Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Murder of Leigh Leigh/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 07:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]
Contents
- Nominator(s): Freikorp and Ohc ¡digame! 09:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC) [reply]
This article is about the grisly murder of a 14-yo schoolgirl in Australia. I am the GAC reviewer of this article. Having examined all the relevant criteria and looked in detail at the background of the story, I believe it is complete for all important details, and all matters of substance and form are of or near to FA standard. Ohc ¡digame! 09:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image review from Nikkimaria
editResolved issues
|
---|
|
Comments from Cas Liber
editWell-written and neutral, it appears pretty comprehensive at first read. I remember this case in the media at the time. Will jot notes below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:16, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues
|
---|
|
Right - cautious support on comprehensiveness and prose, pending the sorting out of best copyright for images. A sobering and depressing story - well done. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:23, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Hamiltonstone
editSupport from Hamiltonstone. Good article on a distressing subject of socio-cultural significance in Australia. It was hard to read, but purely because of its subject matter.
"It is alleged Leigh and several other under-age girls". Should this read "It was alleged"? Is this really still a current allegation?- I have made some other edits - feel free to check. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 08:32, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks so much for your edits and support. Freikorp (talk) 09:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Brianboulton
editOppose: I am sorry to have to oppose, but I do not think that, at present, the prose meets the relevant FA criterion. I recognise the enormous amount of developmental work that has been done on the article, particularly by Freikorp, but it is not yet, in my view, the finished product. It's a great pity that the article did not receive a peer review – not that the nominators are in any way to blame, since it sat for two weeks at WP:PR without attracting comment. Please note for the future that I will almost always respond to a polite request for a peer review, unless the subject is professional wrestling.
Resolved issues
|
---|
I have only read the first half of the article. These are my main concerns:
I am not sure whether it is feasible for these issues – together with anything arising in the second half – to be fixed during this FAC, although I hope the co-ordinators will give some leeway in view of your PR experiences. Should this prove impossible, I will be prepared, if you wish, to provide a full peer review before your resubmission. Brianboulton (talk) 16:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Interim: The first part is looking good now. I've made a few tweaks and adjustments. A couple of suggestions before I look at the second half:
Reading on Brianboulton (talk) 08:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply] It's taking longer than I had hoped. Here are my concerns to the end of the "Forensic testing" subsection. More later.
Brianboulton (talk) 13:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have spent much more time than I normally would on a FAC review, partly because it wasn't your fault that the article didn't get the detailed peer review it needed and also because this is, I think, your first FA nomination. You can probably see now that the article was quite a bit short of FA standard when it was nominated; there is a world of difference between what is acceptable at GA and what is required here. Featured articles, particularly when they become WP:TFA, get scrutinised by large numbers of readers, and it is essential that they justify the claim that they are part of WP's best work. That's enough pontificating by me; I'll leave you to consider my final comments and act as necesary. I have struck the oppose, but want the opportunity to read the whole thing through when you've made your final adjustment. Ping me when you're ready. Brianboulton (talk) 15:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support: I am satisfied that the article is now worthy of promotion. Any further prose tweaks will be of a minor nature. This is an article that will tend to stay in the memory; that cheeky but enigmatic face won't easily be forgotten. Brianboulton (talk) 22:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Ian Rose
editNote -- I know there's been some discussion of referencing above but not sure that we've had a formal source review for formatting/reliability, or a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing. Pls let me know if I've missed something, otherwise I'd like to see both such checks carried out before we look at promotion. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Ian. Some source checks were certainly done as part of the GA review, but unfortunately for me I think you're right regarding a lack of source checks at FAC (not that I hold that against anyone as there were plenty of other things that needed resolving at the time). As I am confident I have not, at least intentionally, used close paraphrasing or been misleading with my sources, I offered during both the GA review and here at FAC to email some or all of the pdf copies I have of offline newspaper and journal sources (I have a pdf copy of every offline source used except Coyle 2005 and Who Killed Leigh Leigh, but I can type out individual paragraphs or scan individual pages of the latter) to anyone who is interested in checking them. This offer still stands, though there are of course many online sources that you could do spot-checks with. I am willing to do anything that is required of me to have this article promoted, so don't hesitate to ask me for assistance. Freikorp (talk) 12:31, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments on prose from Dank and Rationalobserver
editComments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)
- You use "stated" a lot; I don't have any comment on that now, but I think we should test it for readability.
- "whilst" takes a lot of heat at FAC
- "offensive behaviour in relation to the 28 January assault": I'm not familiar with Australian police lingo, and maybe this is technical language that we have to preserve, but if not, then "offensive behaviour in the 28 January assault" would be better.
- "have contributed to it being referred to as": There are more direct ways to say this.
- "The "unsustainable assumption" that Leigh consented to sex was the turning point in her being blamed for her own assault and murder": I'm not sure what you're saying.
- The quote is from the two scholars mentioned in the preceding sentences. I'm trying to say that according to the scholars, the belief that Leigh consented to sex was an "unsustainable assumption", and that it was this assumption that led to her being blamed for her own attack - as indicated by the rest of the sentence "because she was supposedly sexually promiscuous, Leigh had somehow "asked for [the attack]". Freikorp (talk)
- "It took police over three months to press charges against Webster, even though they had established within 10 days that he had lied about his whereabouts, had publicly stated his intention to rape Leigh, and had had the opportunity to commit the crime.": That's my version; the longer version seemed unwieldy, but feel free to revert.
- Some units (such as 100 metres) may need conversions.
- Done for 100 metres. I didn't do it for the second use of 2.8 metres as it is converted earlier, or the use of 1.3 meters in the same sentence as since 2.8 was converted earlier, it should be obvious to the reader that 1.3 is a little less than half of 2.8 and therefore a little less than half of the earlier conversion, though if someone else feels this should be converted anyway it won't bother me. Freikorp (talk)
- Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:38, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your review and edits Dank. Freikorp (talk) 03:50, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Happy to help. Looks good. - Dank (push to talk) 12:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support On prose per Dank and Brianboulton. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Source review from Nikkimaria
editSource review - spotchecks not done
- "The epithet "slut" in a pretrial psychological report also became a topic of focus for the media" - source?
- Check MOS issues related to quotes - for example, we don't typically enclose ellipses in parentheses
- FN34: the university is a publisher not a publication, shouldn't be italicized. There are a few other instances of this type of error - please check and correct
- Brien citation should include volume and issue number
- Be consistent in whether you include location for books. Nikkimaria (talk) 07:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- All issues addressed, though I couldn't find any other instances of a publisher being italicised besides the one you mentioned. I may have missed something that would be obvious to others, just point it out to me and i'll fix it. Freikorp (talk) 09:19, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Source spot-check from Laser brain
edit- Ref 14a, close paraphrasing
- Source: "where an uncertain number of young people - two 10-year-olds at one point"
- Article text: "though it was reported that two 10-year-olds were present at one point."
- Ref 16a, close paraphrasing
- Source: "She had a written invitation and permission from her mother, who was told that responsible adults would be attending the party."
- Article text: "Leigh's mother was told there would be responsible adults present at the party."
- Ref 17d, close paraphrasing. Additionally, "nationally at high schools across the country" is redundant and poor writing.
- Source: "Despite these denials, the staff at Newcastle High School (where both Leigh and Webster had been students) found the connection too close and did not book the play for their students. Property was, however, extremely successful in other schools and theatres in Newcastle (as it was on its subsequent lengthy tour of the region and around Australia) and won a number of prestigious awards."
- Article text: "The play was shown at various high schools in the Newcastle area, and following its positive reception, was shown nationally at high schools across the country, winning several awards. However, Newcastle High School, where both Leigh and Webster had been students, declined to show it."
- Ref 74a, OK
- Source: "In February 2004 the Parole Board declined to parole this individual because of recommendations made by the Serious Offenders Review Council that he needed to undertake work release."
- Article text: "Webster first applied for parole in February 2004. His application was denied on the grounds he needed to first undertake work release."
- Ref 78
- Source text: "the charges were dismissed in April this year because of a lack of evidence."
- Article text: "He was released from prison in May 2005 after the charges were dropped due to a lack of evidence."
Batting 0-for-5 here—I strongly urge this be given a thorough source edit by an independent editor and copyedited for close paraphrasing as needed. I realize referring to a couple of these as close paraphrasing might be debatable, but I think we can do better in terms of distance from the source text. --Laser brain (talk) 00:28, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I have just returned from a wikibreak and am able to respond to concerns again, but my co-nominator has already addressed these particular phrases. Looking forward to any further reviews. Freikorp (talk) 03:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Had the article had the thorough source edit recommended by Laser brain? Simply addressing the specific points raised is not enough. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:20, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Ian Rose. Laser brain recommended a thorough source edit by an independent editor. Obviously I cannot do this myself, and an independent editor has not yet come forward to do it (though as I state I am looking forward to one doing so), so no, this has not been done. All I can address is what is pointed out to me; with the exception of the above points which were addressed by my co-nominator, I have addressed every issue thus far. Freikorp (talk) 11:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Ian Rose. I've noticed this nomination is now at the bottom of the older nominations list. Assuming nobody actually gives it a thorough source edit, how long would it be before the nomination is closed? And am I correct in assuming that despite the level of support it has, that without a thorough source edit it would be archived, not passed? I ask as if it is archived, I will simply be re-nominating it as soon as I am allowed to, so rather than go through this all again over another couple months perhaps I can save everyone a lot of time by attempting to soliciting someone to give it a source edit. Of course, I will not try and solicit support at the same time, rather just the review of the sources. Is this allowed and/or recommended? Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 04:20, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- If it got 0/5 on the first pass, I suggest that one of the nominators goes through every cite looking for and removing close paraphrasing. There's no point in a reviewer going through and listing all 100 if it actually scores 29/129. --99of9 (talk) 06:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I think 3 of those 5 scores are very debatable, and the other 2 are hardly terrible examples of close paraphrasing, but very well, I'll go over the citations tonights - give me a few hours. Freikorp (talk) 06:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- If you take a look at my GA review, you will see that I paid close attention to the issue. Instances of close paraphrasing were found and were addressed. The remaining examples found above were either cases that I did not believe were problematic when I reviewed, or were unwittingly introduced subsequent to my review. I would ask Laser brain how many references were checked in their spot-check that gave rise to the five noted above? -- Ohc ¡digame! 07:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I just went over every online newspaper reference. I made several small changes to things I thought could be improved slightly, but the only long complete match I found was a sentence that I had simply neglected to specify was a direct quote from the source; I added quotation marks accordingly. Freikorp (talk) 13:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Freikorp. As I mentioned in my comment, there were some edge cases and nothing I would consider egregious at all. I am encouraged to hear that multiple editors have paid attention to the sources. I ran a few more informal checks and didn't see any issues. Please consider my concerns addressed. --Laser brain (talk) 20:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I just went over every online newspaper reference. I made several small changes to things I thought could be improved slightly, but the only long complete match I found was a sentence that I had simply neglected to specify was a direct quote from the source; I added quotation marks accordingly. Freikorp (talk) 13:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I think 3 of those 5 scores are very debatable, and the other 2 are hardly terrible examples of close paraphrasing, but very well, I'll go over the citations tonights - give me a few hours. Freikorp (talk) 06:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- If it got 0/5 on the first pass, I suggest that one of the nominators goes through every cite looking for and removing close paraphrasing. There's no point in a reviewer going through and listing all 100 if it actually scores 29/129. --99of9 (talk) 06:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Had the article had the thorough source edit recommended by Laser brain? Simply addressing the specific points raised is not enough. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:20, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I have just returned from a wikibreak and am able to respond to concerns again, but my co-nominator has already addressed these particular phrases. Looking forward to any further reviews. Freikorp (talk) 03:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Beards (talk) 07:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.