Talk:Seth Privacky

Untitled

I knew this guy and am considering doing a book. I can provide any and all pertinent information, but have reservations about my ability to use the appropriate voice for this site. If anyone is interested in seeing this stub expanded and is willing to edit whatever I write to fit the format, please reply to this. I feel like the subject matter is too sensitive and the etiquette on this site is too established for me to just start adding info without consulting regular users.

Thanks in advance. 68.41.190.27 (talk) 14:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

We are always interested in seeing good information being added and stubs being expanded. However, you are correct that Wikipedia has fundamental policies that have to be followed. If you are thinking about adding information based on your personal knowledge and interaction with Seth Privacky, then that is not permissable. One of WP's core policies is that "original research" is not allowed. If however, you want to add information based on reliable sources (newspaper articles, journals, etc), then that is certainly welcome. Just remember to keep the information neutral in tone and provide the sources. I have this page on my watchlist, so feel free to ask if you have any questions.--Kubigula (talk) 15:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Seth Privacky/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 15:26, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article, using the template below. If you have any questions, feel free to ask them here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:26, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

The sources for the birth date and location are more of a problem. While it seems to be factually true (I checked the social security death index, that says it's June 2 1980 and he was born in Muskegon, and it lines up with the stated ages given in coverage) I cannot find any secondary sources for that. It was present when I started editing the page so I just assumed that it would be mentioned in coverage. Not sure what to do in that situation. Do I just remove it? I guess it's not that big of a deal. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:31, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

If you can't find any secondary sources, I would remove it, yes. If the article was re-titled to '1998 Muskegon mass shooting' or something, the lack of coverage of Privacky's birthplace would be fine. But as it's a biographical article, I think it is important to include if we can. If you are interested in moving the article, feel free to do so. —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:26, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Even minus the birth date I think it's more logically organized as a biography due to 1) it being a familicide 2) very little of the coverage discusses it in the "[blank] shooting" way of naming it, mostly just uses his name 3) his other main source of notoriety is the prison escape. Just seems better for it to be laid out that way (plus it better justifies having a fair use image in the article) though it could be done either way.

There's a citable primary source on his year of birth (the court records) so I'll add that. It's a primary source but that can be used for basic facts (such as year of birth). PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:05, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Alright, that's acceptable. I wouldn't say it's WP:OR, though I probably wouldn't use it personally. Thanks for looking into the issue! —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:41, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

• This article now meets the GA standard. Congrats to you and anyone else who worked on it! —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:11, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Overall very good; made some tweaks, after which this passes.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass, no issues.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Pass, no issues.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	All reliable local or national journalistic sources. The Michigan paper is fine per WP:RSSM. No major source formatting issues either, which is nice. Tweaks can be done in prose review. Pass. —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:21, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
	2c. it contains no original research.	No issues found. Well-cited. —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:21, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig finds a few instances of borrowed phrasing that I would consider an issue. Not enough for a quickfail, but these should all be put in quotes or rephrased to avoid direct copying. [1] [2] Issues addressed, pass.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	* Not able to find any other major areas of coverage. Pass. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:25, 25 August 2023 (UTC) One thing I missed before - is there a source for his date of birth and birthplace? A source should be added to the infobox, and maybe a sentence or two on his birthdate/plate in the 'Background' section. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:09, 25 August 2023 (UTC) Issue discussed above. Pass.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No major issues, will address any tweaks during prose review.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No major issues
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No issues here. Pass.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Fair use image is acceptable, properly tagged.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	No issues with the caption. Perhaps another image would help the article, but I don't think any are available that would have no copyright issues and be relevant enough. Pass.
	7. Overall assessment.

The discussion above 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.