Talk:Black Widows of Liverpool/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Aircorn (talk · contribs) 09:30, 14 July 2012 (UTC) Will look into this shortly. AIRcorn (talk) 09:30, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
The lead needs to be expanded slightly. I would expect a couple more sentences to completely summarise the article.
Done A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Should there not be some free images we could use?
Partly done Images are not a specialty of mine, but I've been unable to find any for use here as far as images of the women themselves. I've added an image of flypaper, for what that's worth. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was more thinking of pictures of the women [1]. Images are not my speciality either, but they appear to be old enough; as they died in 1884 the images should be inside the 1923 public domain date. If you can find a published photo before that date that would be best or even something saying when they were published. Otherwise it might be better not to include them (we can ask for advice from someone more in tune with PD). I actually think the flypaper photo is not that good. There is no evidence that that is the type of flypaper used. I would have no image before that one. AIRcorn (talk) 12:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done and done. Ran it past an image-speaking friend and he thinks the ones you linked to are probably usable, so images of the women uploaded (with me cringing and hoping some copyright expert doesn't come after me with a broom for having done it wrong somehow) and added to the infoboxes, image of flypaper removed. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Comments

The household in the final months of 1880 consisted of the two sisters, Catherine's son, John, and two lodger families - hod carrier Thomas Higgins and his daughter Mary, and Patrick Jennings and his daughter Margaret; however, in December, John, 22 and previously healthy, died.' This sentence is mighterly wordy. Is John Catherine's son or a seperate member of the household. Seven comma's, a hyphen and a semi colon in one sentence, plus four "ands" is not ideal. Maybe it can be re-written to make it a bit clearer. Oh and December of what year.
Done. Deconstructed a bit, hopefully clearer now. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
His death was taken in stride or Eventually it was hit upon Idioms are generally to be avoided.
Done A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do we know when Catherine was arrested?
Not done No exact date in the sources I could find, just "nearly a week". A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At the time of her arrest, Catherine claimed to her solicitor that the murders the sisters committed were not isolated, and provided a list of six or seven other murders related to burial society fraud and five other women as the perpetrators of those murders What does the "and five other women as the perpetrators of those murders" mean in the context of this sentence.
Done Clarified. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where did the name Black Widows of Liverpool come from. When was it first used. It doesn't need much information, but as it the articles title I would expect at least a mention of it.
Partly done I've added some discussion about who called them that, when, but to be honest the article is at this title because that's the title someone had given the stub when I came across it and started working on it. I'm definitely open to moving it to another title ("Catherine Flannagan and Margaret Higgins"?) if that seems better. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I like the current title. It is mentioned enough in the sources to pass common name to my mind, but article titles can be controversial here. Titles are outside the GA criteria in any case (wouldn't mind a mention in the lead though) AIRcorn (talk) 13:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Added a mention to the lead. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If they were only officially found guilty of one death should the infobox not say one.
? I'm actually not sure whether this should only list convictions (documentation for the infobox doesn't say, I don't think). For the moment, I've changed "4" to "4 alleged, 1 convicted" in each box, but if you're fairly sure that it should be convictions only I would have no problem changing it to "1". A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Happy with that compromise. Not really a big fan of infoboxes for that reason. AIRcorn (talk) 13:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would be interesting to know what 71 pounds is today. I think there is an {{inflation}} template
Done I didn't know this existed, cool! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could we leave this on hold for another day or two, now that I've made these changes? I've just located a new source and want to give it a going-over to see if it gives me anything useful to add. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC) Actually, I think I've pretty much added what needed to be added in the past few hours. Carry on with the review please :) A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of DABs. Why is there a see also to Arsenic and Old Lace? Black Widow is currently a DAB (might change looking at the talk page). I assume you want to link to one of the spiders? AIRcorn (talk) 13:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It would look better if the references were more consistent, preferably none presented as all capitals. AIRcorn (talk) 13:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Someone else added the See Also section. I don't really see the connection between this and Arsenic and Old Lace, so I've removed that link. I left Black Widow as a dab purposely - when it's used as an idiom, I don't know that it refers to a particular species of spider so much as it refers to the genus, its mating habits, and how those metaphorically apply to humans also - all of which is (at least currently) handled better by the dab than by a particular species page. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered that after I made this comment. I think that an article could probably be made out of the Black Widow concept at some point, but that is neither here nor there when it comes to this article. AIRcorn (talk) 03:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]