Talk:United States: Emergency calls from Great Mills High School shooting released

Headline

This headline is in passive voice, difficult to get rid of this. Perhaps "United States: in Maryland a police officer kills a shooter who injured two teenagers" -Gryllida (talk) 21:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Better? I was also misremembering when I put in the headline: both victims were wounded (one remains in critical condition). Yngvadottir (talk) 21:56, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

"Exchange of fire" implies the shooter fired at the lawman. Right? Was this the case? Gryllida (talk) 23:23, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

They are said to have fired simultaneously, with no one officially saying who the shooter's last shot was at. So I guess we don't know. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Review of revision 4391953 [Not ready]

Revision 4391953 of this article has been reviewed by SVTCobra (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 13:25, 22 March 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not ready: Lede and other paragraphs are too absolutist Style: Not ready: Lede jumps into details Comments by reviewer: Sorry for the quick fail on this article, but I feel it was submitted for review prematurely. We cannot state as facts details of what happened in that school. The lede should be an overview of what is known or alleged to have happened. Details should then be described in the following paragraphs with appropriate attributions. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 4391953 of this article has been reviewed by SVTCobra (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 13:25, 22 March 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not ready: Lede and other paragraphs are too absolutist Style: Not ready: Lede jumps into details Comments by reviewer: Sorry for the quick fail on this article, but I feel it was submitted for review prematurely. We cannot state as facts details of what happened in that school. The lede should be an overview of what is known or alleged to have happened. Details should then be described in the following paragraphs with appropriate attributions. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Hmm, ok. Will look at the latest coverage. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:40, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I've flipped the switch again. If anything, the sources I find today are more adamant about what happened. One additional one that I did not cite I'll put here; note the tone of the headline:

• Corky Siemaszko. "Maryland school shooter used father's gun to go after ex-girlfriend" — NBC News, March 21, 2018

Yngvadottir (talk) 21:24, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

On reflection, and after looking at Acagastya's changes to the lede, I clearly just don't get it about how to balance lede and following paragraphs here and how to maintain neutrality given the sources. I give up. Others are welcome to rewrite it in a more appropriate way. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:39, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Review of revision 4392922 [Not ready]

Revision 4392922 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 15:04, 28 March 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: See below. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: Unfortunately, this has gotten past us again, and lost freshness. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 4392922 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 15:04, 28 March 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: See below. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: Unfortunately, this has gotten past us again, and lost freshness. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Review of revision 4393646 [Passed]

Revision 4393646 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 17:19, 30 March 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: It's easy to get the impression, from the msm coverage, that the audios were released on Tuesday. Actually the police released all of it on Monday (the Sun article on Tuesday links to a Sun article on Monday, which makes this clear), and it seems media outlets first wrote articles focusing on the announcement that the shooter died from a self-inflicted wound, then, typically the next morning, put out articles focusing on the audios; often with similar content, perhaps a bit more analysis of the calls. It's very rare for us to go over the three-calendar-day threshold; it happens sporadically, maybe once a year on average (and some of those are accidental). I'm allowing this particular case, with a half an eye on the media timing and, especially, awareness of the accumulated weight of news and reporting-effort this article is towing. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 4393646 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 17:19, 30 March 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: It's easy to get the impression, from the msm coverage, that the audios were released on Tuesday. Actually the police released all of it on Monday (the Sun article on Tuesday links to a Sun article on Monday, which makes this clear), and it seems media outlets first wrote articles focusing on the announcement that the shooter died from a self-inflicted wound, then, typically the next morning, put out articles focusing on the audios; often with similar content, perhaps a bit more analysis of the calls. It's very rare for us to go over the three-calendar-day threshold; it happens sporadically, maybe once a year on average (and some of those are accidental). I'm allowing this particular case, with a half an eye on the media timing and, especially, awareness of the accumulated weight of news and reporting-effort this article is towing. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.