![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
RSes universally report Sicknick collapsed while on duty, but this fact had been deleted from the lede. I've restored it and welcome improvements. Feoffer ( talk) 19:14, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
I suggest yes, consistent with our
guidelines. I assert that the current lede (
[1]), which is all of four sentences, does not cut it. I seek consensus to alter the second paragraph of the lede to read as follows:
The circumstances surrounding Sicknick's death were the subject of confusion for some months. Law enforcement officials initially reported that he had been struck by a fire extinguisher during the attack, [1] leading managers for the second impeachment trial of Donald Trump to assert that Sicknick had been killed by rioters. [2] Two men were eventually charged with assaulting Sicknick and two other officers with a chemical irritant during the storming, [2] but neither was charged with causing Sicknick's death. [3]
I would also be happy to see additions to this text as needed to summarize the article.
The rationale for repeatedly skeletonizing the lede seems to be undue weight (e.g. [2]). While I suppose it is true in a vacuous sense that one can achieve due weight by not having any content, that doesn't really seem consistent with the goal of a lede section. I also note that when this article went through GAR, it was still titled "Brian Sicknick", and hence the lede did not dwell too much on the specifics of his death. But since his death is now the entire subject of the article, the lede should reflect that in order to meet GA criteria. Einsof ( talk) 14:39, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
References
"In April, after the medical examiner's autopsy findings were reported, the official cited by the Wall Street Journal reportedly said that the erroneous information had been privately spread by Capitol Police officers.[29]" I suggest this needs to be followed with a statement about how politicians have continued to spread erroneous information about Sicknick's death. It seems unethical to accuse the Capitol Police of being responsible, when as reported, it's more politicians insisting on the misinformation. 2601:844:4000:F910:853A:329F:7B12:AA83 ( talk) 16:53, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
@ Cutlass: I'm responding to your dissatisfaction with the current state of the article, that you expressed in your summary ( diff). I understand that you reverted that edit, and so perhaps you changed your mind, but there are probably constructive things to be said -- could you say more about what the problems are, in your view? Regards. P.S. there is a formal path to fix/delist GAs, so there's no need for drastic boldness as far as I can tell. — Alalch Emis ( talk) 18:50, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
RSes universally report Sicknick collapsed while on duty, but this fact had been deleted from the lede. I've restored it and welcome improvements. Feoffer ( talk) 19:14, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
I suggest yes, consistent with our
guidelines. I assert that the current lede (
[1]), which is all of four sentences, does not cut it. I seek consensus to alter the second paragraph of the lede to read as follows:
The circumstances surrounding Sicknick's death were the subject of confusion for some months. Law enforcement officials initially reported that he had been struck by a fire extinguisher during the attack, [1] leading managers for the second impeachment trial of Donald Trump to assert that Sicknick had been killed by rioters. [2] Two men were eventually charged with assaulting Sicknick and two other officers with a chemical irritant during the storming, [2] but neither was charged with causing Sicknick's death. [3]
I would also be happy to see additions to this text as needed to summarize the article.
The rationale for repeatedly skeletonizing the lede seems to be undue weight (e.g. [2]). While I suppose it is true in a vacuous sense that one can achieve due weight by not having any content, that doesn't really seem consistent with the goal of a lede section. I also note that when this article went through GAR, it was still titled "Brian Sicknick", and hence the lede did not dwell too much on the specifics of his death. But since his death is now the entire subject of the article, the lede should reflect that in order to meet GA criteria. Einsof ( talk) 14:39, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
References
"In April, after the medical examiner's autopsy findings were reported, the official cited by the Wall Street Journal reportedly said that the erroneous information had been privately spread by Capitol Police officers.[29]" I suggest this needs to be followed with a statement about how politicians have continued to spread erroneous information about Sicknick's death. It seems unethical to accuse the Capitol Police of being responsible, when as reported, it's more politicians insisting on the misinformation. 2601:844:4000:F910:853A:329F:7B12:AA83 ( talk) 16:53, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
@ Cutlass: I'm responding to your dissatisfaction with the current state of the article, that you expressed in your summary ( diff). I understand that you reverted that edit, and so perhaps you changed your mind, but there are probably constructive things to be said -- could you say more about what the problems are, in your view? Regards. P.S. there is a formal path to fix/delist GAs, so there's no need for drastic boldness as far as I can tell. — Alalch Emis ( talk) 18:50, 7 July 2021 (UTC)