Wikipedia:Peer review/Shooting of Vivian Strong/archive1

Shooting of Vivian Strong

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion is closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because it has been updated substantially in the last month. In the last two years this article has been viewed 48,000 times! Your input will help make this article stronger with the ultimate goal of creating a "Good Article" -- this is an important part of Omaha history that has received a lot of attention in the last year. Suggestions about the flow, headers, and layout are all welcome. Thanks, Bridges2Information (talk) 04:04, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Urve

@Bridges2Information: good work here. I made some edits; please see and revert any that you disagree with. The main point of them is to help with readability, though a major change I made was to refer to her as Strong rather than Vivian. While she is a child who suffered this tragedy, and so we feel a certain level of remorse and closeness with the subject, she is her own person, so the standard treatment of names should be had here. Also, in my edits, I placed one citation needed tag that should be easy to clear. I think this is fairly close to GA quality, although the poem may be a copyright violation because it is (as I see it?) used in full. One issue may be that some sentences are choppy but I have tried to fix this where I could.

I had not thought at all about the poem being a copyright violation. Hmmm...let me confer with some librarians. And, you are right, I have a problem with choppy sentences. Thanks for changing Vivian to Strong, your logical makes sense to me. Bridges2Information (talk) 22:47, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have done some reading now, and poems appear to be somewhat unique related to copyright. After reading this, I think online use of this poem, given the additional context, is okay? https://cmsimpact.org/code/code-best-practices-fair-use-poetry/#Best-Practices Bridges2Information (talk) 23:30, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Two points.

First, the lede. Do we want to have it defined as a lead for Strong, or for the shooting itself? Either are acceptable for me, but this article may have begun as a biographical entry, rather than an event-based one, so it may be time to question whether early choices (the lead) should still apply.

I think you are right, I will have to think of how to reword. Bridges2Information (talk) 22:47, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: I wonder whether the lead is appropriate in length. I think it should describe the events that led up to the shooting, such as the report to police, police response, that Loder was acquitted and rehired, in summary form. Urve (talk) 21:22, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I should probably read more about writing a good lead. I thought they were supposed to be very short - but that's based on an assumption. Bridges2Information (talk) 22:47, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the lead is in good shape. Urve (talk) 17:22, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Second, I question the relevance of Orlando's sentence. In particular, it seems to stray a bit from WP:GA? 3b. What do you think?

I think this sentence is relevant because it happened within one year of the shooting. I assume he threw the rock toward the police cruiser because he was upset about his sister. It's interesting to note that he served more jail time for throwing a rock toward a cruiser than Loder did for killing Strong. I wonder if there is a way to word this, or find more information about Orlando's intention (Court records? or is that a primary source according to Wikipedia?). Note, I did check to make sure Orland is not a "living person" before posting that information. Bridges2Information (talk) 22:47, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. I think it's appropriate then. Urve (talk) 17:22, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will email you something personal that amazed me when I came across this article, and which I hope you find amusing. (Too close to home...) Urve (talk) 21:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!! Bridges2Information (talk) 22:47, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bridges2Information: Left some comments above, looks good.

About copyrights: Take a look at Wikipedia:Non-free content. I think the poem's inclusion is fair use, but our use policies seem to be more stringent - not only that material has to be fair use, but there must also not be any alternatives that can illuminate the point (text or otherwise, existing or to be created). I don't think we can clear that. Text seems to be especially hard to make a NFC rationale for.

But that does address one of your questions on the talk page. Since Strong has died, it is not possible to create a new image of her, and all of the images that do exist appear to be copyrighted. So we probably can include a newspaper image of her on the page in accordance with the NFC policies. Note that means we can only include that image on the article page, but not in lists, the article talk page, or other articles. Urve (talk) 17:22, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Urve: Yes, I agree. However, I'm not sure how to upload a photo and restrict its usage like this? Would I upload into Wikimedia Commons? Bridges2Information (talk) 17:37, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it would only be on the English Wikipedia, since the policy page says Commons has no NFC exemptions. Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard should guide you through the process. Urve (talk) 17:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]