Jump to content

Talk:Murder of Céline Figard/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: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 13:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be glad to take this review. I'll give this a close readthrough sometime in the next few days, noting any initial issues that I see, and then start the criteria checklist. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Initial readthrough

[edit]

On a first pass, this looks like great work: well-written, well-referenced, and all around solid. I've noted just a few points below that appear to me to need clarity.

*Not a necessary action point under the GA criteria, but consider abbreviating United Kingdom to "UK" after its first use.

    • Done.

*"The case dominated news coverage in the United Kingdom around the Christmas and New Year period" -- is this statement supported in the body of the article? I'm not sure I saw it on first pass.

    • Changed to "The case received extensive news coverage". Happy to rethink it though if necessary.

*"Chieveley Services" -- this appears with capital letters in the sources, so I've changed it here; I note that Wikipedia's article has a lower-case "services", though, so I could be wrong. If you object, we can look it into it more.

    • That seems ok, although I've tweaked it to link directly to the article.

*"It is thought" -- can it be clarified who this was thought by?

    • Changed to "Police believe"

*" Morgan initially denied meeting her and then before claimed he and Figard had engaged in consensual sex, after he was picked out at an identity parade" -- the time indicators get a little tangled for me here. Is it a correct rewrite to say, "Morgan initially denied meeting her. After he was picked out at an identity parade, he claimed he and Figard had engaged in consensual sex."

    • Done.

*"Mr Justice Latham" --is it possible to give Latham's full name? (I'm assuming Justice is a title here and not a first name, unless this is one of those "name is destiny" cases.)

    • I think his name is David Latham, but I'm not entirely sure and the sources don't give a first name. British media sources tend to identify senior judges by title and surname only, unless there happens to be more than one with the same surname, in which case their forename is given. Check out Judicial titles in England and Wales for more info. Any more thoughts on what to do here?
      • I don't think it's a problem for the GA criteria if we only have the last name here, particularly as that's traditional and all that's given in the source.

*"His trial counsel was Nigel Jones QC" -- is the "his" here Morgan?

    • Done.

*"The trial heard"; " It was also said" --is it possible to be specific about who said these?

    • Done.

*" the Home Secretary informed him of the length of his sentence." --is the "him" here Morgan? I apologize that these are probably very stupid questions; I'm an American and don't have much knowledge of the British sentencing/appeals system. But it couldn't hurt to clear up the pronoun antecedent.

    • No worries. I've clarified that it was Morgan's sentence.

*"Mr Justice Openshaw" --I would suggest using the full name here instead of Mr. Title form.

    • Again the sources don't give his full name, but in this case I know it's Peter Openshaw because we have an article about him.

Thanks for taking a look at this. I've updated most things now, apart from the names of the judges as I'm not certain what to do there. Let me know what you think, or if anything else needs adjusting. Cheers and thanks once again. Paul MacDermott (talk) 23:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

[edit]
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. Prose is excellent, spotchecks show no evidence of copyright issues.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
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.
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).
2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment. Pass--very nice work.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Murder_of_Céline_Figard/GA1&oldid=967081792"