Template:Did you know nominations/Juan Rivera (wrongful conviction)
- 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Juan Rivera (wrongful conviction) edit
... that "exoneree" Juan Rivera (pictured) found proof of evidence tampering when his shoes, which had the victim's blood on them, also had DNA from the real killer?
ALT1:... that "exoneree" Juan Rivera (pictured) was excluded as the source of DNA evidence found at the scene of a rape and murder but was convicted anyway?ALT2:... that "exoneree" Juan Rivera (pictured), who was wrongfully convicted of the murder of 11-year-old Holly Staker, was awarded $20 million USD, the largest wrongful conviction settlement in US history?- Reviewed: Coelastrea aspera
Created by Bali88 (talk). Self-nominated at 00:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC).
- Exonoree is a neologism, and a hideous one at that. Please rewrite, EEng (talk) 18:48, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- Article is ready for final review. Bali88 (talk) 02:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Article is new enough, long enough, meets core policies and guidelines. Hooks are short enough. I prefer Alt 2, but I would reword it as follows, ... that Juan Rivera (pictured), who was wrongfully convicted of the murder of 11-year-old Holly Staker, was awarded $20 million USD, the largest wrongful conviction settlement in US history? That gets rid of the disputed neologism with the awful abuse of quotation marks and still gets the point across that he was wrongfully convicted. I think that hook is far more interesting than the other two. Hook 1 is inaccurate as worded and alt 1 isn't as interesting. Image is ok; not the best, but not the worst either. It's free use and shows up well at small size. QPQ is done. This should be good to go. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:52, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you so much for your review. For the record, why do you say hook 1 is inaccurate? Bali88 (talk) 17:38, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- It says, "Juan Rivera found proof of evidence tampering. . ." That implies that Rivera personally discovered this evidence of tampering, rather than the defense team (lawyers, investigators, lab techs, etc.) or, as stated in the article, that the judge ordered an investigation into allegations of tampering with the shoes, and that independent investigation found proof of tampering. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 18:52, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- How about:
- ALT3 ... that an investigation into the case of Juan Rivera (pictured) uncovered proof of evidence tampering when his shoes, which had the victim's blood on them, also had DNA from the real killer?
Personally, I think evidence tampering is more interesting than money. Settlements happen all the time. evidence planting not as much. Bali88 (talk) 20:55, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Alt3 is good. Certainly more clear than the first hook. Truthfully evidence tampering happens a distressing amount in our criminal justice system, and people who are exonerated are rarely compensated for the years they spent behind bars. However, with the re-wording Alt3 is accurate and interesting. I think it's good to go. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 21:26, 11 June 2015 (UTC)