Jump to content

Talk:Murder of Bella Bond/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Delldot (talk · contribs) 08:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]


I will take on this review. This is a great article, well referenced and highly detailed. I mostly have nitpicks about the prose. Here are some to start out, more to follow.

  • This sentence needs work: "The reconstruction, which was created within four hours with Adobe Photoshop with the influence of mortuary photographs and that of "stock photographs," which would give an estimation of what a deceased individual may have looked like while alive."
  • Weirdness with 'had been' and 'have been': "Other leads had been pursued that involve children that have been reported missing, some of which were foreign to the United States.[39][61] Some of the potential matches for the child have been located alive.[9][33] The disappearance case of Sarah Hoggle had also been analyzed to have a possible link to the case, yet investigators stated it was "unlikely" to have been related to this case."
  • "It has also been acknowledged that she could have belonged to an "undocumented" family, which would explain why no matches have been achieved." - can this sentence fit into the "why she wasn't reported missing" para?
  • Some of the sentences need to change tense or be updated to account for new info. This is a partial list, can you check the whole article?
    • "The fact that there have yet to be any tips from relatives claiming responsibility for the death or with information about the child has also supported the idea..."
    • "Despite the popularity of the case and the amount of information that has been submitted, no tips have since resulted in discovering the identity of the Jane Doe or those responsible for dumping her body."
    • "Police are currently focused on investigating in the local community, yet they do believe it could be possible that the girl was not from the area and are continuing to search through various cases of missing children."
    • "The DNA of Deer Island Jane Doe was analyzed and used to exclude some missing persons and is also hoped to be matched to possible relatives of the girl that have had their DNA on record."
    • "Mitochondrial DNA from the bones of the child is hoped to be developed to compare to possible relatives."
    • "The pair are set to be arraigned on September 21, 2015."
  • Missing quotation mark: A man stated he believed he had seen the toddler in November 2014 at a laundromat with a "heavyset and "dirty blond" woman pushing the child in a stroller.
  • Fix: "Another report gives the description of a former roommate had his sister contact authorities after he was informed by Bella's mother about the murder."

Nice work so far Gourami Watcher, I'm eager to see what you do with it! delldot ∇. 08:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Delldot:Thank you so much for the review! I have changed the sentences of concern:
  • The reconstruction was created within four hours with Adobe Photoshop with the influence of mortuary and "stock" photographs to give an estimation of the child's appearance while alive.
  • Some of the potential matches for the child were also located alive.
  • It was also acknowledged that she could have belonged to an "undocumented" family, as an explanation of why no matches were achieved at this point in the case.
  • ...a "heavyset" and "dirty blond" woman pushing the child in a stroller.
  • Mitochondrial DNA from the bones of the child was later developed to compare to possible relatives.
  • The pair were arraigned on September 21, 2015.
  • Another report claims a former roommate had his sister contact authorities after he was informed by Bella's mother about the murder.

I ended up removing the statement about "no tips resulting in finding the identity, etc.," since she has now been identified and two subjects are awaiting trial. I have moved the statements regarding the "undocumented" theory and where "police were focused on the local community" after the sentence about the unreported missing part. I looked through the rest of the article and changed the tense. I forgot to do so earlier, since the page was created while Bella was still unidentified. --GouramiWatcherTalk 17:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Second bit

[edit]

Great Gourami Watcher, thanks for the lightning fast response! I'm still combing through the prose, making a lot of edits myself. Feel free to revert anything that accidentally introduces inaccuracies. Here's another batch of just prose stuff:

  • I think the article would benefit if you'd go through and change passive voice to active, a more direct and clear way to write generally. e.g.
    • "The girl's face was reconstructed by the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children" -> "the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children reconstructed the girl's face"
    • "The girl was estimated by authorities to have died recently"
    • "It is alleged by Rachelle that McCarthy had punched the toddler"
  • Unclear: "after her parents came to a consensus of whether or not to have it open to the public."
  • Reword: "Rachelle Bond's attorney claims that he had threatened to murder Bella's mother if she would contact authorities and that he was responsible for hiding the victim's body."
  • Rewrite for update: "Authorities pursued investigation into discovering the child's identity, and all efforts had been unsuccessful until September 2015 and she remained an unidentified decedent."
  • Winding sentence. Split or reword? Active voice? "The child's body was discovered on the afternoon of June 25, 2015, inside a plastic garbage bag on the shoreline of Deer Island in Boston, Massachusetts by a woman walking her dog, who had stopped upon finding the bag."
  • Clarify and reword: "Authorities did believe that the child may not have been reported missing, and also explored the family of the child could be unaware of her death, as they have found few cases that match the profile of the unidentified girl"

Progress looks good so far! I'll be back with more soon. delldot ∇. 19:54, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delldot, All set! Hopefully these changes are what you were looking for! --GouramiWatcherTalk 20:12, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Third bit

[edit]

Lightning fast again! More prose stuff, this does involve more reorganization more.

  • It might be worth thinking of some subheaders to split up the really long sections, e.g. investigation. Could help with organization too. Just something to keep in mind.
  • In the Investigation section, the paras go: facial reconstruction, possible identities, tips, unreported missing, family as suspects, leads, tips hotlines, DNA, other forensic tests. Could these be reorganized to fit all the info about soliciting the public for info into like a Tips subsection, all the missing persons into like a Possible identities subsection, and the rest into a Forensic testing subsection? Just a suggestion, dunno if this would work. But at least I'd group these similar concepts together.
  • There is also a lot of info on tips in the Public interaction section. I think all the info about tips and soliciting info from the public should be grouped in one place. Same with all the potential missing persons leads.
  • Passive voice:
    • "The face of the unknown child was eventually reconstructed digitally by the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children"
    • "Updates of the exclusion of Lunsford, as well as Ayla Reynolds, were published on the Massachusetts Police's Facebook page to inform those that inquired about the potential matches."
    • "It was announced on July 10 that Phillips was ruled out"
    • "On September 18, 2015, it was announced that the girl was identified"
  • "DNA between the pair would eventually be compared." Does this mean it was in fact later compared?
  • I think the info about Anjelica Castillo is interesting but might be too much of a digression here. Is this too much info for a summary here?

More to follow. Hope this bit-by-bit review is not driving you nuts. Getting closer though! delldot ∇. 22:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've made changes to the wording here and will proceed to reorganizing with subheaders. Don't be worried about the "bit by bit" stuff, I'm excited for the chance to have my first Good Article!--GouramiWatcherTalk 02:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth bit

[edit]

Nice work so far. I'll let you keep working on the organization stuff, but might as well add this next set of comments. Especially since I'm asking for more info, so it might be easier to add that first then do the more cope edity stuff.

  • I think it would make most sense and be more engaging if the Identification section started with the events that led to the ID rather than the search warrant etc.
  • Citations needed: "Citing that McCarthy had decided to "calm the child down," they say Rachelle had not entered the room alongside her boyfriend. When she did enter, she said she witnessed him near the girl's body, which was "swollen and gray," indicating she was deceased. Rachelle Bond's attorney claims McCarthy threatened to murder his client if she was to contact authorities."
  • I'm not sure this sentence fits in Identification. It doesn't seem to fit in the prosecution para, but it's very interesting and relevant: "A witness stated that Bella's body had been "hidden in a fridge" for as long as one month before it was deposited on Deer Island." Is there any more info on who this witness might be or how they knew that?
  • I see why you did it, but it's odd to refer to McCarthy by last name and Rachelle by her first. Maybe switch to referring to Bella by first name throughout and use both names for Rachelle when it's ambiguous?
  • Might there be room in the Identification section for a Charges subheader? You could move the father and funeral paras above the charges paras, although that does mess with the chronology a bit. Alternately you could end the article with a separate Funeral section, although it would be smallish.
  • I did some digging and found some additional info that could be added:
  • The fact that each article I looked at had some info that was not in this article makes me question the comprehensiveness. So I'd like to see some expansion using these suggestions and/or other sources, particularly about facts post-identification. e.g. charges for the mom and boyfriend.
  • Is there a naming convention for murders? Most articles in Category:Formerly unidentified murder victims start with 'Murder of', e.g. Murder of Carol Cole. Should a move to Murder of Bella Bond take place? Or is it not clear enough that this was a murder?

Well I'm finally to the bottom of the article! I'll probably give the whole thing a final read-through after this round. Thanks for all the hard work so far! delldot ∇. 02:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, one last thing: looking back at the lead, I'm thinking maybe it should have some more info on the post-identification developments, e.g. the mother and her boyfriend accusing each other. delldot ∇. 04:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The sources and suggestions have been incorporated, except from People, since I have learned through previous edits that tabloids should not be used as sources. Per the title of the article, I had actually used the "Murder of..." but the article was later renamed because "the murder charge has not yet been proven to a jury." --GouramiWatcherTalk 04:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, good call on both. delldot ∇. 07:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is a pass! I gave it a final read-through, made another series of edits, and can find nothing further to complain about. No copyright problems found, the copyvio detector hit on something obviously copied from us (posted after ours was up). Images have good FURs or are free. It will need to be updated as events unfold, but for right now it's comprehensive. It's well written. Neutral, stable, well referenced. Amazing work! delldot ∇. 03:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Delldot:, I can't thank you enough for your above and beyond efforts to help get this article into shape. It brought tears to my eyes to see the GA listing! --GouramiWatcherTalk 04:11, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well congrats, you certainly earned it! delldot ∇. 04:13, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Murder_of_Bella_Bond/GA1&oldid=1141707917"