Talk:Killing of Fernando Rios

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 14:59, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that there were "jubilant" cheers from the courtroom audience after three Tulane University students were found not guilty of murder in the killing of Fernando Rios?

• Source: Delery 2017 p. 116

• • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/T24 Festival

Created by JJonahJackalope (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 58 past nominations.

JJonahJackalope (talk) 19:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Long enough and new enough. The article is well-sourced and passes Earwig's Copyvio check. AGF for offline sources. QPQ done. Nicely done. Riley1012 (talk) 15:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Killing of Fernando Rios/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: JJonahJackalope (talk · contribs) 19:39, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Borsoka (talk · contribs) 11:34, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. 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):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Image review

• File:Garrison Jim.jpg: a reference to a reliable source is needed at Commons. Borsoka (talk) 11:34, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, I am unable to verify where that image was procured. To avoid any potential copyright violation, I have removed that image from this article. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 04:09, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Source review

• Reliable sources are cited.
• Most of the information currently comes from a single source. Would it be possible to add additional sources to help ensure neutrality? Borsoka (talk) 11:34, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
  • I can go through the existing sources and add additional inline citations from additional sources as applicable. Delery was cited as extensively as he was simply because his work on the subject was the most comprehensive coverage of the topic I could find. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 04:09, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
• References 9a-o, 18a-d, f-m are OK.
• Reference 18e does not verify the statement. Borsoka (talk) 07:24, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
  • The reference cited says, "The two hit it off and left the bar together." I must have inferred that this meant that the two began to talk at the bar. I have edited the article to clarify. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 14:00, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Comments

• The lead could (and should) be shortened by at least 15%. Borsoka (talk) 11:34, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
  • I have significantly shortened the lead while trying to keep the key details. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 04:09, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

    Sorry, I would still shorten it. :) Borsoka (talk) 12:31, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

    @JJonahJackalope:, what do you think? Please also take a look at my source review above. Borsoka (talk) 07:24, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

    • I reformatted the lead and significantly shortened it. Let me know if that works for you. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 14:00, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

• ... who worked for Geneva Travel Service I would delete it.
  • Deleted. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 04:09, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
• ...the Supreme Court of the United States, who declined... Is the pronoun "who" grammatic?
  • Changed "who" to "which". -JJonahJackalope (talk) 04:09, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
• In his discussions on the event, Delery notes that, despite the progress made by the LGBTQ community in the United States at large and New Orleans in specific–with the city being considered one of the most LGBTQ-friendly cities in the country in 2024–there are some comparisons to be drawn with various anti-LGBTQ acts and measures in the United States,[18] including the 2016 Pulse nightclub shooting that left dozens of primarily Latino gay men dead. Split this extremly lengthy sentence at least into two. Borsoka (talk) 12:02, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Split this sentence into two, made slight formatting changes. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 04:09, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

@Borsoka:, just wanted to ping you to let you know that I have made some edits to the article to address the points you raised in your review! Thank you for initiating this process, and if you have any further questions, comments, or concerns, please reach out. Regards, -JJonahJackalope (talk) 04:09, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

@JJonahJackalope: I would like to close the review by the end of this month. What do you think? Borsoka (talk) 11:54, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

@Borsoka: apologies, I've been in the process of moving for a bit now and haven't had a lot of time to engage in Wikipedia topics, but I should have the appropriate edits made by the end of the month! -JJonahJackalope (talk) 22:06, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

No problem. Ping me when you are ready. Borsoka (talk) 15:22, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

@Borsoka: I have made some additional edits to the article and I believe it should be good for an additional review! Let me know if you have any further questions, comments, or concerns regarding the article! -JJonahJackalope (talk) 14:00, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for this interesting and well-written article. I really appreciate how it provides a detailed social and historical background to this terrible crime. I think the article has strong potential to become a FA, so I suggest requesting a peer review to gather further ideas for improvement. Borsoka (talk) 11:16, 3 September 2025 (UTC)