singled out, and received by far the most media coverage (possibly more than the shooters). I noted any information (ages, where they were shot) that was reported, but except for maybe 4 of the shooting injuries only the names were reported. I felt it was important to keep a list for verification of the number of shooting injured, because this is reported differently in sources, some including the perpetrators (two of whom were shot), some including those trampled, etc. I was hoping the list would fill-in a bit, but you're right, I've added columns (at 30em).
    • So I combined some stuff into one paragraph in-line with what I wrote below about MOS:PARA. Just to be clear, Charles and Yasay are the only two that died and the other 22 bystanders and 3 people who were trampled were merely injured? If so I get why those two are singled out. I tried playing with how to edit those sentences a couple ways and don't think I increased clarity so I'm good with as is.
    • Thanks for the columns. I would ask you to consider whether listing the places of injuries for the four provides useful information or whether it unnecessarily distinguishes them from other equivalent victims. Am OK either way with that.
      • I'd like to keep it.
        • Fine by me.

Aftermath

*One sentence paragraphs are to be avoided MOS:PARA and a series of two sentence paragraphs runs counter to that section as well. I made the subsection into a single paragraph but more work is needed for main section.

• • Restructuring of Aftermath section: Moved paragraph six up and merged with the first two. The rest I would prefer to remain separate.
    • Thanks for your work here. I would suggest the two sentences that start with "On July X" could be one paragraph but don't feel strongly about this. However starting two sentences/paragraphs the same way is less than ideal. Anyway one of them could be reformulated?
      • Combined the two paragraphs and changed: On 27 July Mesquito was arrested on → Mesquito was arrested on 27 July for

*"At the time of his arrest, Mesquito was found carrying a loaded .22 calibre revolver for which he faced nine weapons-related charges." - Was he charged with 9 things or only faced them? Should reflect what he was charged with.

• • Mesquito's convictions included "possession of a firearm" and "breach of a prohibition order", which I believe are 2 of the 9 gun-related charges. He didn't have a gun at the blocko so it would have been the gun when he was arrested. He'd accepted a plea agreement so the other 7 charges were likely dropped. The source only says he "faces" the 9 charges.
  • Another source I used a lot, "PoissonWar", says "Mesquito was arrested in late July and charged with several gun offences." Will it be okay if I add that citation to the sentence and change 9 to several?
    • I'm actually fine leaving it with 9 given sourcing just make clear that's what he was charged with (as opposed to the maximum he could have been charged with).

*"Police, community workers, and the media suspected that the shooting was between members of the Galloway Boys and the Malvern Crew, having anticipated a violent clash as some senior members of the rival gangs were being released from prison." There's no doubt this is true but is it needed here given what comes before and after in the article? I suspect this was added when it was "breaking" news.

• • This is actually a huge misunderstanding about the case by all parties, and it was reported for years, aided of course by Mesquito confessing to the shooting because he thought his friends did it at his instigation. They did discount it as part of a big gang/turf war, though that was still expected to happen (there were a couple more shootings the following month) until the police surge and crackdown. It wasn't until January 2015 that police determined Mesquito wasn't one of the shooters and Malvern Crew was ruled-out for direct involvement.

*Should "There were concerns for the 4 August Caribana parade" be "There were concerns about violence during the 4 August Caribana parade"?

• • done

*Is there a reason that Omololu-Olunloyo's belief needs mentioning?

• • I suppose I just wanted to include a social worker's perspective at some point. It can be deleted.
    • If Omololu-Olunloyo would be notable to residents of that area (not necessarily Wikipedia notable) or is otherwise some recognized expert let's keep it. If he's a "run of the mill" social worker I think deleting is right way to go.
      • Removed.

Investigations and later arrests

*"Owusu received similar charges at the end of November" don't love received but can't think of better verb

• • I was trying to avoid repetitive use of "charged" while keeping it simple (plain English). How about "was arraigned with"? Is that any better?
    • It is - good thought.
      • received similar charges → was arraigned with similar charges

Convictions

*What happened to the "(Multiple charges of criminal negligence causing bodily harm were severed in a pre-trial motion.)[14]"

• • These are the charges referred to a couple sentences later In May 2017 Owusu was sentenced to four years for the criminal negligence convictions, to be served concurrently with the life sentence. I've reworded it as: "In May 2017 Owusu was found guilty of criminal negligence charges, which had been severed in a pre-trial motion, and sentenced to four years, to be served concurrently with the life sentence." Alternatively that whole sentence could be cut out as it's a fairly minor part of his overall convictions/sentencing, though in some ways that final sentencing marked the last chapter of the subject.

Effects

*Please confirm that the programs listed in Social Policy are notable (the last two paragraphs feel sort of PR-like to me).

• • I don't think the "Our Space" is notable enough for its own article, but there are four sources and I feel it's notable enough for a paragraph in this article, especially for thorough coverage. It gave targeted social aid directly to the affected community and provided opportunities to help turn things around. For this one little community, it probably had more of an effect than a $20 million province-wide action plan. And the donation specifically came because of the shooting.
  • The scholarships maybe not so notable, but it's on topic and again community-targeted. I included it for thorough coverage of the topic but I don't have a strong argument against its removal. I don't observe any tone issues. The award is called what it's called.
    • Thanks for the context. I agree Our Space is notable in the way I was using it. As for the scholarships I'm fine deferring to you as the article editor. The PR comment was more about the framing of Our Space than what follows.
      • I appreciate the due diligence. "Nigerian businessman" raises some flags.

*The Rob Ford quotes feel relevant. However the tie to his larger troubles don't fit (especially as the article linked to doesn't mention Danzig at all from my quick search). Could the appropriate context fit into Aftermath?

• • I feel the first and third paragraphs are important – his controversial appearance at the anniversary of the event. I think they were having a memorial march. I felt the middle paragraph helped explain why it was controversial, and what Ford is perhaps best known for, but I can consider removing it if you think that's best. The Rob Ford part stirs so much controversy I'd rather have it in its own section at the end of the article than shoehorned into Aftermath. It may be a (figurative) footnote in the Rob Ford article, his career trajectory was already decided by then.
    • We agree about the first paragraph. Given your feelings I'm good with the last paragraph but maybe giving one sentence of why he was controversial but otherwise keeping it focused on Danzig?
      • Okay, I've knocked that paragraph down to one sentence: In 2013 Ford was the subject of a video scandal and admitted to smoking crack cocaine and associating with drug dealers. (I've attached this to the beginning of the next paragraph.)

Images

*Are there really no appropriately copyrighted images that could illustrate this article?

• • I had concerns about the community's privacy and whether pictures would be appropriate. I'm also a dial-up user and do not have the bandwidth for image searching. Plus I'm a bit intimidated and confounded by the copyright legalese and I haven't figured out the protocols for obtaining, crediting and using police photos. I haven't thought of any image(s) which define this event, and when I look through the pictures with the sources it all looks generic, what could be any policing event. I experimented with a location map at the bottom of my tasks page (to go with Gang crackdown) but I'm not sure that it's worthwhile. Any advice would be appreciated. What kind of picture do you feel would benefit the article?
    • That map is pretty cool - I haven't played around much with mapping here so I'm not going to be of technical expertise. The one picture that I would hope this article could have would be of Morningside Coronation/D-Block. There shouldn't be any privacy issues with showing the building itself. Anything else that's relevant (e.g. of an anniversary remembrance) would be gravy. The pages that have info about finding pictures are: WP:FIT and WP:PDI. Perhaps Wingwraith could help given your dial-up status.Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
      • Also this kind of map would frequently be part of an infobox (which obviously isn't relevant here) and so the top of the page would also seem like an an appropriate place to have this. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:14, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
        • For the time being, I put up a {{location map}} in the infobox with a single marker for the event. Unfortunately there seems to be a slight technical issue and the coordinates are no longer displayed. I'll work on a solution. (Addendum) Technical issue now resolved. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:42, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
        • @Barkeep49: I moved the lead over, please give it another read-through. I also changed a bit of repetitive wording in the last sentence of §Investigation. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:41, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

Can @Reidgreg: or some other editor confirm they remain interested in going through the GA review process for this page? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:38, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@Barkeep49:I am very interested in the review and will do my best to respond promptly though my Internet connection is a bit spotty. I think this is seven months to the day from when I nominated this, my first article. (I was starting to wonder if it would break a record.) I will note that there are issues with the lead, which has been under intense and prolonged discussion since January. Perhaps you can give some advice on that once you're familiar with the article. Oh, the article went through GOCE copy edit a few months back and hasn't had a lot of edits since. Much thanks for taking up the review! – Reidgreg (talk) 02:36, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: Yes there is quite the backlog of GA nominees. If there's no reviews in a main interest of mine I try to claim reviews who've been waiting a while. Believe it or not but yours was only the 17th oldest nominee without a review as of last night.

As for the LEAD, I hadn't taken a look a look at the talk page before claiming this for a GA review. I followed the conversation through the 3PO but then lost the thread of it (was late). I'll revisit but I don't know that I'm comfortable conflating a GA review and a WP:3PO (4th really at this point), so there's a fair chance I will review the article as is and let you workout the content dispute.

My normal process is to do a fairly quick read through the article for context and then do a thorough reading offering comments/thoughts/suggestions/must fixes as I go. This can take me a couple of days. I will start this in the next couple of days. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:28, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for that statistic! I apologize, I should have given you a warning about the talk page discussion, it goes into minute detail and tends to repeat itself. You have enough work to do here without getting into that. Please take your time with the review. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:06, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Finished my detailed read through. I hadn't known anything about this and so it was a really interesting read. I am marking this on hold as you edit article and otherwise respond to my feedback. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Starting to go through the review. Would you prefer if I responded to everything down here in Discussion or under each note in the Review Comments above? – Reidgreg (talk) 13:43, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: Beneath the points is better unless it's a more general point or place of discussion. Thanks and Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:43, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay, good. Thanks for the thorough review. I wholly agree with about half of your notes and have effected changes. Some discussion on the others. Two general notes:

I tried to be overcautious with citations. Sometimes, though, when two sentences were covered by the same source, I only put a citation after the last of the two sentences. Would you prefer to see the same citation several times in a row if the material might be contentious?

As noted above I don't think the GA standards require literally every sentence be cited even in a potentially charged article like this. I have no problems with the places you did this. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:14, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused about your citing of MOS:WORDS. I've done a little bit of copy editing and I'm aware of tone issues and weasel/peacock words. I know there are a few instances of "alleged" but it's used in a legal context, following the sources and with concern for BLP policy. It'd help me if you could be more specific about those issues (more above). – Reidgreg (talk) 19:27, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Responded above. Thanks for your work on this article. Think it's close overall though obviously we haven't gotten into the LEAD yet. I want to give Wing a reasonable amount of time (e.g. a week or so) to respond to your fifth proposal before I dive in. So we might reach a place where it's on hold waiting for Wing but with the knowledge that the rest of the article has been checked and is ready for GA.

I saw on your tasks page so DYKs you had ready. I think your main is really strong. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:14, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Pass or fail, I've found your review very informative and valuable, and am amazed at the critical blind-spots developed from working on the article. Thanks also for the DYK nod. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:00, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I feel the same way about the articles I edit and so the fresh eyes is a big part of how I approach GA reviews. I absolutely anticipate this passing review as everything has been pretty typical for an article of this length (and really I think most articles that get nominated can pass GA review as long as the editor's willing to engage in the process - it's just that some articles will take substantially more effort than others).

I think the only thing left is the LEAD. I want to give Wingwraith (or really anyone) a full week to respond to proposed revision 5 before I jump in. Absent any movement on that front I'll give my thoughts over the weekend or on Monday. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:56, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: I did a read through of the revised lead and I think everything is set in terms of finishing the GA. Congrats! Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:01, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Great! Much thanks for your patient and thorough advice during the review. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:13, 16 May 2018 (UTC)