Jump to content

Talk:Murder of Teresa De Simone/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Exhumation

Joseph Kappen in 2002 was not the first person to be exhumed in connection with a historic murder inquiry in Britain. An exhumation was carried out in 1996 relating to Bible John see this. O Fenian (talk) 23:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

My mistake, it was the first carried out under English law. I occasionally forget that Scotland is not deemed "British" in such matters. I have replaced the paragraph with the minor alteration. Keristrasza (talk) 08:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Murder of Teresa de Simone/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I will review this article. Cirt (talk) 05:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Image review

Passes here. Cirt (talk) 17:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Stability review

  1. No major issues upon inspection of talk page.
  2. Inspection of article edit history appears devoid of disruption as well.

Passes here. Cirt (talk) 17:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Update

Whoa, new development and lots of new changes [1]. Stability part of review =  Not done.

I will wait for the nominator to comment on this and evaluate the article. Cirt (talk) 22:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The GA Nominator made a comment [2]. I will think this over. Cirt (talk) 01:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I see some relatively recent IP reverts, is this an issue? Also, are all cites fully formatted using WP:CIT? Not a requirement, but a nicety. Cirt (talk) 04:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Not all cites are formatted, I spent an hour or so a few days ago to fix some (but not all) of the cites, if it is crucial to GA, I (or someone else) could continue the cite formatting. 203.206.85.236 (talk) 11:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Not crucial, but would be helpful. Cirt (talk) 17:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 Done 203.206.85.236 (talk) 05:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Okay thanks. Cirt (talk) 05:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Other comments

Me personally see that this article is mutch more GA worthy and ready than let say Huang Nas article. There is a mutch more depth into this article and the length is mutch more satisfying.--Judo112 (talk) 09:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I will think it over a little bit. Cirt (talk) 18:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
The huge amount of edits seems to have stopped now for stability review.--Judo112 (talk) 17:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of October 14, 2009, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Quite an interesting piece of history, and an informative read.
2. Factually accurate?: There are some unsourced bits in the article, I will tag these with {{fact}}.
3. Broad in coverage?: Have criminal experts, other scholars, etc, commented on this case? This would be interesting for a final section at the bottom of the article titled Commentary or Analysis.
4. Neutral point of view?: Seems to have a neutral tone.
5. Article stability? As I stated above, I am a tad concerned about the major changes due to recent events, but await responses to the other parts of the review.
6. Images?: Passes here, see above.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far.— Cirt (talk) 05:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

2. Factually accurate?: I have removed one of the sentences {{fact}} tagged as it didn't particularly add to the article, the other two I have reworded and added a ref. 3. Broad in coverage?: There is significant commentary in the refs used throughout the article, is that sufficient?, or would you prefer a new section with the commentary taken from the existing refs? 203.206.85.236 (talk) 09:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Confirming change from IP to wiki account Sanguis Sanies (talk) 09:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
A Commentary section would be nice. Cirt (talk) 16:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I have performed many searches using terms like commentary on sean hodgson trail and variants like Expert commentary and Legal commentary and opinion (and expert and legal) and mistrial but have found little to no commentary or opinions on the trial save the one added. I have also thoroughly searched each of the cites used for the article and despite my previous claim can find very little commentary. I have reason to believe this may be due to the fact the compensation hearing is still ongoing and the unwillingness of the involved parties to comment, once Hodgson is totally free to talk we may see more commentary rather than reiteration of facts. Sanguis Sanies (talk) 12:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
LOL, a little too literal of searches there. The word "commentary" does not have to appear for it to be secondary source commentary. What do the secondary sources say about the matter, aside from just reporting on the facts? Have there been any editorial/opinions expressed in any of the secondary sources? If so, by which sources? Which authors of those sources said those things? When? Cirt (talk) 17:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Example = [3]. Cirt (talk) 17:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Better? Sanguis Sanies (talk) 10:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I would do away with those quote thingies, looks a bit tacky. Cirt (talk) 17:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, whatever happened to Keristrasza (talk · contribs)??? Cirt (talk) 17:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Vanished? Seems odd that someone would create the article from scratch (brilliantly I might add!), then nominate it, then stop completely. *Shrugs* Sanguis Sanies (talk) 04:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I would suggest doing away with usage of {{cquote}} through the rest of the article, as well. Cirt (talk) 07:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done Sanguis Sanies (talk) 08:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Good article = passed

Looks better. Cirt (talk) 08:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Peer review

Murder of Teresa de Simone

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I helped take this article to GA Status and going over it again I believe that it could qualify for FA status and would like input from other wiki editors. Particularly I want to make sure I satisfy criterion 1a and 1b.

However I will point out one major problem with this article and that is that information related to Teresa de Simone simply doesn't exist prior to her murder! I can't find any biographical information in regards to her that isn't related to the murder, I can't even find her year of birth let alone date. It seems bizarre that this (even basic) information doesn't appear to exist anywhere that I can find, whilst I absolutely respect the rights of the family to their privacy, anonymity and grief I'm surprised that none of the refs in the article have mentioned this information.

We also need to be mindful that Sean Hodgson is still alive and so WP:BLP most definitely applies and that the sections relevant to him (particularly since is undoubtedly innocent) should be upheld to the highest standards.

Thanks, Sanguis Sanies (talk) 17:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is a fascinating tale well-told. I think it's close to FA, though I do have a few suggestions for further improvement. All of the newspaper names should be in italics, for example. I made a few changes as I went, including changing one long quote to a blockquote. Please revert this change if you don't like the blockquote. Or, if you like it, two or three of the other quotes of four lines or more could be rendered as blockquotes (without quotation marks) as well.

  • I'd eliminate the bold phrases in the lead except for the title per WP:MOSBOLD.
  • The Manual of Style deprecates the use of fancy quotes such as the ones around the text box in the Hodgson trial section. WP:MOSQUOTE has details.

Murder

  • "When her shift at the Tom Tackle ended at 2300 UTC she went on to Fridays... " - Wikilink UTC on first use?

Police investigation

Arrest of Sean Hodgson

  • "Sean Hodgson (aka Robert Graham Hodgson)... " - Spell out "also known as"?
  • "It was not routine to make audio recordings of police interviews at the time, and much of the original police paperwork from the case has so far not been located." - It would be better to say something like "has not been located through 2009" rather than "so far".

Acquittal and release

  • "Hodgsons is potentially Britain’s the longest serving innocent inmates." - Something missing here. The sentence doesn't make sense.
  • "While imprisoned his identity was stolen making it difficult to access insurance and housing." - I'd suggest merging this orphan paragraph with the paragraph above it.

Operation Iceberg

  • Shouldn't David Lace be mentioned by name in this section? It seems a little odd not to mention him and then to jump to a "David Lace" section without the connection being made explicit.
  • "they are on the right track and hopefully could be close to solving this 30 year old murder... " - Did the source have hyphens here; that is, "30-year-old murder"? I yearn to add them.

David Lace

Notes and references

  • The appeals citation needs more details. "R v Robert Graham Hodgson EWCA Crim 490" is quite mysterious. At the least, the abbreviated parts should be spelled out, so that EWCA appears as "England and Wales Court of Appeal". Perhaps Crim stands for Criminal Division? What does "R v" mean?
  • The Appeals Notes section on my screen looks cluttered and a bit hard to read. Would four columns or some other arrangement work better than six?
  • Newspaper names like The Guardian and Southern Daily Echo need italics. I see lots of these in the Reference section. If you use the "work" parameter rather the "publisher" parameter for the newspaper name, the template will add the italics automatically.
  • Triple dates like 4 December 1979 should be unlinked.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 20:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Response to Finetooth comments: Thank you
Acquittal and release
  • point 1) The sentence could be written a bit better but it is essentially correct; it is potentially possible that there is (or has been) a Briton who has been imprisoned longer who was innocent. So Hodgson is the longest known.
Operation Iceberg
  • point 2) It doesn't, however since this is a direct quote so bad grammar is fine.
Notes and references
  • point 1) R stands for Regina which is the Queen regnant. Essentially the crown if held by a woman.

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 15:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Surname

I created this article but cannot remember now why I chose the lower case "d" over the upper case: as I recall both variants appeared in sources. An editor has changed the usage here and also added the name of Teresa's biological father, Mario Tarcisio De Simone. This particular editor also, coincidentally or otherwise, used the name of Teresa's half-sister. Looking at birth, death and census documents (yes, I know they are primary sources) also indicates that the upper case "D" is the more usual spelling. Based on these findings, I am inclined to move the article to what I now think is the correct name. Keri (talk) 16:04, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Murder of Teresa De Simone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:15, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Murder_of_Teresa_De_Simone/Archive_1&oldid=1030990235"