Talk:Death of Elisa Lam/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Georgejdorner (talk · contribs) 06:12, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary read-through complete.Georgejdorner (talk) 06:12, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because this is my first-ever GA Review, I am taking it one item at a time. I have just reread the article, and found no problems with the writing style and MOS compliance. I judge requirement A1 as satisfied.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ran dab tool; found no disambiguation needed.

Checked all cites in lede. No dead links. All sources seem reliable. However, two identical cites follow one another in the third paragraph; one could be deleted as excess.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:23, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Georgejdorner: I fixed that problem.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 01:42, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Duly noted.Georgejdorner (talk) 00:22, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clicked all links in lede, and checked they are appropriately connected to relevant articles.Georgejdorner (talk) 01:42, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clicked through Background section. I found the following problems/anomalies:

Cite 10 leads to a blanked page; thus it does not prove her travel schedule.

@Georgejdorner: I fixed that problem.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 01:42, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cite 18 is a one-way cite; you can get to the source, but, most peculiarly, cannot click back to article.

@Georgejdorner: I checked the link; it worked fine for me.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 01:42, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Upon reflection, I think I shall write that anomaly off as an artifact of using an iMac.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cite 23 does not prove when Eliza began her blog. As it is a double for Cite 22, its deletion would not hurt anything.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:49, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Georgejdorner: I fixed that problem.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 01:42, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noted.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Checked all cites and links in Disappearance section. Only discrepancy is a single set of quote marks for "probable cause".Georgejdorner (talk) 18:45, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Checked all cites and links in Elevator video subsection. External video link goes to a 3 minute 59 second video instead of the 2.5 minutes referred to in article. I was unable to determine if the video descriptions given in the article's text for the shorter video still apply for the longer one. This needs clarification. Otherwise, no other problems noted.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:41, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I took mention of the run time out. Originally that xlink template linked to the version the LAPD had posted; when they took it down in early 2016 or so I had to choose from among the many other versions available. Ideally we'd have it inline in the article under fair use; which would eliminate the need for the lengthy description as well. But ... in the absence of that I will review the linked video. Daniel Case (talk) 05:24, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I should think that solves the problem, Daniel.Georgejdorner (talk) 05:11, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Checked all cites and links in Discovery of body section. Cite 37 is problematic in a number of ways. No reader should be expected to wade through 10 pages of medical terminology ferreting out facts; the multi-refs should be broken out page by page. For instance, the first occurrence of cite 37 refers solely to page 3 of the autopsy report to verify her clothing. However, I did not find verification of her room key and watch in those 10 pages. I did find it elsewhere, linked via Cite 18. To top it all off, Cite 37 is a one-way click, with no return to WP.

Cite 38 also goes directly to the autopsy's list of clothing. Cites 39 and 40 checked out okay. Cites 38, 39, and 40 linked both ways with no difficulty.

I am truly baffled here. Sometimes a Cite link will not click back to WP when first tried, but will work upon a later usage. But whatever the actual problem, cites leading to Elisa's autopsy report need to be fixed.Georgejdorner (talk) 00:51, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Georgejdorner: I'll see what I can do. Since the first 10 pages of the autopsy report are sort of an overview that I may not have been expecting to cite as much as I did, I guess I'll have to break them down to specific pages. As for the first page not returning, I suspect that the site that put it up uses that gimmick of having something that your browser will reload a thousand times a second as soon as you click on it, so as to inflate their eyeball counts for advertisers. I do not know right now what we can do about this. Daniel Case (talk) 05:18, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had never heard of the "eyeball cheat" software before. I can see where it is a problem all in itself. Although I find myself wondering, Who would want to advertise on a morgue's website?

Daniel, I would advise carefully tracing your cites in this Discovery of body section. When I read through them, I found myself realizing that you just may have crossed up your references and mislinked them. I listed one of those confusions above. Also, you may be able to find your desired information in an article instead of the autopsy report.

Looking at Edit history of the article, I see another possible problem that is out of your control. Acebulf made a massive edit to the article. I fear that continuing massive edits may threaten the stability of the article.Georgejdorner (talk) 15:32, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm crossing my fingers against drive-through edits. And I do not know what you can do about 'eyeball cheat' software, but I take it on good faith you will do what you can. So, on to the Unresolved issues section.

Speaking of extensions of good faith, I accept the accuracy of the Chinese language editor/translator on the video linked to Cite # 42. Needless to say, I am admitting I do not speak Chinese.

A tiny nit to pick. Text says "...the ]]rape]] and fingernail kits..." Link is not to ]]rape]], but to ]]rape kit]]. Text then should read "...]]rape kit]] and fingernail kit..."

That's it for Unresolved issues section. And the Litigation section has no problems.Georgejdorner (talk) 05:03, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Georgejdorner: I fixed that problem. I think Daniel did what he could. Is the article pass-able now?MagicatthemovieS (talk) 01:42, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fix noted. There is still the In Popular Culture section to be reviewed and corrected. However, I am passing the article down to this point.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:34, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just went through the In Popular Culture section. I noticed one minor item. The city name "Vancouver" is linked down here, but not in the first line of the article. I should think it should also be specified as being in Canada; there is also a Vancouver, Washington.Georgejdorner (talk) 22:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Georgejdorner: I fixed that problem.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 01:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I admire the thoroughness with which this article is cited. There are an overabundance of sources referenced. I am glad to certify this as a Good Article. Congratulations!Georgejdorner (talk) 01:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Georgejdorner: Thank you! When can I expect it to have the Good Article symbol and be showcased on the "Recently listed good articles" section of the Good Articles page?MagicatthemovieS (talk) 01:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, is that what I am expected to do next? Guess I gotta learn how to do it.

And how the heck do you think she got into that tank, anyhow?Georgejdorner (talk) 04:33, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Georgejdorner: The image you placed below this text goes at the top of the talk page where the "this a a good article nominee" message currently stands. I believe Lam was murdered by a hotel employee or employees and that the infamous elevator footage may have been doctored by hotel staff so that no one was incriminated.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 01:42, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I placed the tag at the top of the article's Talk page. Should I reset the assessments in the various WikiProject banners?Georgejdorner (talk) 18:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]