Talk:Black Dahlia/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: 3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk · contribs) 10:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A very good and thorough article, it seems. Some minor complaints:

The article uses Template:Sfn for book sources ("Works cited" section). However, references no 49, 71, 77, 83, 95, 100, 110, 112, 115, 116, 120, 125 and 126 all break this rule by having an entire book cited already in the source. The article should either be one or the other. Either use the Sfn template consistently or directly cite books in the reference.
- This is something I've wondered with myself, though my understanding was that Sfn references were appropriate if you were citing multiple pages of a book throughout the article, but should not be used if simply one page number/grouping is being referenced. I may be entirely wrong on that, but for consistency's sake, I think uniformity is probably best, so I've converted them.

"Childhood" section: "Short was born in the Hyde Park section..." Her full name should be given in the first sentence.
- Addressed, and bolded name since it's the first mention in the article body.
"Suspects and confessions" section: "Of the 60 early confessions, 25 were considered viable suspects by the Los Angeles District Attorney. In the course of the investigation, some of the original 25 were eliminated, and several new suspects were proposed." There is no source for the end of this sentence, which gives very specific figures.
- Had to strike this as I could not find any source for those figures; I don't recall putting them there and I believe they may have already been written in the article prior to when I started working on it. In any case, I cannot find any corroboration of that statement, so I feel it best to remove it for the time being.
"Alleged prostitution and sexual history" section mentions a book in the text: "in Michael Newton's 2009 book The Encyclopedia of Unsolved Crimes (ISBN 978-1-438-11914-4), notes that her uterus was "small"..." The ISBN is unnecessary in the brackets. The title of the book and the authors are sufficient.
- Agreed--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 10:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, it should simply be done at something like "in the 2009 book The Encyclopedia of Unsolved Crimes", with all the publication details in a reference citation, preferably with a page number cited for the quoted material. There is no reason to mention the author name in the main encyclopedia text unless the author is notable (has his/her own article here). Also, "in the [book], notes that ..." isn't even grammatical. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:46, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@3E1I5S8B9RF7: I believe I've addressed the comments above, but let me know if something else still appears out of sorts here. Thank you again. --Drown Soda (talk) 23:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

Overall, I think all my major issues were adressed. This article seems to be neutral and objectively written. I think it meets the GA criteria.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 10:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]