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)

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.
• 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.
• 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
• Spotcheck: [5] Verified.
• "the victim" Any reason we're not using his name here?
• Spotcheck: [2] Verified. Might be worth mentioning that the police offered a reward for information about the perpetrators, which led to their arrest.
• Might be worth putting "racially motivated attempted murder" in quotes?
• 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.
• Spotcheck: [1] Verified.
• As you're translating "heinous crime" from the German source, you should probably put the German original in brackets ("abscheuliche Verbrechen").
• 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,"?
• 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.
• 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]

   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.

4. Is it neutral?

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

   Exceptionally neutral for such an emotive subject.

5. 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.

6. 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?

7. 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)