Talk:Moscone-Milk assassinations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Moscone-Milk assassinations 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:
To-do list for Moscone-Milk assassinations:

Here are some tasks you can do:
    Archive
    Archives
    1. 2006 - present

    Contents

    [edit] Disputable cause and effect

    From the current lead section:

    "White was subsequently convicted of voluntary manslaughter, rather than of first degree murder. That verdict famously became vilified as being the result of "the Twinkie defense". It sparked rioting in San Francisco the so-called White Night Riots and ultimately led to the state of California abolishing the diminished capacity criminal defense."

    Some of these claims are quite questionable. I will try to sort them out here:

    • "White was subsequently convicted of voluntary manslaughter, rather than of first degree murder." True.
    • "That verdict famously became vilified ..." True, but --
    • "as being the result of "the Twinkie defense"." Misleading. Firstly, the actual "Twinkie defense", as people understand the term, is an urban legend.[1] Secondly, while the mistaken belief that the defense had used a "Twinkie defense" certainly resulted in vilification, the verdict would almost certainly have been vilified anyways.
    • "It sparked rioting in San Francisco the so-called White Night Riots ..." Which "it" is meant here? The "Twinkie defense", or the verdict? It's pretty clear that the verdict sparked the riots; it's not at all clear whether the urban legend of the "Twinkie defense" had even gotten going at that point.
    • "... [It] ultimately led to the state of California abolishing the diminished capacity criminal defense." Again, which "it" is meant here? If it's the "Twinkie defense", that point is adequately sourced -- in Twinkie defense. Is it really appropriate here? If it's the verdict itself, where's the sourcing?

    I think this deserves careful examination. -- 192.250.34.161 21:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] GAN quick-failed

    I have reviewed this article according to the GA criteria and have quick-failed the article at this time. The article is currently undersourced, with most of the information presented lacking inline citations. I'd recommend going through the articles and adding sources for all statements that may be questioned over the verifiability by the reader. Additionally, all three of the images are copyrighted and do not have a fair use rationale to explain their reason for inclusion in the article. They also need sources for where the images were found. There are some single sentences that should either be incorporated into another paragraph or expanded on, as single sentences shouldn't stand alone. Many of these problems were mentioned in the last FAC review, and have not been addressed. Once you have corrected these issues, have an outside editor look it over for a copyedit and check the rest of the GA criteria. When this is completed, please consider nominating the article again at GAN. If you disagree with this review, you can seek an alternate opinion at Good article reassessment. If you have any questions about this review, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Good work so far, but keep working at it. --Nehrams2020 21:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

    It's unfortunate this article was submitted for GAC prematurely, but thanks for the review. I just started looking at this article, and I think I might work on it. I'll re-submit for GAC soon. Nishkid64 (talk) 06:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Dan whitesf.jpg

    The image Image:Dan whitesf.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

    • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
    • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

    This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --19:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)