Talk:Attack on Paul Pelosi/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: ElijahPepe (talk · contribs) 01:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Anne drew (talk · contribs) 18:42, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a few small contributions to this article, but nothing significant. I am confident I can provide an impartial review of this article against the Good Article Criteria. – Anne drew (talk · contribs) 18:42, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Review by section

Lead

Overall, the lead seems like a good summary of the article body. After doing a spot check, it seems like of the information is verifiable, either in the article body or using inline citations.

There are, however, a few additional aspects of the body that may be worth summarizing in the lead:

Life prior to the attack. Would it make sense including a sentence or two on DePape's nationality and his past political history?
(1b) Reactions. The lead does a good job summarizing the misinformation spread about the attack, but I think it should also mention the condemnations of the attack that were made by both Democratic and Republican officials.
Lasting impact. For completeness, it might be worth adding a sentence on the lasting impact to the Pelosi family and Mr. Pelosi's health in particular.

– Anne drew (talk · contribs) 19:31, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Break-in and attack

The house image is tilted at a strange dutch angle. I think it should be rotated and cropped. I'm happy to help with that if you want.
The intruder woke Pelosi and demanded to speak to "Nancy"

While this is correct and verified by references, I think we could make it clearer that Pelosi was intentionally awoken by DePape in the bedroom, rather than Pelosi been awoken from the sound of the break in.
(2b)
Pelosi called 911 on his cellphone at 2:27 a.m.

The sources are inconsistent here. This one states that the time was 2:23. It's not really a material difference, but an additional source confirming one time or the other would be great.
The call prompted the 911 dispatcher to send police to Pelosi's aid for a wellness check

This is verified, but we don't need five separate sources here. I'd recommend moving some of the citations at the end of this sentence to more relevant locations. See WP:OVERCITE.
The released body-cam footage of San Francisco police officers capture the door opening as DePape struggles with Pelosi

Nitpick, but this could be smoother/more grammatical.
swinging the hammer overhead toward his head.

Another nitpick, but the hammer actually struck Pelosi in the head, it didn't merely swing "toward his head".

A few small things here, but in general this section is informative and well-referenced! – Anne drew (talk · contribs) 01:52, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Investigation

naming California Governor Gavin Newsom, actor Tom Hanks, and Hunter Biden as prospective targets

Small thing, but we might want to include a description of Hunter Biden since we have one for the other targets listed. Maybe we can change this to:

naming California Governor Gavin Newsom, actor Tom Hanks, and Hunter Biden – son of President Joe Biden – as prospective targets
(1b)
Although Pelosi received more violent threats than any other lawmaker (and, as speaker, she was accompanied by a security detail when traveling), her home did not receive round-the-clock live protection.

This feels a little editorialized, and it also repeats information from the previous sentence, that her home wasn't continuously monitored when she wasn't home.

Otherwise no major issues with this section! – Anne drew (talk · contribs) 23:23, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perpetrator

(2b)
six-month temporary visitor B-2 visa issued in March 2008

Can we find a source for it being a B-2 visa? NBC just called it a temporary visitor visa, which could also refer to a B-1 visa if I understand it correctly. We should stick to the terminology used by sources.
Actually this CNBC source does verify this. We should use that here.
(2b)
a state senator – described Taub and DePape as being part of a subgroup of "extremely aggressive and creepy" public nudists

I failed to verify this. He actually only described Taub as extremely aggressive and creepy. He did refer to both Taub and DePape as aggressive and creepy, however.
(1b)
Taub claims to have broken up with DePape in 2009

Unless reliable sources have cast doubt on her statement, we should avoid using the word "claim" here. See: MOS:CLAIM.
(1b)
They rekindled their relationship at some point but "broke up" for good in 2015.

I don't think the scare quotes are necessary here.
DePape shifted out

This phrasing sounds awkward my ears. Maybe moved out?
initially writing about topics such as spirituality and ibogaine

This is accurate, but I don't think most readers know what ibogaine is. We can make it clearer by changing it to spirituality and the natural psychedelic ibogaine.
as well as sharing far-right Internet memes.[63][51][64][65][9]

Another WP:OVERCITE issue here.

Just a couple verification issues here and some minor stylistic critiques. – Anne drew (talk · contribs) 21:59, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

State and federal prosecution

(1b)
DePape pleaded not guilty to both the federal and state charges.

While accurate, this is quite a short paragraph, being just one sentence. Can we merge this with another paragraph or add some more details to flesh it out a bit?
(2b)
On January 26, 2023, video and audio recordings of the attack were publicly shown in a preliminary court hearing

If I'm understanding the source correctly, they were actually shown on January 27.
(1b)
After his sentencing, David's father Gene issued an apology statement

Perhaps this should be moved to the Post-sentencing and incarceration section.
DePape was found guilty of five state charges... threatening a witness.

This is interesting. Which witness did he threaten?
As of January 2025, DePape has been incarcerated...

Can we add the date he was incarcerated (November 21, 2024)?

Mostly stylistic concerns for this section, with one verification problem. Also there are a couple places where we might want to include more information. – Anne drew (talk · contribs) 22:26, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions

(4)
Some Republicans who condemned the attack issued statements criticizing "both sides" for violent rhetoric and political violence.

Wikilinking false balance here does not seem neutral and isn't supported by the source.
Afterwards, Youngkin sent a handwritten apology to Speaker Pelosi's office, which she accepted.[105][112][113][114][115]

Another WP:OVERCITE issue here
Trump Jr. responded to a tweet making fun of Pelosi about a Halloween "costume" of just a hammer and a pair of white briefs.

This is vague. Responded how?

One WP:NPOV issue and a couple other small issues. – Anne drew (talk · contribs) 22:43, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Overall review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Great work on this article, ElijahPepe! It largely meets the good article criteria, but there are a few problems that should be addressed before I'd feel comfortable approving it. While it would be great for all of my feedback to be addressed, I have left the fail symbol () next to the issues that are actually blocking my approval. – Anne drew (talk · contribs) 23:10, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Anne drew: Issues should be fixed. As for the comment about threatening a witness, that information was not provided in the source and would likely compromise the privacy of the witness. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 23:28, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it looks like all of the issues are resolved. Congrats on another good article! – Anne drew (talk · contribs) 02:02, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]