Template:Did you know nominations/Shooting of Jamar Clark

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Zanhe (talk) 16:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Shooting of Jamar Clark edit

(

)

... that five protesters were shot near demonstrations against the shooting of Jamar Clark?

Reviewed: Hop Bottom Creek

Created by O.Stolz (talk) and Paris1127 (talk). Nominated by Bobamnertiopsis (talk) at 21:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC).

: The article is long and new enough and the hook is interesting and the character count falls within the legal limits. The hook is well sourced and is cited immediately after it is finished. The only problem I see here is some closed paraphrasing issues shown here. Mhhossein (talk) 17:37, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Hey, Mhhossein, I've gone through and done some rewording. The top three resources detected by the Copyvio detector all appear to be mirrors of our content and not the other way around. Let me know if you think more work needs to be done. Thanks for the review! BobAmnertiopsis ∴_ChatMe! 21:32, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for rewording. You're right the first three results are in fact originally from the Wiki article. I see no more problems. Good to go. Mhhossein (talk) 06:52, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I think there's at least one more instance of very close paraphrasing. Compare the source's "Police Chief Janeé Harteau said Sunday afternoon that her department’s preliminary information is that the man was not handcuffed when police shot him." with the article's "Police chief Janeé Harteau said on the afternoon of November 16 that her department's preliminary information is that the man was not handcuffed when police shot him." With the exception of "on the afternoon of November 16", the two are identical. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:42, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, BlueMoonset, I think I've dealt with it. BobAmnertiopsis ∴_ChatMe! 17:34, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any further paraphrasing issues on spotchecking, but did note some discrepancies in facts between the article and the sources. For example, the article states that the Hispanic man was described as a white supremacist; however, the source says that the attackers were white supremacists but that the Hispanic man was not an attacker. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:21, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Nikkimaria, I've tidied up that whole section, including removing unsourced info. Let me know if you feel it needs more work. Best, BobAmnertiopsis ∴_ChatMe! 19:10, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Still seeing some issues in this regard. For example, Bettie Smith is unrelated to Clark - she's actually the mother of another boy who died in an officer-involved shooting in 2008. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:32, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I cleaned up the whole Jamar Clark section and looked around the rest of the article. See anything else that needs work? BobAmnertiopsis ∴_ChatMe! 23:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Yep, sources and article still disagree on facts on spotchecking - for example, whether the "terroristic threats" incident was in March or April. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

This page has gone quiet for a while. Does @Bobamnertiopsis: feel this article is ready? Does @Nikkimaria: want to confirm if the article is ready? Jolly Ω Janner 04:44, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I was out on a weeklong trip but I'm back now. I've updated the page. Please let me know if spotchecking has caught anything else. All my best, BobAmnertiopsis ∴_ChatMe! 18:24, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes. A sentence attributed to foonote 16 states that a shooting occurred at 10:45, but footnote 16 gives a different time. A sentence attributed to footnote 19 says that two men turned themselves in at 2:30 pm; the source does not specify a time. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for all your patience and help...this article is certainly much more valuable for it. I've addressed your spot-check concerns. Best, BobAmnertiopsis ∴_ChatMe! 03:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Now happy with both verifiability and paraphrasing, ready for re-review on other criteria. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Mhhossein has already assessed this article in all criteria. As the flaws were in the verifability and paraphrasing do we need another review? Jolly Ω Janner 22:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Given the sheer number of changes to the article since the original review (including a new one made about an hour ago, which looks a bit off), I think a final recheck would be in order. I don't imagine it will take long, but I don't see that neutrality was ever checked, for example, and it should be. Also, there have been subsequent protests; are the hook facts still true? BlueMoonset (talk) 01:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

Cited: - "The shootings did not occur at the protest, police spokesman John Elder said, but in "close proximity" to it." would suggest a slight tweak is needed in the hook. Perhaps "near" instead of "at". It is clear the shooting was related to the protest, however.
Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: @Bobamnertiopsis: see comments on hook, above. Jolly Ω Janner 06:36, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

You betcha. Tweaked. Thanks, BobAmnertiopsis ∴_ChatMe! 06:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

confirmed. Jolly Ω Janner 06:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)