Talk:Ronnie Lee Gardner/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Aaron north (T/C) 21:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have concluded my review of this article. The prose is pretty good, and with just a few very minor corrections this is very close to a GA-quality article. The images are fine, and the sources are well-documented, reliable, and support the article. However, this article appears to have a clear slant towards the "anti-death penalty" POV. I believe this issue can be fixed, so I will place this article on hold for up to a week to give the editors time to work on the article. Aaron north (T/C) 01:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good now. Aaron north (T/C) 16:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

NPOV[edit]

In my opinion, this article is very close to being good, and would have easily passed immediately without even a hold were it not for a problem with keeping to a neutral point of view. This article is currently slanted towards the opposition to capital punishment POV. Although this article is primarily about Ronnie Lee Gardner rather than the death penalty, it is undeniable that the death penalty debate was a significant part of this story and can not be ignored. The NPOV issues in this article are not from any one problematic phrase or section. However, bit by bit, it seems that every opportunity to subtly advance or highlight the "anti" position was taken, and every opportunity to minimize or ignore the "pro" position was also taken. Aaron north (T/C) 01:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the attention to detail. I agree with the importance of balancing the POV. See responses below regarding updates to the article. KimChee (talk) 12:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Background: It is first important to recognize that wikipedia inherently advances or opposes neither side. To the extent that a controversial debate should be covered at all (as it appropriately should in this article), the encyclopedia should give appropriate weight to every side, without being forced to impose a false balance by giving inappropriate weight to patently false, discredited, and/or unreasonable opinions and positions. With that in mind, neither side in the debate is "crazy" or unreasonable to the point where it should be minimized. The majority of Americans support capital punishment, likely supported the execution of Gardner, and the vast majority of Utahns are in favor of capital punishment. (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700039365/79-percent-of-Utahns-support-death-penalty-poll-finds.html) The "anti" position is a reasonable credible minority, but they receive virtually all of the coverage in this article. Aaron north (T/C) 01:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With that background in mind, when you read this article you may get the impression that the execution was unpopular and perhaps wrong. This impression is built little by little in many parts of the article which in and of themselves may not have been a problem alone, but together cause a NPOV problem. Specifically:
- Images and mention of the 2 supreme court justices who voted for the stay. This was fine in isolation since this was a minor interesting note in the story. I do not suggest removing or changing this part at all, I mention it only because it is another small brick on top of the more problematic bricks in the POV wall below. Aaron north (T/C) 01:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The defense arguments, motions, and sympathetic descriptions for their client is covered in detail (which is fine), but virtually nothing is mentioned about the prosecution arguments for the death penalty. For example, during the hearing in front of the pardon board, we see letters written to Oprah, and a quote from Gardner shown prominently in the article. The arguments from the family of the victims and the prosecution in front of the pardon board is summarized in 10 short words: (After listening to testimony from the families of the victims) Here is a bit more detail from your source: ("There's no remorse in that boy," said Veldean Kirk, the bailiff's widow), ("He has no conscience," added Sandy Police Lt. Craig Watson, Otterstrom's cousin. "That's how he can talk so matter-of-fact."), and (Assistant attorney general Tom Brunker, meanwhile, said Gardner was not sentenced to death only for killing Burdell. "Mr. Gardner was sentenced to death and earned that death penalty because of his unflagging history of violent crime," Brunker said.). Now, I'm not suggesting all of that be included, nor do I want to dictate specifically what you should do (except maybe the last point below), but its clear that the NPOV balance is not maintained. I'll leave it up to the editors to figure out what to do. Aaron north (T/C) 01:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph immediately following the summary of the defense testimony has been substantially expanded. Some of the suggestions were incorporated along with an additional source that includes better testimony of the causal effect of the shootings on the victims of the families. KimChee (talk) 12:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Finally, I am fine with most of the "death penalty debate" section. By its very nature, the opposition is going to be more active, while supporters will be more quiet (since they are essentially getting their way). I would just be careful about giving these protests more weight than they really need. Specifically, I do not know why Utah state Rep. Brian King and his statement is relevant at all. He is a young 1-term Utah state rep who would likely not even meet Wikipedia's notability standard to get his own page. He is currently an unimportant representative who is advancing an opinion which is a distinct minority opinion within his state. The actions and words from Gardner's family, Burdell's family, protestors in general, and the blood atonement issue should suffice. Aaron north (T/C) 01:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The quote by the the state representative is not important and has been dropped, but King remains mentioned in the section about the death penalty debate. A sentence about another legislator (McIff) on the opposing side of the issue has been added. A new paragraph at the end of the section summarizes data about the trend and level of support for capital punishment up until before Gardner's execution. KimChee (talk) 12:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In conclusion, I think this POV tilt should be easy to correct, and I'd rather leave it to the editors to figure out how to go about doing this. I also want to say that it is not my intention that the balance be over-corrected towards a "pro death penalty" POV either. That would also be inappropriate. Aaron north (T/C) 01:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]