Jump to content

Talk:Mathew Charles Lamb

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleMathew Charles Lamb is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 11, 2012.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 11, 2011Good article nomineeListed
January 7, 2012Featured article candidatePromoted
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on December 20, 2011.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that a spree killer from Ontario, saved from the death penalty by reason of insanity, later received a "hero's funeral"?
Current status: Featured article

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Mathew Charles Lamb/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 18:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What a fascinating topic! I'll take this article for review, and should have my full comments up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 18:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    • A couple of the section headers are a bit long. For example, "Verdict: Lamb is found not guilty by reason of insanity" could be just "Verdict". "Lamb displays further improvement once released" is another one that could stand to be trimmed.
    • Time at Kingston Penitentiary, "Lamb's bizarre activities continued throughout his time at the penitentiary, and in fact became even stranger." The next source (Sutton) doesn't back up this sentence, so at this point I'm assuming that it's supposed to act as a summary of the information following. However, describing his activities as "bizarre" and strange doesn't really seem right to me. Psychotic and hypomanic, yes, bizarre, no. At this point, it reads to me as though these words (bizarre, strange) are the main editor's opinion as to his actions, rather than the opinion of the sources used in the article.
    • Time at Kingston Penitentiary, "found with a broomstick up his bottom". "Up his bottom" is a little unencyclopedic...sounds like we're trying to make this readable for little kids.
    • I think the repetition is fine, since the word is only used twice, several sentences apart.
    • Military career in Rhodesia, "on Fireforce duty on Operation Thrasher," What is Fireforce duty?
    • I totally missed the first link. Yeah, it looks good now.
    • Reactions to death, "They demanded a printed retraction and apology, which the Herald gave soon after." Why did the Herald retract and apologize if they had printed true information?
    • The Newsweek article doesn't say; it simply says that "the paper obliged". I could not find the edition of the Herald containing the apology. I presume they wanted to avoid embarrassing the army or further offending his friends, but I can't just put that in unsourced. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 19:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, if you can't find a source for it, then don't put it in. It would be a great bit of information if you eventually find a source discussing it, though.
    • Reactions to death. Are there any sources on the reactions of the Canadian people? His relatives? His psychiatrists?
    • Very nice.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    • Sources look very good. A few spotchecks reveal no cause for concern with copyvios, sources covering information, etc.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. 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):
    • I think that your captions are a bit long, overall. For example, the photo in the Military career in Rhodesia gives information about Lamb's military career that is already described in both the lead and the text, leading this to be the third presentation of the information. The other two images in the body contain similar excessive information in their captions.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Overall a very nice article on a man that I had never heard of before. A few comments above; when these are resolved, I think the article should be good to go for GA status. Are you planning to take this to FAC? Dana boomer (talk) 19:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am intending to take it to FAC, yes. Thank you for the review and compliments on the article. I am glad you like it. I hope I have resolved your concerns now. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 19:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it has a good chance at FAC. My prose is not always the best, so I'm sure there are things that I missed, but I think that it's in very nice shape. A run at PR never hurts, especially if you can snag Finetooth or Brianboulton as your reviewer. I've left a few comments above, but everything has been resolved and so I'm passing the article to GA status. Dana boomer (talk) 01:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One other thing - I had a hard time deciding where to list this at WP:GA. I eventually put it under "Military people", but that doesn't feel exactly right. "Psychology" seems to be more for psychologists and psychological theory than patients, but maybe I'm wrong. If you don't like where I put it, please feel free to move it wherever you would like :) Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 01:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the review! I am now going to list at FAC, and we'll see where it goes from there. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 02:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ashes "laid to rest"?

[edit]

In the lead and in the "Reactions to death; military funeral and burial" section, the ashes are referred to as being "laid to rest". First, neither of the relevant sources mentions "being laid to rest", just that they were returned to Ontario. Second, isn't "laid to rest" a bit of a euphemism? Let's say "buried", if that can be supported by the sources; if not, let's just leave it at "returned to his homeland" or something similar. – ukexpat (talk) 14:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then. —Cliftonian (talk) 15:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removing military history tag

[edit]

I'm not positive, but I'm pretty sure this article doesn't meet the conditions for inclusion at WP:Milhist, namely: "Military service does not in and of itself place an individual within the scope of the project—particularly in the case of service in modern militaries. To qualify them, an individual's military service must have been somehow noteworthy or have contributed—directly or indirectly—to their notability." In the last section, a "hero's funeral" is noted ... but it seems clear what's meant is that he was a hero to his own men. Other than that, his service wasn't by itself noteworthy, it was his past that generated all the notoriety. Opinions welcome. - Dank (push to talk) 15:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. —Cliftonian (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Focussing?

[edit]

Is "focussing" an alternate spelling for focusing or is this a misspelled word within the article? --Another Believer (Talk) 16:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

General Article

[edit]

IMHO an excellent piece,never heard of this person and cleary he was no hero,but the bit where he was seen at the funeral in his uniform made me think was it redemtion?,either way a good story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bullseye30 (talk • contribs) 09:50, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mathew Charles Lamb. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mathew_Charles_Lamb&oldid=1208083961"