Wikipedia:Peer review/Pottery Cottage murders/archive1

Pottery Cottage murders

I've listed this article for peer review because - this was my first attempt at writing an article and I've been expanding it over time. (Possibly too much!) I'd really like some feedback on what I've done so far and how it can be improved. I'd love to be able to get it to good article status, so any pointers would be much appreciated.

Thanks, DSQ (talk) 10:54, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

• I've just left a note on your talk page before seeing this, but the tl;dr summary here is - do not cite the Daily Mirror in an article of this nature. A few other details such as dates of birth of the victims also need sources. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:52, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you @Ritchie333:, I've responded on my talk page to the points you raised there, including the use of the Daily Mirror. I'll revisit the personal details and either cite or remove. (I think that info came from the book). Thank you for your help with this, it's really useful. --DSQ (talk) 20:28, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

• The book citations will need specific page numbers - just citing a chapter will not be enough for anyone to confirm what is verified. This will probably come up in a GA review and will definitely be a showstopper for FAC. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:34, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

• "As such, the department responsible for categorizing prisoners designated him as category B" - the Lancashire Evening Post source says it was category C. That sounds more correct, Cat B is "Those who pose a risk to the public but may not require maximum security, but for whom escape still needs to be made very difficult.", while Cat C is "Those who cannot be trusted in open conditions but who are unlikely to try to escape" - nobody would ever put a Cat B prisoner in a taxi, but they might consider for a Cat C eg: somebody who had been caught multiple times manufacturing and dealing cannabis and was now doing time for it, but otherwise is harmless. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:53, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

• I changed the incident in Chesterfield that led to Hughes' arrest to "park" instead of "nightclub" per the Lancashire Evening Post source, but the specific date of 21 August 1976 is not given. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:04, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Yikes @Ritchie333:, this'll keep me busy!

The Daily Mirror article from this year can be removed - I've cited it six times but only as a duplicate source on each occasion - the same applies to all of the articles from 1977, bar one. So, I'm just left with two Mirror articles as a single source for specific info; one clarifying Howse receiving the Queens Commendation award and the other confirming that the film of events was shelved.

Specific page numbers make perfect sense, but I'm not sure how to amend that now without making a mess. I'm working from the kindle edition too - is that ok?

Ok, my rationale for using the Cat designation from the book and not the article; I noted Hansard: "It concludes that this information was not such as would have required him to be treated as a Category 'A' prisoner for whom the highest security precautions would be necessary or whose escort in a hired vehicle would be inappropriate..", which I felt indicated that only a Cat A would not be transported via taxi and the interview with Officer Sprintall, which indicates that it was normal for prisoners on a rape charge to be transported in that way. I assumed someone on a rape charge wouldn't be a Cat C. So much assuming, I know. Maybe I should just leave it out altogether?

My mistake. I should've been clearer. I believe he met them in a nightclub and then followed them into the park, but I'll do some more digging so I can clarify. I think that was in the book also, along with the date.

I seriously need access to newspaper archives beyond Trinity Mirror, but the potential difficultie didn't cross my mind when I started writing it. I'll learn.... :) --DSQ (talk) 18:34, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

If you have a typical UK library card, you should be able to use it to get onto the Times Digital Archive at the Gales Primary Sources repository here - I can access it via my library card and it's invaluable for news reports that I've used extensively. I'll have a look for anything involving the Pottery Cottage murders this evening and see what there is.

For page numbers, there are a number of different options, but my favourite is to use {{sfn}}. To use this, you simply append |ref=harv at the end of the {{cite book template in the "References" section, then you will be able to add individual citations in the format {{sfn|Lee|Howse|2020|p=nn}} where "nn" is the page number in question. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:48, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I've found quite a few news stories about the case in The Times and I'm adding some citations now. In a piece talking about the Fowler report, it confirms Hughes was assigned category B. I think we should go with that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:35, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I've removed all citations to articles in the Mirror except one, which is about the film that was shelved - and I guess it's not important, in the grand scheme of things, for anyone to know that Julie Walters was going to be in a film that was never made. :) I'll have a crack at the individual page numbers tomorrow - I'm a bit rubbish at anything complicated, so it might take a while. Thank you so much for digging out those Times articles - it's really helpful. I'll look into getting access myself for future use. --DSQ (talk) 23:43, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

• Looking at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 289#Daily Express and Daily Mirror, it seems there's no consensus that the Mirror is unreliable and should be deprecated. That doesn't mean there's consensus that's okay either, of course. I still think getting rid of the Mirror cites as much as possible was worth doing per WP:BLPSOURCES, and the one remaining cite to the cancellation of the TV drama (which I can't find anywhere else) is not particularly egregious. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:36, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't have thought it'd quite come in the same bracket as the Sun, Express and Mail, but because of the article topic I'm sure you were right to suggest removal. My only concern now is that I'm over-reliant on the book. Anyway, I'll keep digging for suitable sources and trying to make improvements as I go. Thank you again for your help, time and for your edits. Appreciated. --DSQ (talk) 16:37, 3 November 2020 (UTC)