Wikipedia:Peer review/Whitechapel murders/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article is a companion piece or daughter article of Jack the Ripper. This article aims to focus on the actual murders that were considered as part of the original Victorian investigation into the series of murders that occurred in London in 1888–91. The other article is intended to focus on the development and characterisation of the "Jack the Ripper" persona. DrKiernan (talk) 18:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Brianboulton comments: Not the most restful of reads, but absorbing nevertheless, even though the ground has been covered on multiple occassions in books, films, documentaries etc., (and in Alban Berg's opera Lulu). Here are my comments on the first half of the article, mainly prose issues. I will return with further comments on the rest, in a day or two.
- Lead
- delete one comma from first sentence
- Context
- delete comma after Anderson
- Awkward parenthetical phrase "(plus the Black Museum)". Does "plus" in this case mean "together with", which would be better phrasing?
- Two successive phrases in quote marks is also awkward.
- "These factors were focused..." I don't think "focused" is the best word here - perhaps "prevalent"?
- Emma Smith
- "Easter bank holiday Monday" → "Easter Monday bank holiday"
- "...who also conducted inquests on nine of the other victims." As these nine are at this point in the future, this should be rephrased: "...who would also conduct inquests on nine of the other victims." (or some such)
- "Based on the statements of a fellow prostitute, and PC Thomas Barrett who was patrolling nearby, soldiers at the Tower of London and Wellington Barracks were put on an identification parade by Inspector Reid, but without positive results." A bit awkwardly phrased and perhaps grammatically suspect as it stands; suggest: "On the basis of statements from a fellow prostitute, and from PC Thomas Barrett who was patrolling nearby, Inspector Reid put soldiers at the Tower of London and Wellington Barracks on an identification parade, but without positive results."
- Martha Tabram
- "At the time, the police did not connect the murder with Smith's, but they did connect it with the later murders." I am a bit confused by this sentence. "At the time, the police did not connect the murder with Smith's,..." Did they at any time connect the Smith and Tabram murders? The second part of the sentence doesn't quite connect with the first. My guess is that the meaning is something like "Although the police did not initially connect the Smith and Tabram murders, they eventually did so, along with the other later murders." Am I right? In any event the sentence needs some attention.
- Mary Ann Nicholls
- "Her throat was slit..." → "had been slit..."
- Do we have a date for the Nicholls inquest?
- Thanks for the careful review! With regard to the date, the inquest was spread out over a week, with the first testimony on the Monday following the murder, but the summing up not until the following week, after the murder of Chapman. DrKiernan (talk) 12:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Annie Chapman
- "...to pay for the rent." → "to pay her rent"
- "A notorious local character called John Pizer ... was arrested by the police on suspicion of the murders on 10 September." How many does "murders" mean - all four to date? Also, the sentence reads better with the date at the front, thus: "On 10 September John Pizer, a notorious local character dubbed "Leather Apron", with a reputation for terrorising local prostitutes, was arrested by the police on suspicion of the murders." (but you still have to explain "murders")
- The £100 reward should be given an approximate current value. Using the "current value" template indicates a current equivalent of about £8,000.
- Overlinking: "Police Commissioner" and "Charles Warren" linked in previous section. "Scotland Yard" also linked earlier.
- Double event
- "It is possible that the murderer was disturbed before he could commit any mutilation of the body by someone entering the yard, perhaps the body's discoverer Louis Diemschutz." Needs a reshuffle: "It is possible that, before he could commit any mutilation of the body, the murderer was disturbed by someone entering the yard, perhaps the body's discoverer Louis Diemschutz."
- I think a paragraph break is required at "Due to the location of..." (I have done this - see if you agree)
- "...108 to 119 Model dwellings Goulston Street, Whitechapel" This address could be written more tidily, perhaps as "Numbers 108 to 119 Model Dwellings, Goulston Street, Whitechapel"
- "graffito" is singular, therefore "a chalk graffito"
- "the pathologists emphatically denied that Stride had..." I don't think "denied" is right - it has the sense of refuting an accusation. Try "the pathologists stated emphatically that Stride had not...etc"
- £500 has a current value of around £40,000 - big money!
That's all so far. Please don't feel obliged to adopt every one of my suggestions, some of which are perhaps personal preferences, "the way I would do it" rather than necessary amendments. Brianboulton (talk) 19:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
continuing, with just a few more points:-
- Mary Kelly: "and indicated that she had undressed..." → "which indicated..." etc
- Rose Mylett: no issues here
- Alice McKenzie: is this 17 July 1889? The year needs to be stated
- Pinchin Street torso
- Again, we need to have the year.
- "...refuted after the latter was found" I don't think you can use "latter" when there is no "former". Just "she" would be OK
- "Another claim that the victim was a missing girl called Emily Barker..." "claim" or "theory"?
- "These murders are suggested..." Clarify what is covered by "these". The dismembered bodies of Rainham and Chelsea? The "Whitehall mystery" victim? All of these?
- "active in the same area"? I'm confused. Neither Rainham nor Chelsea is close to Whitechapel, and Whitehall is a completely different district, and none of these districts are close to each other. So to what does "the same area" refer?
- Francis Coles: "the Ripper himself" - "himself" unnecessary
- Legacy: the date of the Shaw letter should be provided.
That completes the review. Sorry for the intermission. Brianboulton (talk) 22:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for your helpful comments. DrKiernan (talk) 09:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)