Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Murder of Joanna Yeates/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Ucucha 00:37, 23 February 2012 [1].

Murder of Joanna Yeates

[edit]

Murder of Joanna Yeates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Paul MacDermott (talk) 18:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC), BabbaQ (talk) 11:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC) [reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it is very close to meeting the standard required for FAC. It covers the subject matter in a comprehensive and neutral style, and is well referenced from multiple reliable media sources. I took the article through peer review and GAN late last year, addressing issues and expanding where necessary, and it passed GA in December 2011. I have also consulted current FA-class British crime articles for detail and layout while working on this one. Events surrounding this case have pretty much drawn to a close, so any future changes would be minimal, and the article has been relatively stable given the amount of press coverage these events received in the United Kingdom. I will be happy to discuss and address any further issues which may arise from this discussion. Paul MacDermott (talk) 18:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also no deadlinks or disambig links as of checking today. I need to add some alt text to some of the images, so please bear with me on that one. Paul MacDermott (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brief and ref comments

  • Ref 8, 9, 28, 111 and 113 were published on guardian.co.uk, not The Guardian newspaper.
  • I don't understand. The website is the online counterpart to the newspaper. The convention has always been to cite the name of the newspaper. That's exactly why the {{cite news}} template has a url field to it. So we cite The Guardian for news posted at guardian.co.uk, and New York Times for news posted at www.nytimes.com. Orane (talk) 04:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is 'The Guardian' refers to the newspaper; it's paper form essentially. 'Guardian Media Group' refers to the company, Observer is the sister site. Anything published 'guardian.co.uk' is its online activity: that means a rolling news service (provided by agencies) as well as to providing content in 'The Guardian' and 'Observer' newspapers since 1998. For instance, scroll down to the bottom of this article, find 'article history' and tell me where it was 'published on'. – Lemonade51 (talk) 11:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does Ref 90 have 'Guardian Media Group' as the work yet all the other references published by The Guardian don't? Likewise Ref 100 and 'Independent Print Limited'.
  • Remove the extra year on ref 88.
  • When citing 'BBC News' be sure to add the work as 'BBC' or 'British Broadcasting Corporation' depending on which you prefer. Work parameter is on some references but not all of them so correct that.
  • Under Further enquiries, replace apostrophe with full stop in the sentence 'Police launched a national advertising campaign to appeal for witnesses through Facebook, '
  • Don't need to repeat that the Sun offered £50,000 as a reward in the same section. – Lemonade51 (talk) 20:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorted extra year, repeat of Sun Award, and tweaked some refs. I can't seem to find the stray apostrophe, however. There are actually more refs for The Guardian than you have listed above so I've changed them to work= The Guardian|publisher= Guardian Media Group, the latter being the umbrella company that owns all Guardian publications. I hope that is ok, and you weren't specifically indicating those as guardian.co.uk articles and omitting the others because they actually appeared in The Guardian (I see some refs are cited with newspaper= though they are online). Similarly, Independent Print Limited publishes The Independent and its stablemates so I've amended those. Many newspaper refs are actually missing so I'll go through and add them over the next couple of days. Let me know if there are any other issues and I'll take a look at them.
All refs should now have work and publisher in their title. I've also made them consistent where that wasn't the case, e.g., citing from Daily Mail as opposed to Mail Online, and so on. If someone can quickly check they're ok, I'd very much appreciate that. Need a break now, but will tackle the images later. Paul MacDermott (talk) 13:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alt text now added to images. Just a couple of comments to make here:
Re:apostrophe. I think you may have meant 'replace comma', as there was a comma at the end of that sentence. It's done anyway. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, you are right. Just one more niggle.
No worries. The besieged thing is actually from ref 115 at the end of the paragraph. But I'll stick it in after that sentence too. Paul MacDermott (talk) 19:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ok, I put in an extra ref from the Telegraph to cover this, but have had to use 115 in the previous sentence since it talks about why Leveson was established, something the Telegraph article only touches on. Paul MacDermott (talk) 19:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Prose, 1a: Prose issue found in the lead, so I stopped there (issues in the lead could indicate the prose needs a serious going over):

  • On 20 September he appeared at Bristol Crown Court for a pre-trial hearing, attending in person having previously appeared from prison via videolink. ...

First, isn't this info a bit trivial for the lead? Second, hearing, attending is cumbersome. Third, would it not be better to phrase it as "he attended (in person is redundant) a pre-trial hearing at Bristol Crown Court after previous appearances from prison via videolink" ... or something similar? It seems very trivial for the lead, but this unwieldy sentence in the lead suggests that independent eyes may be needed on the prose throughout. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. An individual awaiting trial can make any number of court appearances before the actual case begins so it's not strictly necessary to mention it in the lead, and you are right that it is problematic. I've therefore removed the sentence entirely. In terms of copyediting, quite a lot of work was done on that recently by someone from the Guild of Copyeditors, but should the article be unsuccessful here I'll take it back to them for another look. Paul MacDermott (talk) 18:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Although there may be some there, the GOCE is not noted for being "staffed" with folks whose copyediting skills are at the FA level. I am not a fan of extended peer reviews happening at FAC. I believe when issues are found early on, and samples are given, it's better for the nominator to locate skilled collaborators and re-approach FAC once independent eyes have combed through the article. When I find significant prose errors in the lead, I'm unlikely to engage further; finding prose issues in what should be the best polished part of the article does not bode well for the remainder. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you do feel you're unlikely to review this any further, can you close the discussion as soon as possible so I can go in search of a skilled copyeditor? I'll bring it back after the two week sabbatical, and hopefully once they've given it the green light. Paul MacDermott (talk) 19:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not responding here as FAC delegate, Paul; my resignation is effective in two days. I was posting as a reviewer. If you're still sure you want to withdraw, you could ask for that, but I wasn't suggesting you needed to-- only saying how I review. Others may disagree. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I must confess I did think you were commenting in your FAC role and hadn't realised you were about to step down, so I hope you'll accept my apologies for any misunderstanding caused. I don't actually want to withdraw the nomination but thought if the article needed more work doing to it then that was probably the best thing to do. I would like to continue and see what happens with it, and I'll go back to my original plan which is to recruit another copyeditor if it doesn't pass this time. I found some useful suggestions in this respect so should be able to find someone, and these will prove invaluable for future FACs. Thanks for getting back to me, and apologies once again. Paul MacDermott (talk) 21:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments very interested in this article, but some technical things first:

  • Is there a specific reason why certain things in the infobox are directly referenced while others aren't? For instance the fact she was a landscape architect is cited in the main body...
  • I spotted [89][88] and while I don't believe there's a MOS requirement, it always seems to make sense to me to list these in numerical order.
  • "Yeates's death" v "Yeates' body", be consistent throughout.
  • Not sure about the use of the co-ordinate table. But if you insist, use en-dash to separate Home and 44, ensure the table is accessible using row and col scopes (see MOS:DTT)... personally I would have a look at the freely available OS maps which they are happy to release under GFDL to paint a picture of these locations.
  • References...
    • You link the work sometimes, but not always, e.g. refs 4, 10 and 13 don't link The Sun but ref 12 does. This is true throughout, so check all refs for a consistent approach.
    • Ref titles should be MOS-compliant, so for instance, ref 5 has a spaced hyphen which should be a spaced en-dash per WP:DASH. See also ref 101 etc.
    • Is Sky News a publisher or a work? Check refs 23 & 24 etc for consistency.
    • Add publisher and location information wherever available for newspapers, e.g. the Daily Record ref 56 could use this sort of thing.
    • BBC or BBC News? Ref 70.
    • And be consistent with web-based content, if you wish to give accessdates, do it throughout.
    • Don't mix date formats in the refs, e.g. see ref 107.
    • Sometimes publisher is in parentheses, sometimes not, compare ref 93 with ref 94, compare ref 92 with ref 95 etc...
  • I just did a Google news search on Tabak, throws up some interesting articles which are quite recent, including this one about the nature of the DNA found.

Once I have more time I'd like to review the prose, but these technical issues do also need to be resolved. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up on these. I haven't had much of a chance to be online today, but I'll take a look at them tomorrow evening and hopefully sort out any differences. Thanks also for the ref regarding the DNA. Definitely an interesting addition to the article. Paul MacDermott (talk) 22:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most refs now gone from infobox as they're mentioned in the main text. The only one that isn't is her height, although it is mentioned that Tabak was considerably taller than Yeates. What is the consensus regarding refs in the infobox?
  • ok, cheers. Re: tables and maps, etc. I'm not quite sure how to format the table so I'll take it out. I use a screen magnifier which makes reading OS maps difficult so I'll have to leave that one too. If anyone can help with these that would be great. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Had planned to look at new Tabak sources this evening, but had an unexpected - but very welcome - visit from relatives so will do it sometime tomorrow. Paul MacDermott (talk) 23:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Have done some research into more recent articles and put together a couple of paragraphs of information that could go in. The DNA thing is very interesting and will add to the article so I definitely want to include that. Just need to decide how to factor it in though. Perhaps somewhere in the investigation section would be appropriate. Paul MacDermott (talk) 22:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Noleander

  • Lead - WP:LEAD suggests a maximum of 4 paragraphs in lead; this article has 5.
  • Timeline - The chronology of events is a bit hard to follow ... maybe it is just me. Consider adding a graphical timeline. (not a FA showstopper).
  • "Investigators determined that Yeates had spent the evening of 17 December 2010 ..." there is an annoying shift in narrative there. The article is stating facts event-by-event ("she went to ..." ) but then there is a "future looking" statement about the investigators. Then back to event-by-event. Recommend eliminate "Investigators determined that" ... it adds nothing (and all facts in those narrative sections are probably from the investiagtors, true?).
  • Scare quotes: "... investigators wished to retain the body "for a while"" - What is the purpose of the quote marks? If a source makes a big deal about that phrase, explain the source's concerns; otherwise omit the quotes (and rephrase to more professional wording).
  • More detail needed - "He subsequently won an undisclosed sum in libel damages for defamatory news articles published following his arrest." I think this is a very important part of the whole episode. More detail is needed on exactly what the landlord alleged in the libel suits, and what the juries/judges decided. Which papers were sued? What did the papers print that was libelous? Of course WP:BLP is an issue, and the article must be written to not maliciously repeat the false statements, but after the libel suit is public, certainly the allegations of libel can be repeated here safely.
Hmmm - the above material needs to be consolidated with the following: "On the same day, Jefferies accepted "substantial" damages for defamation from .." First, they need to be merged into one section about the landlord's plight. Second, it is not clear if he sued the papers, or if they just settled (paid) before a suit commenced. Merge, clarify, expand.
  • Clarification needed: "The authorities declined to reveal additional details while the suspect was being interrogated due to concerns over past media coverage." - What were the concerns?
  • Clarify: "Within 24 hours of news coverage about the production on 18 January, over 300 people contacted the police....". - This is a bit confusing. The prior sentences say that a TV show was produced, to be aired on 26 Jan; but then on 18 Jan 300 people called the police. Did they see the TV show? Was it shown early? If not, what prompted them to call?
  • Clarify: "Tabak's guilty plea was rejected by the Crown Prosecution Service." - Why was it rejected? Be specific.
  • Grammar: " .... depicted women being bound and gagged, held by the neck and choked, and controlled by men. " - Reword to clarify if the "by men" applies to all preceding activities, or just "controlled by".
  • Contradiction: "Tabak pleaded guilty to manslaughter, but denied murder." -This statement is made after the prior section which says "Tabak's guilty plea was rejected by the Crown Prosecution Service." Either the guilty plea was rejected or not - need to clarify.
  • Location info - " ... that Tabak had strangled Yeates, using "sufficient force" to kill her ..." - Need to explicitly state the location of the struggle/murder. I gather it was her flat? Need to state that.
  • Media coverage section - This section needs an introduction before it gets into the details of specific problems. What is the common thread of all the material in this section? Write an overview. Also, consider re-titling the section, because "Media Coverage" could mean "objective media coverage" ... but in fact the section is talking about Problems with the media coverage, true?
  • State the name: "On the morning of 20 January, the Avon and Somerset Constabulary arrested a 32-year-old man" - Go ahead and say the name of the person arrested. This is an encyclopedia article, not a mystery novel: there is no reason to delay the name until later in the article. The fact that the police did not reveal the name until X days later can be stated.

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 21:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. Quotes removed and paragraphs in lead merged. I'll look at the stuff that needs more clarification tomorrow evening. Not sure if I entirely agree with the "Investigators determined that" as removing it makes it read awkwardly there's a sudden jump back to the night she disappeared without explanation. Maybe have to reorganise the information a little. Paul MacDermott (talk) 22:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
May also have to reorganise lead a little as my paragraphs edit was swiftly undone with the argument that the two paragraphs concern two different subjects. Paul MacDermott (talk) 22:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Murder_of_Joanna_Yeates/archive1&oldid=1141922972"