Talk:Gunman enters Pennsylvania hospital ICU, kills officer before police fatally shoot him
Add topicReview of revision 4841203 [Not ready]
[edit]  |
Revision 4841203 of this article has been reviewed by Michael.C.Wright (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 15:46, 24 February 2025 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: The focal event appears to be 'shooter enters ICU and takes hostages' (that is where the headline and lede align). Only one of the two provided sources support the statement that hostages were taken. Therefore we need a second source article to support the focal event or the focal event should be changed. The headline should also be changed. Who was killed is ambiguous. 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 4841203 of this article has been reviewed by Michael.C.Wright (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 15:46, 24 February 2025 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: The focal event appears to be 'shooter enters ICU and takes hostages' (that is where the headline and lede align). Only one of the two provided sources support the statement that hostages were taken. Therefore we need a second source article to support the focal event or the focal event should be changed. The headline should also be changed. Who was killed is ambiguous. 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. |
so confusing
[edit]Some say officers were hurt, then later in the story says that nobody was hurt according to another source. Haven't they reconciled their versions by now? Gryllida (talk) 22:37, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
- I would think so... BigKrow (talk) 00:34, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
Names of gunman?
[edit]Can't we not use their names??? BigKrow (talk) 00:40, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @BigKrow, sorry, I should be consistent with something, yet WN:SG and WN:CG say nothing about whether the name should be included in such a story. Can you find how it was done in previously published stories please? I'm happy with either, as long as it is consistent. Gryllida (talk) 00:51, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
- Not the use of names because privacy rights. BigKrow (talk) 00:52, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
- Do you mean it illegal or something? Gryllida (talk) 01:04, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
- Example: Six dead in campus shooting at Northern Illinois University mentions names though only once, not repeatedly like I did in the current revision
- Dozens dead in Connecticut school shooting same
- School shooting in Kauhajoki, Finland kills eleven same
- I've now attempted the same approach in the article. Is this OK now? Gryllida (talk) 01:08, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
- Sure if census agrees. BigKrow (talk) 01:15, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
- With past articles about shooters, I have argued that we shouldn't name them, similar to how NPR does.[1]
- Sure if census agrees. BigKrow (talk) 01:15, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
- Not the use of names because privacy rights. BigKrow (talk) 00:52, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
Use the name of the killer sparingly and focus on the victims. In a series of memos, this policy has evolved over the years, starting with a suggestion to "minimize the name of the shooter when possible."
– NPR]
- And the AP reports:
Adam Lankford, a criminologist at the University of Alabama, who has studied the influence of media coverage on future shooters, said it’s vitally important to avoid excessive coverage of gunmen.
Headline
[edit]Suggest headline "Gunman attempts revenge by taking hostage at Pennsylvania hospital but is shot by police" for more unique? cc @BigKrow Gryllida (talk) 01:57, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
- Okay, sounds good. BigKrow (talk) 12:31, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
Review of revision 4841515 [Passed]
[edit]  |
Revision 4841515 of this article has been reviewed by Michael.C.Wright (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 17:47, 26 February 2025 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: I intentionally removed some specifics as our source articles didn't always agree on them. I also rearranged paragraphs to better fit the inverted pyramid style of writing (WP:IP). I removed the name of the gunman. There isn't consensus on whether or not to include the name in cases like this so if someone else feels strongly about it, it can be changed within the next 24 hours. See the talk page for discussion. See the edit history for other edits made during the review process. 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 4841515 of this article has been reviewed by Michael.C.Wright (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 17:47, 26 February 2025 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: I intentionally removed some specifics as our source articles didn't always agree on them. I also rearranged paragraphs to better fit the inverted pyramid style of writing (WP:IP). I removed the name of the gunman. There isn't consensus on whether or not to include the name in cases like this so if someone else feels strongly about it, it can be changed within the next 24 hours. See the talk page for discussion. See the edit history for other edits made during the review process. 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. |
- Thank you @Michael.C.Wright:! BigKrow (talk) 22:05, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
number 6
[edit]I think the gunman injured 6, I added number into article. I think sources agree on this now? cc @Michael.C.Wright Thanks Gryllida (talk) 22:16, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you BigKrow (talk) 22:18, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
- The following is from Pioneer Press: (gunman injured 5, killed 1)
A man who took hostages in a Pennsylvania hospital during a shooting that killed a police officer and wounded five other people.
- The following is from the AP: (gunman injured 5, killed 1, 1 more injured in fall)
[Previous paragraph tallies 1 officer killed] Three workers ... and two other officers were shot and wounded in the attack, York County District Attorney Tim Barker said. A fourth staffer was injured in a fall.
- The articles differ on the total number of injured, as some omit or exclude the individual who fell. Not all specify a total count, and the gunman did not injure the fallen staffer.
- None of the articles indicate they have been updated since our article was published.
- Therefore, I would say there is no source that supports the statement that the gunman injured 6 people. —Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Reviewer) 15:14, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for verifying this. I think the 'Campus Safety Magazine' source had it as three police officers injured. Others had it as two. Perhaps the Campus Safety Magazine got it wrong.
- Unfortunately, I tried, but couldn't include the information into the story because I slept for 8 hours and now it's a few hours over the 24 hour window. (No thanks to the wiki software for not sending me any note to my smartphone that there was a urgent task awaiting me here. I woke up at 4:30 am and still had no idea, until I went to my desktop.)
- To avoid this happening in the future, if some essential detail needed to be axed during review process, I recommend that the reviewer provides clear instructions to other users about what information was axed, a note that it needs to be added asap, including (in cases when sources disagree) what the reviewer thinks is the correct version or recommends including both. Moreover, "some specifics" doesn't cut it and is an obnoxiously unproductive phrase to put in a review comment. (As time is lost, perhaps hours of it, figuring out what exactly needed to be axed, reading history, etc basically retrieving information which the reviewer could have written as this is a urgent situation)
- I hope this is an OK thought for consideration in the future. Gryllida (talk) 22:10, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
- Therefore, I would say there is no source that supports the statement that the gunman injured 6 people. —Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Reviewer) 15:14, 27 February 2025 (UTC)