Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Jclemens (talk · contribs) 02:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.	Needs some serious work, see detailed comments below.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	No issues identified
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.	Fine.
	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).	Spot checks of citations show good compliance.
	2c. it contains no original research.	A few unsupported statements have been identified in the below comments.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	None identified.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Sort of. It's currently UNDUEly focused on the responses, both diplomatic and political, to the point of virtually eclipsing the coverage of the shooting itself.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The response section is awful big and convoluted, and should be trimmed aggressively and/or spun out into a separate article.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Reasonably neutral, with some instances of unimportant promotional material which I've noted below
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Fine.
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.	File:VA Tech massacre aerial photo of referenced locations.jpg is a derivative work from the USGS maps, and I do not believe the combinations of licensing statements to be correct. File:Penn State 2007 Spring Game - VT section.jpg needs OTRS confirmation: "personal correspondence" is insufficient, as I understand it.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Fine, see comments below.
	7. Overall assessment.	ON HOLD to address the identified issues.

Specific content issues

• "The Massengill Report detailed numerous incidents of aberrant behavior beginning in Cho's junior year of college that should have served as a warning to his deteriorating mental condition." Warning to whom? Who says they should? Jclemens (talk) 03:28, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit "The Massengill Report detailed numerous incidents of aberrant behavior beginning in Cho's junior year of college that illustrated his deteriorating mental condition." —D'Ranged 1 | VT^alk :  02:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "Also in room 206, Partahi Mamora Halomoan Lumbantoruan may have protected fellow student Guillermo Colman by diving on top of him. Colman's various accounts make it unclear whether this act was intentional or the involuntary result of being shot. Multiple gunshots killed Lumbantoruan, but Colman was protected by Lumbantoruan's body." Convoluted and clumsy wording. Jclemens (talk) 03:28, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit "Also in room 206, Partahi Mamora Halomoan Lumbantoruan may have shielded fellow student Guillermo Colman from more serious injury. Colman's various accounts make it unclear whether this act was intentional or the involuntary result of Lumbantoruan being shot." —D'Ranged 1 | VT^alk :  02:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "Some teachers, having seen many troubled students over the years and sensing deep problems with Cho, attempted to "manage the situation" in such a way as to not alienate him and to allow him to successfully graduate with his reputation still intact." Which teachers? Specific citation for this sentence, please.Jclemens (talk) 03:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit "One professor tried to get him to seek counseling, but he would not go." —D'Ranged 1 | VT^alk :  02:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Norris Hall shootings has no timeline in the section, not even estimates. I KNOW the time of the 911 call will be recorded... Jclemens (talk) 03:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit The first paragraph of the section opens with "About two hours after the initial shootings..." and closes with "Within one or two minutes of the first shots, the first call to 9-1-1 was received.", which are estimates, but I changed the last sentence of the paragraph to "The first call to 9-1-1 was received at 9:42 a.m." to be more specific, with an additional citation. —D'Ranged 1 | VT^alk :  02:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "The building now houses the Center for Peace Studies and Violence Prevention, the Biomechanics Cluster Research Center, and the Global Technology Center, as well as other uses." How do you house 'other uses'? Jclemens (talk) 03:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit "The building now houses the Center for Peace Studies and Violence Prevention, the Biomechanics Cluster Research Center, and the Global Technology Center, as well as other programs." —D'Ranged 1 | VT^alk :  02:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "Governor Kaine later created an eight-member panel, including former United States Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge, to review all aspects of the Virginia Tech shooting, from Cho's medical history to the school's widely criticized delay in warning students of danger and locking down the campus after the bodies of Cho's first two victims were discovered." Why does 'widely criticized' belong there? Seems unnecessarily POV. Jclemens (talk) 03:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Removed phrase, although I could argue that it is a factual statement. The response time was widely criticized and VT lost a lawsuit over it. —D'Ranged 1 | VT^alk :  02:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "Prompted by the incident, the federal government passed the most significant gun control law in more than a decade." Source does not support 'significant', but rather calls it the only new federal gun control legislation since 1994. Jclemens (talk) 03:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Changed "most significant" to "first". —D'Ranged 1 | VT^alk :  02:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "the government of South Korea convened an emergency meeting to consider possible ramifications." Not obvious in the immediately prior or following citations. Should have its own cite. Jclemens (talk) 03:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Added citation. —D'Ranged 1 | VT^alk :  02:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "Some schools went beyond this and offered or provided cash donations and other forms of expertise and support, such as housing for officers and additional counseling support for Virginia Tech." I suppose it's possible to make a more awkward-sounding grammatically correct sentence, but the specifics of how to do that don't occur to me at the present. Jclemens (talk) 03:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit "Some schools also offered or provided cash donations, housing for officers, and additional counseling support for Virginia Tech." —D'Ranged 1 | VT^alk :  02:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "The Construction Industry Institute (CII), a University of Texas-based research institute promoting collaboration between industry and academia, had a relationship with Tech before the tragedy—having sponsored several Virginia Tech-led engineering research projects. CII felt the loss deeply and upon learning of the tragedy, CII members immediately sought to develop a positive response. In just a few months, CII worked with Virginia Tech faculty to design a three-credit graduate class teaching CII Best Practices to the future leaders of the construction industry. The first class was taught in Fall 2007 over three weekends by subject matter experts from CII member companies Procter & Gamble, KBR, Fluor Corporation, the Smithsonian Institution, BE&K, the Department of State, and CII staff." Sorry, but this comes off as paid PR excrement. Prune it with fire or remove it entirely. Jclemens (talk) 03:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit "The Construction Industry Institute (CII), a University of Texas-based research institute promoting collaboration between industry and academia, worked with Virginia Tech faculty to design a three-credit graduate class teaching CII Best Practices to the future leaders of the construction industry." —D'Ranged 1 | VT^alk :  02:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "The report, entitled, "The IACLEA Blueprint for Safer Campuses", was "a synthesis of the reports written following the tragedy at Virginia Tech and related recommendations for campus safety by the International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators" and included IACLEA's Key Recommendations, a Summary of 10 Key Findings of Virginia Governor's Review Panel, a listing of Fatal Shootings on U.S. Campuses, and the IACLEA Position Statement on Concealed-Carry Initiatives." Run on, extra commas. Jclemens (talk) 03:42, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit "The International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators (IACLEA) convened a Special Review Task Force, which issued its report on April 18, 2008, titled, "The IACLEA Blueprint for Safer Campuses". The report was "a synthesis of the reports written following the tragedy at Virginia Tech and related recommendations for campus safety by the International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators". It included IACLEA's Key Recommendations, a Summary of 10 Key Findings of Virginia Governor's Review Panel, a listing of Fatal Shootings on U.S. Campuses, and the IACLEA Position Statement on Concealed-Carry Initiatives. —D'Ranged 1 | VT^alk :  02:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "The Task Force made twenty specific recommendations, representing "the Association's priorities for the betterment of campus safety" and reinforcing "key goals and objectives in mitigating and responding to threats at institutions of higher learning."" Might this fit better with the "campus firearm ban" section, below? Jclemens (talk) 03:42, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit I disagree; not moved. The report includes more than a ban on firearms. To split the narrative and move the firearms-ban-related material to the other section would be extremely awkward and require duplication of information; the entire narrative about the Task Force doesn't belong in that section. —D'Ranged 1 | VT^alk :  02:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "Securing the safety of our campuses is an iterative process that requires an institutional and personal commitment from every member of our educational communities. Let these recommendations strengthen that resolve." I am unconvinced that this is important enough a response for a pull quote. Convince me? Jclemens (talk) 03:42, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit I believe it was largely done to illustrate the paragraph break. No longer a pull quote. —D'Ranged 1 | VT^alk :  02:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• If EQUITAS doesn't even have its own Wikipedia article, why are we giving their report that much space? Jclemens (talk) 03:42, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit No change. The IACLEA doesn't have an article, either. Inclusion of a think tank provides a balanced POV, in my opinion. —D'Ranged 1 | VT^alk :  02:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "In May 2010, the American band Exodus released an album, titled, Exhibit B: The Human Condition, which included the track "Class Dismissed (A Hate Primer)". Band member Gary Holt said, "It’s about one of America’s favorite pastimes — the school shooting," and added, "The song was primarily inspired by the massacre at Virginia Tech, as well as Columbine and the many other instances of unhinged individuals who decided to take out their wrath on their classmates, going all the way back to Charles J. Whitman."" Trivial, and when all the other responses get so little coverage, UNDUE. I'd eliminate it. Jclemens (talk) 03:42, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "On September 4, 2009, the Marching Virginians, one of Virginia Tech's marching bands, took a 140-mile (230 km) side trip on their way to the season opening football game against the University of Alabama at the Georgia Dome in Atlanta. The 350-member band, 20 cheerleaders, and members of the Corps of Cadets color guard performed at Lakeside High School, alma mater of Ryan Clark, along with the Lakeside Marching Band and visiting Evans High's band. The event was organized by the Central Savannah River Area Virginia Tech alumni chapter to honor Clark's memory and as a fundraiser for a scholarship in his name." Trivial, excessive, UNDUE. See above. Jclemens (talk) 03:42, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "Following the 2007 shootings, Virginia Tech began employing an alert system on their website and text messages to warn students of danger. The alert system was first activated in 2008 when an exploded cartridge from a nail gun produced sounds similar to gunfire near a campus dormitory. It was again activated on August 4, 2011, when children attending a summer class reported a man carrying a handgun; police were unable to find anyone matching the children's description.[179] Later in 2011, on December 8, the system was activated again after a police officer was shot and killed on campus. This turned out to be a random act by a part-time Radford University student. He had carjacked a Mercedes SUV earlier in the day in nearby Radford and had parked it in the general area of a Virginia Tech parking lot where the victim officer was conducting a routine traffic stop on a third party. The shooter turned the gun on himself a half-hour later." Excessive, unfocused, UNDUE. You know what? the entire "continuing response" section could be eliminated in its entirety without hurting the article one bit. Jclemens (talk) 03:42, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• For an article about the shooting itself, the "response" section, in its entirety, is too long and detailed. I would consider breaking it out into a Summary Style sub-article if you want to keep the content, as it's clearly RS'ed adequately, and then keeping only the most significant matters in the main article. Jclemens (talk) 04:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "At the time of the shooting, Virginia law also limited purchases of handguns to one every 30 days. That limit was repealed on April 3, 2013." Move that next to the bit where he waited a month between handgun purchases, please, to make more sense and give specific context for his purchasing strategy. Jclemens (talk) 04:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The Campus Firearms Ban section only really covers things happening before the shooting in question. It doesn't mention Students for Concealed Carry, an organization specifically formed in response to this shooting. It probably should. Jclemens (talk) 04:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, wait, it's in the NEXT section, two paragraphs down. Glad the content's there, but it really should be organized more logically. Jclemens (talk) 04:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "Opponents of gun control viewed this larger move as an unwarranted expansion and as a possible prelude waypoint akin to full gun registration for all gun sales." Awkward, reword please. Jclemens (talk) 04:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure there's a good reason for listing all the Massengill report authors/review panel members in the article. I'm even less convinced this one spot is an optimum spot for such a list, given how scattered references to the report are throughout the article. Jclemens (talk) 04:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "The Department of Education fined the University $55,000 on March 29, 2011, for waiting too long to notify students of the initial shootings. The fine was the highest amount that the Department of Education could levy for the two violations of the Clery Act resulting from the failure to notify students in a timely manner of the shootings in West Ambler Johnston. In announcing the fine against the University, the director of a department panel which reviewed the case was quoted as saying "While Virginia Tech's violations warrant a fine far in excess of what is currently permissible under the statute, the department's fine authority is limited". As of March 30, 2011, the University had announced its intention to appeal the decision." too long, the quotes is of the "well, duh" variety. I'd lose the quote and tighten up the prose here. Oh, yeah, and the second subsequent paragraph updates the disposition of the fine. It needs to read like a good narrative, not like someone tacked on the latter paragraph after the first one was written, even if that is, in fact, how it was originally authored. Jclemens (talk) 04:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, reading further, the whole "legal aftermath" section needs to be gutted and rewritten from a current standpoint, rather than the blow-by-blow we have here, and trimmed a good bit in the process. Jclemens (talk) 04:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What I liked

• Photos are reasonable. I would like to see a picture of Norris Hall, and a Glock 19 would not be inappropriate, either. Jclemens (talk) 04:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• The NPOV in the gun control section is really quite good; actions and proposals are described quite appropriately, and the editors should be specifically commended for maintaining NPOV in a politically charged topic. Jclemens (talk) 04:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]