Talk:Death of Patrick Cronin

Different dates of death

The Court Document, Whitefriars Newsletter, and Funeral Notice all provide different date of Cronin's death. I have decided it stick with the Court Document's date. If anyone else has a better idea of actual date feel free to implement it (with the appropriate citation of course). - GA Melbourne (talk) 02:06, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

FYI - I have now changed the date to the 18th of April 2016 after reading a Herald sun article which states that there was an incorrect statement issued by Victoria police that lead to the confusion (see here). ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 08:08, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

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 Lightburst (talk) 22:43, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Pat Cronin, a 19-year-old man, died after he was struck just once on his head during a pub fight? Source: 2017 VSC 678 (paragraph 12)
  • Reviewed:
  • Comment: Hello, I am new to this process and thought I would try it out. Feel free to let me know if I've made a mistake.

Created by GA Melbourne (talk). Self-nominated at 14:10, 18 January 2023 (UTC).

• Not a review but just a minor comment: the hook should say "died" rather than "passed away", as "passed away" and other euphemisms are discouraged on Wikipedia per WP:EUPHEMISM. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:28, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Agreed. I have amended the hook. - GA Melbourne (talk) 13:40, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
• @GA Melbourne: Article is new enough, long enough, well-sourced and despite the nature of the crime, neutral and soberly written. No QPQ necessary, as one of the user's first five nominations. Found a long borrowed sentence fragment from the ABC sources ("his first senior football match for his local club alongside his older brother"), decided to paraphrase it myself. I detect a definition error in the first sentence of the lede, however: it implies that a coward punch necessarily involves striking the back of this head, when the nominal definition is merely any sudden surprise punch. Although none of the sources I read mention it, a blow to the back of the head is also known as a rabbit punch. Perhaps the lede can be revised slightly and the link to that article included in the See also section? DigitalIceAge (talk) 18:28, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
  • @Narutolovehinata5: Sources and media have described the incident as a cowards punch so I essentially alluded to that in the lead. None of the sources called the incident a rabbit punch but since the definition is apt, I have included it in the See also section.- GA Melbourne (talk) 08:41, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure as to why I'm still being pinged in this discussion as DigitalIceAge is the reviewer and not I. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:22, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
      • I am so sorry, that was done in error. - GA Melbourne (talk) 12:52, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
• Changes look good. Fixed a minor spelling error in ALT0, which I will now tick. DigitalIceAge (talk) 02:30, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
  • @DigitalIceAge and GA Melbourne: I am just learning prep building so bear with me. I think the sentence that supports the hook in the article needs work, "The first punch struck with the right side of Hopkins' head, the second punch struck Cronin near his ear with the force causing Cronin to stumbling sideways". Causing or caused? and stumbling or stumbled? There are some past and present tense words used in the article. Lightburst (talk) 19:12, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
    • @Lightburst: I have amended that to: 'the second punch struck Cronin near his ear with the force causing Cronin to stumble sideways'.- GA Melbourne (talk) 22:11, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Lightburst (talk) 22:37, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

@DigitalIceAge and GA Melbourne: Might also consider that he was a man and not a boy, maybe we can say teen which demonstrates his age. I think everyone over 18 is considered an adult. Lightburst (talk) 22:41, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Death of Patrick Cronin/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 13:44, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:44, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I'll start with a source review and spotchecks. Footnote numbers refer to this version.

• What is FN 3 sourcing? If it's Patrick Cronin's birthday, I think that's OK as per WP:ABOUTSELF, but in that case shouldn't it be attached to the date? And why are the other sources down at the bottom of the infobox?
• FN 13 cites "Police arrived at the hotel soon after with the brawl ceasing and patrons dispersing. Cronin explained to friends how he had been punched on the right of his head and could be seen rubbing the area on CCTV." Verified, but the source has "At around this time, the police arrived and the fighting ceased with the patrons then beginning to disperse" which is too closely paraphrased.
• FN 16 cites 'MICA paramedics stabilised Cronin's condition for the journey to the hospital which in order to do so required medical intervention to assist Cronin in breathing. Upon his arrival to the Royal Melbourne Hospital, doctors determined that Cronin "suffered a significant haemorrhage on the right side of his brain" and that the "injury was not survivable".' The source has "The MICA paramedics who staffed the ambulance determined that Patrick Cronin had suffered a traumatic brain injury. His condition was stabilised for the journey to the Royal Melbourne Hospital, including providing the medical intervention by then required for him to be able to breathe." This is too closely paraphrased.
• FN 24 cites "In sentencing Lee, Justice Lex Lasry concluded that while the gravity of Lee's actions were significant, his plea of guilty which avoided a trial and the associated trauma to the Cronin family, his remorse for his actions, previous good character, and good prospects for rehabilitation all had contributed as factors that mitigated the sentence that was to be imposed." The source has "The nature and gravity of your offending was significant", "your plea of guilty has avoided the need for a trial and the trauma connected with it, particularly for the members of the Cronin family". This is too closely paraphrased.
• FN 26 cites "Samuel Judd was charged in relation to the matter and was offered a diversion." I can't access this as it's paywalled.
• FN 20 cites "It is believed that up to thirty people were involved in the brawl that ultimately took Cronin's life; several people were charged for their involvement in the brawl." The source has "Police said that they believed up to 30 people could have been involved" and "police charged seven men over their involvement in the brawl". This is too closely paraphrased.

I'm going to fail this because of the spotcheck; I recommend going through and checking each cited sentence for close paraphrasing before renominating. One other comment from a read-through is that there are lots of very short paragraphs, which makes for a choppy reading experience. The "Andrew William Lee" section, for example, is rather WP:PROSELINE, and I think some copyediting is needed there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:49, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Death of Patrick Cronin/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 17:24, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article, using the template below. If you have any questions, feel free to ask them here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:24, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

This article now meets the GA standard. Congrats to GMH Melbourne and anyone else who worked on it! —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Per my usual practice, I've gone through and made prose tweaks directly to save us both time. If there are any changes you oppose, just let me know! Pass.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass, no major issues, tweaks to lead can be handled in prose review.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	No uncited passages/paragraphs.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Some of the citations are formatted a little oddly (I'll make detailed suggestions in due course) but all sources are reliable Australian journalistic sources and/or court records. After modifications, pass.
	2c. it contains no original research.	I am concerned that large sections of the article appear to be sourced exclusively from the court document, specifically, the judge's statement following a plea of guilty. While it's certainly reliable, it is a primary source, and I want to check to see if there's relevant policy regarding WP:NOR that applies here. If you can dig a relevant policy up, that would be good too. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:20, 14 November 2023 (UTC) Personally, I would consider this as a secondary source as it is a judge detailing the events after he had heard from 'primary source accounts' through the course of the sentencing process. This would make the Judge's sentencing report a secondary account of the events. The judge's sentencing report is also reliable and independent of the subject. This would differ from a person testifying on the witness stand or submitting an affidavit which would certainly not adhere to WP:NOR. I have found the following policies relating to the use of court documents that may be of help: WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD: While some primary sources are not fully independent, they can be authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, expert-approved... primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used. Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source. WP:PRIMARYCARE: Under the An article about a person heading, it says court documents shouldn't be used as the document may be about another person who happens to have the same name. I think it's safe to say that this isn't the case here due to the significant overlap between the details in the article and the sources. WP:BLPPRIMARY: This doesn't really apply as it is only for BLPs. It does say though not to use court documents for BLPs. Looking at WP:PRIMARY and comparing it to WP:SECONDARY, a primary source is described as original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. A secondary source is described as thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event, which is, in my opinion, exactly what the Judge's sentencing report is. ––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 03:24, 15 November 2023 (UTC) Thanks for these! Reading over the basic policy (WP:NOR) carefully, I think we're ok. I'm not entirely convinced that the judge's sentencing report is secondary and not primary, but I do think you have been fairly judicious (pun intended!) about how you used it. I may make some small trims here and there as I do my prose review to ensure we're not aping the structure of the sentencing report too directly, but as a whole, pass. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:51, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig finds nothing significant, but given paraphrasing concerns in first GA review, hold for manual check. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:30, 12 November 2023 (UTC) Nothing found by manual check after prose tweaks. Pass.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Not finding any other major areas of coverage. Pass.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No egregious issues, any minor trims can be handled during prose review. Pass.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No major issues - any minor problems can be handled in prose review. Pass.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Pass, no issues.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	N/A, currently unillustrated. Pass. Fair use image properly tagged and resized. Pass again.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	No images, which isn't ideal for a GA. However, I can understand why there would be difficulty finding appropriate ones for this article. Let's consider if there's any which could reasonably be included. Hold for now. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:30, 12 November 2023 (UTC) I have spent hours searching and have sent numerous emails trying to get a free image, however I am now just remembering that fair use exists for a historical portraitof a person no longer alive. I'll add an image now. ––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 01:06, 13 November 2023 (UTC) That seems reasonable to me - the rationale is sensible and I think fair use applies here. A bot will likely come along shortly and reduce the resolution of the image; assuming that will happen, pass on both image criteria. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:11, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
	7. Overall assessment.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.