Talk:Media coverage of the Virginia Tech massacre

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Media coverage of the Virginia Tech massacre was a nominee for good article, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Virginia Tech massacre → Virginia Tech shootings

Please see Talk:Virginia Tech massacre#Virginia Tech massacre → Virginia Tech shootings — comment there, not here. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 11:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wayne Chiang

The main VT massacre article no longer makes any mention of Wayne Chiang, but his article still redirects there. I believe we should incorporate any useful info from the last unredirected diff and change the redirect so that it comes here. He was really just an ancillary part of the early inaccurate media reporting, but it's worth mentioning. Wl219 10:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

On that topic, there's a sentence in this article that doesn't wholly make sense to me: "Following the identification of the perpetrator, several media outlets named Chiang, including Geraldo Rivera on Fox News and CNN." Does this mean that some media outlets identified the perpetrator as Chiang even *after* the real perpetrator was identified, or...? Just curious as it reads a little funny. RTucker 02:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA comment

GA articles are not supposed to have trivia sections and inline citations should go directly after the punctuation. Please address these things before somebody reviews the article. --Nehrams2020 07:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the ref format and trivia. Wrad 16:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA review

The opening sentence: "The following article is a summary of media coverage and reaction to the Virginia Tech massacre of April 16, 2007, the deadliest school shooting in American history." There's a massively awkward self-reference that doesn't need to be there. -- Phoenix2 (talk, review) 16:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed and perhaps fixed. RTucker 17:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Did this GA review stall?

I saw this on the GAC page, and it says its under review, but the last GA related comments are back in May.... Homestarmy 16:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA failed

I am failing this article for the following reasons:

  1. The introduction does not adequately summarize the content of the article.
  2. The "entertainment" section needs to be written as prose, not bullet points. Probably, you could just remove the bullets and call it good.
  3. Cite web templates must be used on the references, and retrieval dates must be stated. See WP:CITET for details. (Question: Is it possible for any of the sources to be cited more than once? If you're unsure of how this works, look at some other good articles or featured articles and see how they do it.)
  4. The article is missing a "Reception" section, which would cover the public's reception of the media coverage. What did people think? How did the University manage the media? Were there articles or editorials in the university newspaper or local Blacksburg paper that commented on the stampede of out-of-town media? Afterward, was there perhaps an external, objective look at the media coverage itself, maybe by a journalism trade or academic journal (such as Editor and Publisher or Columbia Journalism Review?) Some of the sources you have might cover this angle, but you'll likely have to go digging for more.
  5. There is a dearth of images, and the article could use at least a couple more. I appreciate fair-use concerns, but I think it's possible that a fair-use rationale could be crafted to use Image:ChoSh.jpg, which is from the Cho media package. Is it possible some free images could be located, possibly from Flickr, photos that bystanders took while TV news reporters were doing stand-ups in front of their cameras, something like that?

The big reason I'm failing this article is because of item No. 4. If it had just been the intro, bullet points, citations or images, I would have just put it on hold. It's nearly there – well written, factually accurate and stable – but it needs more work and time to make it a good article. — WiseKwai 07:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Images are not necessary for GA, just fair use rationale. Also, cite templates are not required for GA. I believe the refs provide enough information. Wrad 02:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] False Media Reports

It's been a while since I last looked at this article and a lot has changed. It looks pretty complete, but the article still neglects to mention the false report that Cho was "railing against Christianity." If you ignore this fact then you are only hurting the rest of society by allowing the media to be distinguished as being much more accurate or honest than they care to be. They will retain their grip on society to the point where it will cause war all just to gain more wealth and authority than they deserve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.129.85.4 (talk) 19:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Global Village and face of the event

  • Under Jocelyne Couture-Nowak I had added two topics from media coverage: debate over who (individual victims, group, killer) would rise as the iconic figure for the event and international interest in the incident. I thought I'd suggest these topics for you to consider. Doesn't have to be these sources or linked to Jocelyne Couture-Nowak but it seemd like topics that might be appropriate here. Canuckle 19:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)