Talk:Giving Victims a Voice/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ugog Nizdast (talk · contribs) 17:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Nominator: Trevj (talk . contribs) 22:56, 09 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I will be reviewing this article. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi and thanks very much for taking the time to do this. I'll check through your comments and make appropriate amendments very soon... unfortunately I seem to have picked the wrong week to go away on holiday, so I've only just seen this very recently. Thanks again - I'll be back. Cheers. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 21:44, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

No problem and actually, same here...not editing much these days. I'll place this On Hold when I've finished doing the reviewing part. Take your time in addressing them. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 19:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll provide clustered responses as I get through things. Cheers. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 20:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll come back to the Background section shortly. I've also discovered a few recent developments, and have noted some sources. I'll see what can be reasonably included over the next few days. Apologies for any temporary destabilisation this may introduce. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 07:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

From comments so far, it also looks as if the overall clarity will need addressing further too. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 12:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I've done checking the article, and for the remaining criteria I'll do a spot check on the sources used as well as do some background research on this topic myself. Go ahead and update the last two sections (seeing how small "Consequences" was, I had initially thought of asking you to merge it). -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 19:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Will do. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 05:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done[1] -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 11:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I've checked all the criteria. Placing it on hold. I've given more suggestions below and tell me if you have any time issues. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 11:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Is there anything else that's either been missed or could do with revisiting? -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 11:36, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I think we're almost done here. Tomorrow I'll do a final check, maybe make some minor edits and most likely finish this. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:12, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations, I pass this article. Apologies for the delay, apart from being away from home, my network connection is bad (and limited) over here. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:15, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Article is well-sourced, just some instances of rewording may be required...I'll make the suggestions below as I progress through checking it section-wise.

-Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

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

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   On hold 11:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

   The article passes, all suggestions have been addressed. 06:15, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions

• Could the "Background" be fleshed out a bit more? I feel it could summarise its main article better. Shouldn't it be able to stand on its own like the lead paras of Jimmy Savile and Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

  I'll have to return and have a look at this one. From memory, this isn't a WP:SS section (despite being indicated as such). However, it possibly ought to be! -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 21:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

  Having thought about this for a couple of days, re-reading the section and making reference to the lead of Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal, I propose an inline link to that article, rather than a {{main}} and WP:SS implication. Changes proposed as follows:

Main article: Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal
The investigation, Operation Yewtree, was begun as a result of publicity over the Jimmy Savile scandal, which began on 5 October 2012 after an ITV Exposure documentary broadcast allegations. [...]

to

The investigation, Operation Yewtree, was begun as a result of publicity over the Jimmy Savile scandal, which began on 5 October 2012 after an ITV Exposure documentary broadcast allegations. [...]

Would that be a reasonable resolution of this issue, or should an alternative approach be adopted? -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 12:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

That's a good question. This idea crossed my mind too but I'm still unsure. Let's see, once everything else is done with...I'll think of something. We'll discuss it below. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 19:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• "Summary of findings"
  • "Most of the alleged victims were aged 13–16, of whom 73% were under 18 and the majority were minors." sentence is confusing--if they were 13–16, why is 73% of them being under 18 and majority were minors immediately stated after it?

     Done[2] -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 21:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

  • "The alleged attacks included 18 girls and 10 boys under the age of 10, and were mostly against young girls aged under 16." Better rearrange this and start off with "The victims were mostly against young girls aged..."

     Done[3] -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 21:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

  • "The most frequent alleged offending was during 1975 and 1976, each year having 15 offences recorded in it." Reword. This has almost identical wording to the previous statement in the article.

     Done[4] -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 21:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Better explain why the assaults were also alleged in hospitals, schools, prison facilities etc (he had some sort of charity thing there, right?).

     Attempted[5] Further hospitals have since been identified, but this was after the report's publication. I presume the prison stuff was as a result of his celebrity status, but haven't found anything in secondary reliable sources regarding the reasoning. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 21:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

  • "At least seven allegations of sexual assault made to police during Savile's lifetime were not linked" what does this mean here? that there was no connection found between this in the report?

     Done[6] -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 21:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

    Okay I understood it now. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 19:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

  • "No attacks within the West Mercia area are included in the figures, and DS Gray expects the number of recorded offences to rise above 214." Could you explain the reason for this? or can this be updated? (if there is any) -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

     Done[7] I couldn't find any further explanation as to why the West Mercia area was omitted, with my search only turning up one vaguely relevant piece. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 21:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

• "Reception"
  • "It has been suggested that the report may have highlighted what could be..."...quotation needs attribution, though in the lead it's been mentioned.

     Done[8][9] -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 13:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

  • "Keir Starmer, Director of Public Prosecutions....by the report" sentence too long, split it.

     Done[10] -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 13:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

  • "not support[ing] police action", why is this in quotation marks? Either attribute it or state it as a fact.

     Done[11] -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 13:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Who is Alison Levitt and how is she related to this case? more needs to be mentioned.

     Done[12] -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 13:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

  • "that the report "does not" reveal the "extent of abuse" claimed by a BBC headline" I didn't get what is being referred to here.

     Done[13] The BBC's Radio Times website has retained the original wording but it appears that their main site has been amended. I had a bit of a look at the Internet Archive, but couldn't locate the original wording there, so have incorporated the wording quoted by the source. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 13:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

    Okay, now that I see the whole context, I think it would be better to trim it like this instead: "Charles Moore noted that the report does not reveal the "extent of abuse" and that it "contains [no actual evidence], in a sense which a court would recognise." Will this work for you? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 19:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

     Done[14] -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 10:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

  • The BBC restated an apology..it has not been mentioned anywhere that they did it before.

     Attempted[15] An additional reference which included a prior apology (from before the report's publication) has now been included. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 13:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

  • "The NSPCC described Savile as "one of the most prolific..." why is this there in reception? Isn't it from the report itself? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 19:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

     Removed[16] -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 13:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Excellent and thorough work. When you expand and update it with those new sources, I'll do another check. I also have to investigate the Background section. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 19:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• "Background"
  • About this, it's best that you summarise it more and the main article link is very much needed. About 1–2 more paras from the parent article should be enough. This article needs to be able to stand on its own.
  • "The "widespread rumours about his sexual conduct" seemed to have been "dismissed" and regarded as "another of his eccentricities".", seems to overuse quotation marks or is unattributed.

    OK, I agree that a summary is needed because this article needs to be standalone. However, the current #Background section includes some new content specific to this article. For clarification, could the current 2nd and 3rd paragraphs be retained and an SS replacement section (of 1 or 2 paragraphs) be incorporated in place of the current 1st paragraph? -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 12:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Alright, then you can replace {{main}} with {{details}}/{{further}} because I think these are used when it doesn't fully summarise the target page. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done[17] -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 10:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• In the lead, "The report's publication resulted in a suggestion (in one newspaper report) of systemic failure due to the number of institutions identified. A former editor of The Daily Telegraph, as well as various academic commentators, have criticised the report for treating allegations as facts."
  • better just mention directly attribute the newspaper but I've noticed that this mention of systemic failure is made by a couple of newspapers....so maybe you could source that instead.
  • mention who instead of various.

    I'll return to the lead once the rest is tidied up. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 12:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

     Amended[18] Preceded by clarification of "systemic failure" comments. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 11:36, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• Coverage
  • I've come across mentions of other reports, is it worth including? Is there any more going to be released by the MPS and NSPCC? Is this report the final one or is more being investigated? So anything needs to be updated here?

     Attempted[19] It's difficult to discern whether other reports are a direct consequence of this one, the wider investigation or public awareness/reporting/media coverage. What I've just included can be amended. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 15:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

  • "Reception"
    • Stramer also saying: "Many people feel that for sexual offences, where it is 'one person's word against another's"...in no meaningful scientific evidence." Telegraph--I feel this would be a valuable addition.

       Done[20] Does the use of a quote box for this seem reasonable, considering the official prominence? -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 10:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

      This I think is beyond the scope of this review, so it won't affect it. In the strictest sense (from what I read in WP:LONGQUOTE and WP:Blockquote), quoteboxes need to be removed since it's advised against using them. (don't ask me when they can be used. I couldn't find anything. Not sure why they are even available) I think it would be better to use '<blockquote>' with this main quotation. I recommend you remove the other boxes and merge the quotations with the regular prose. Right now, it also looks a bit cramped. This is all up to you. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:12, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

      I think you're probably right. Decisions on this sort of issue can be rather particular. Consensus for this section will evolve with further editing. I'm currently pondering it and will probably come up with an improvement. Although the selection of quotes may be rather subjective, so is the order of presentation of normal quotes within prose. I feel that the 3 {{quote box}}es currently in place are reasonable because they represent a variety of somewhat authoritative views. However, I'm open to other ideas if I don't amend things myself. Thanks. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 19:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

    • Moore's view, I feel, can be better represented. Redo it, here are some good points...write it however you see fit.
      • "It treats allegations as facts. By doing so, it undermines justice."
      • "Also about the main...this doesn't provide (only keeps repeating claims)" "...is not a contribution to the truth, but to the official obsession..."
      • "It never expresses the slightest doubt about any accusation which it has recorded"...to take it seriously, "they should interest themselves in establishing truth."
      • "The report is correct when it says...go so far the other way that every accusation must be considered true"
      • To whether he was guilty, "this uninformative and self-righteous report...answer this question, when – as they certainly will – future Saviles arise."

         Rewritten/amended[21] I'm becoming wary that a few of these points reinforce one another, and wouldn't want to place undue weight on Charles Moore's comments. Therefore, not all of the above have been incorporated. What do you think? -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 10:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

        Well done. Yes of course, I just put whatever seemed good here, left the choosing what to actually add-part to you. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:12, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

    • Mention the title of the academics' work.

       Done[22] -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 10:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

  • "Consequences": I conclude that this section can be removed. Does Rippon's departure involve any direct connection with this report? If there's something I missed here, I still cannot approve of a stubby section, better merge it then to "Reception".

    This can still be merged, although it's a little larger now. What do you think? -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 15:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

    It's better now...okay, this section need not be merged. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:44, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I think that's about it from my side, I'm placing this article on hold. Do tell me if you have any time constraints. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 11:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Things should be OK for time, but I'll let you know if not. I'll see if I can amend things during the course of this week. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 12:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm still working on the rest, by the way. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 15:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• What does "to apply learning to ongoing child protection..." mean?...needs to be reworded. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

  Sorry. That was included at 11:06, 28 April 2014. Now  done.[23] -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 10:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Alright, the article passes, great job. Some extra recommendations: you could rearrange or trim down some excess inline citations (WP:Citation overkill) to make it easier to read. Also, since this article is probably summarised in many others under this general topic, you probably need to update them too or add a section where its needed (WP:SYNC, WP:DETAIL). -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:15, 3 May 2014 (UTC)