Killing of Daunte Wright has been listed as one of the
History good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: August 23, 2023. ( Reviewed version). |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Killing of Daunte Wright article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 365 days |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about
living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Talk:Killing of Daunte Wright/FAQ Q1: I read some information on the web that isn't in this article!
A1: When proposing anything to be added to the article you need to cite a
reliable source;
secondary sources are generally preferred over
primary. Q2: Why is Wright described as "Black", "African American", and "Biracial"?
A2: Many reliable sources and the government documents publicly available refer to him as "Black" or "African American". Some reliable sources describe Wright as a "biracial" Black man. Q3: Why is this article calling it a killing instead of a death/murder?
A3: Any time one person causes the death of another – whether intentionally or not, whether criminally or not – that's a homicide, or in common American English parlance, a killing. Every murder or manslaughter is a homicide, but not every homicide is a murder or manslaughter. A homicide becomes, legally, a murder or manslaughter only once someone is convicted in court. |
@
The Gnome: I removed mention of Blakely factors not because it's not important, but because the line wasn't verified in any of the sources we cite in that paragraph. It still isn't, as far as I can tell. The only mention is Prosecutors initially outlined aggravating factors in Blakely filings, which would have allowed Potter to serve a higher sentence, but said in court Friday that the presumptive sentence would be appropriate.
in
here, which doesn't verify that the prosecution had failed to prove their case for
Blakely factors to lengthen the sentence
. —
Rhododendrites
talk \\ 12:34, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
we do not need to provide sources that confirm the judge was correct about the prosecution failing to prove their case on the basis of "Blakely factors."- I get your point about whether we have a, b, and c. That's fine. The open question for me is the extent to which the prosecution did pursue aggravating factors. We know they did initially, but does their concession that the presumptive sentence was correct preempt the judge declaring they didn't prove those factors? This may be a procedural question that's outside my knowledge, i.e. does the prosecution's statement withdraw their pursuit of those factors before the judge rules on them?
The redirect Murder of of Daunte Wright has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 20 § Murder of of Daunte Wright until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 18:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Mujinga ( talk · contribs) 11:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi Rhododendrites, thanks for bringing this article to GAR. I'll review it as part of the August 2023 GAN Backlog Drive! Mujinga ( talk) 11:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|
On a first read-through, I'd say this article is well on the way to being a GA. I have much less prose comments than usual. It is focused, neutral and stable.
I do have a few queries though, mainly centred around recentism. I think it's normal for an article about a contronversial event such as this to at first be a list of what happened, then over time it is revamped into a more encyclopedic entry. This has been done to some extent here but there are still some "listy" bits eg "On April 14, Potter was charged ... After her indictment, Potter was arrested ... Attorney General Ellison's office took over the prosecution on May 21 ... On September 2, Ellison's office added the charge ...". I'm not saying this is terrible, I'm just saying it could be improved. Likewise, whilst there is a discussion of the impact on policing and what politicians said at the time, there isn't so much about the later coverage in mainstream media and academic work, so I feel we need a bit more on evaluating the events, if that makes sense.
The structure of the article isn't necessarily against MOS but could still be pulled together more. Do we need to start off with a "people involved" section or could that be merged below? There are a few one sentence paragraphs that could be pulled into a larger paragraph. There are a lot of subsections. Interested to hear what you think.
On this version
She was up to date on her annual recertification for the Taser and firearm weapons she carried, and had completed two Taser-specific trainings in the pervious six months- can you give an alternative source? WP:BLPPRIMARY reads in part: "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person."
The Hennepin County medical examiner's office released a report on April 12 that determined the manner of death to be homicide and concluded that Wright had died as the result of a gunshot wound of the chest- all in source
Police established a security presence around the house and erected cement barricades and fencing.- backed by sources
In late 2022, the Minnesota Board of Pardons declined to consider Potter's application to have her sentence commuted- backed by source
Previously I said "The structure of the article isn't necessarily against MOS but could still be pulled together more. Do we need to start off with a "people involved" section or could that be merged below?. There are a few one sentence paragraphs that could be pulled into a larger paragraph. There are a lot of subsections. Interested to hear what you think." I think I'd still like to hear the rationale for using so many subsections and one or two sentence paragraphs, it makes reading the article a bit disjointed
Killing of Daunte Wright has been listed as one of the
History good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: August 23, 2023. ( Reviewed version). |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Killing of Daunte Wright article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 365 days |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about
living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Talk:Killing of Daunte Wright/FAQ Q1: I read some information on the web that isn't in this article!
A1: When proposing anything to be added to the article you need to cite a
reliable source;
secondary sources are generally preferred over
primary. Q2: Why is Wright described as "Black", "African American", and "Biracial"?
A2: Many reliable sources and the government documents publicly available refer to him as "Black" or "African American". Some reliable sources describe Wright as a "biracial" Black man. Q3: Why is this article calling it a killing instead of a death/murder?
A3: Any time one person causes the death of another – whether intentionally or not, whether criminally or not – that's a homicide, or in common American English parlance, a killing. Every murder or manslaughter is a homicide, but not every homicide is a murder or manslaughter. A homicide becomes, legally, a murder or manslaughter only once someone is convicted in court. |
@
The Gnome: I removed mention of Blakely factors not because it's not important, but because the line wasn't verified in any of the sources we cite in that paragraph. It still isn't, as far as I can tell. The only mention is Prosecutors initially outlined aggravating factors in Blakely filings, which would have allowed Potter to serve a higher sentence, but said in court Friday that the presumptive sentence would be appropriate.
in
here, which doesn't verify that the prosecution had failed to prove their case for
Blakely factors to lengthen the sentence
. —
Rhododendrites
talk \\ 12:34, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
we do not need to provide sources that confirm the judge was correct about the prosecution failing to prove their case on the basis of "Blakely factors."- I get your point about whether we have a, b, and c. That's fine. The open question for me is the extent to which the prosecution did pursue aggravating factors. We know they did initially, but does their concession that the presumptive sentence was correct preempt the judge declaring they didn't prove those factors? This may be a procedural question that's outside my knowledge, i.e. does the prosecution's statement withdraw their pursuit of those factors before the judge rules on them?
The redirect Murder of of Daunte Wright has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 20 § Murder of of Daunte Wright until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 18:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Mujinga ( talk · contribs) 11:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi Rhododendrites, thanks for bringing this article to GAR. I'll review it as part of the August 2023 GAN Backlog Drive! Mujinga ( talk) 11:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|
On a first read-through, I'd say this article is well on the way to being a GA. I have much less prose comments than usual. It is focused, neutral and stable.
I do have a few queries though, mainly centred around recentism. I think it's normal for an article about a contronversial event such as this to at first be a list of what happened, then over time it is revamped into a more encyclopedic entry. This has been done to some extent here but there are still some "listy" bits eg "On April 14, Potter was charged ... After her indictment, Potter was arrested ... Attorney General Ellison's office took over the prosecution on May 21 ... On September 2, Ellison's office added the charge ...". I'm not saying this is terrible, I'm just saying it could be improved. Likewise, whilst there is a discussion of the impact on policing and what politicians said at the time, there isn't so much about the later coverage in mainstream media and academic work, so I feel we need a bit more on evaluating the events, if that makes sense.
The structure of the article isn't necessarily against MOS but could still be pulled together more. Do we need to start off with a "people involved" section or could that be merged below? There are a few one sentence paragraphs that could be pulled into a larger paragraph. There are a lot of subsections. Interested to hear what you think.
On this version
She was up to date on her annual recertification for the Taser and firearm weapons she carried, and had completed two Taser-specific trainings in the pervious six months- can you give an alternative source? WP:BLPPRIMARY reads in part: "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person."
The Hennepin County medical examiner's office released a report on April 12 that determined the manner of death to be homicide and concluded that Wright had died as the result of a gunshot wound of the chest- all in source
Police established a security presence around the house and erected cement barricades and fencing.- backed by sources
In late 2022, the Minnesota Board of Pardons declined to consider Potter's application to have her sentence commuted- backed by source
Previously I said "The structure of the article isn't necessarily against MOS but could still be pulled together more. Do we need to start off with a "people involved" section or could that be merged below?. There are a few one sentence paragraphs that could be pulled into a larger paragraph. There are a lot of subsections. Interested to hear what you think." I think I'd still like to hear the rationale for using so many subsections and one or two sentence paragraphs, it makes reading the article a bit disjointed