Talk:Case of the Hooded Man/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Will start reviewing shortly. Cheers, Ricardiana (talk) 01:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Criterion 1: well-written

Mostly OK here. There are a few problems:

• "When Seymour and Powers went to do this several policemen (who had been lying in wait) immediately arrested her and Powers, (who was released a few hours later)." - punctuation incorrect (or perhaps the sentence needs to be recast)
• over-use of the phrase "perform a sting"
• "Florence Seymour was the first person called to the witness box, and said that her statement was false, and that Edgar Powers had told her that she would be charged with murder if she did not make such a statement" - repeated "and"s in a sentence are awkward

Criterion 2: factually accurate and verifiable

Fine here.

Criterion 3: broad in its coverage

Here is where the big problem lies. Only two sources are cited, and as a result some issues brought up on the article are never fleshed out. For instance, no reason is given as to why Williams was hooded. I found a source through Google Books that does give a reason, as well as other information not found in the article regarding motivations of witnesses, details on the use of ballistics (important as this is an early use of that sort of evidence), etc.

Some sources are available to read through Google Books: the one I'm looking at right now is Written in Blood by Colin and Damon Wilson. A number of other works referencing the murder pop up in Google Books but aren't available on-line to read; those could be inter-library loaned, though.

Criterion 4: neutral

Aside from the limited number of sources, yes.

Criterion 5: stable

Fine here.

Criterion 6: illustrated, if possible, by images

Fine here.

Verdict

I am putting the article on hold. The main issue is with the sources - as more exist that provide helpful, relevant information, they should be incorporated. Ricardiana (talk) 02:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• Excellent, I'll get to work on your points immediately. Fantastic finding the reason he was hooded; I've read three books on the subject, none of which gave any kind of detail on that. I'll work that in in a tick. Ironholds (talk) 06:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

  Interesting; all of the books seem to be "no preview"; did you say you can read them? Do you need to log into something? Ironholds (talk) 06:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I can only read the Written in Blood one - the others you could get via inter-library loan. I saw from your user page that you're at university - does your university library perhaps have any of the titles? If not, I'm sure they can get them for you. Or maybe not - how does that work in the UK? I'm in the US... if you can't get them, I can see if I can try to get them from my university. It's an interesting case and I would actually enjoy reading more about it. Cheers, Ricardiana (talk) 06:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Thats the thing, I can't read "Written in Blood" at all. The UK has an inter-library loan system, but it is incredibly slow (in my experience, 2-3 weeks). I'll check the library, but I doubt I'll find anything. Ironholds (talk) 06:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I just typed in "written in blood wilson" and came up with two results, one of which I can't read. That's not the one I mentioned, though. What happens if you search for "Written in Blood: A History of Forensic Detection‎"? That's the book with the info, and I am able to access the relevant chapter. Let me know ... if not, we'll have to figure something out. I'm not sure how much I can contribute to the article and have it be kosher for me to pass it, is my only concern, or I would just add stuff myself. Ricardiana (talk) 06:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that was my thinking too. Written in Blood: A History of Forensic Detection comes up with one book on "snippet view". Is there something where perhaps the publisher has only consented to it being on google books within the US? Ironholds (talk) 07:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh... I think you've hit on it. That must be it; that does sound familiar. Well, I think this is what we'll have to do. I will add what I can to the article, and ask for a second reviewer rather than passing it on my own steam. I think that will be okay; if not, I'm sure someone will be eager to let us know. Best, Ricardiana (talk) 07:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks so much for going above and beyond :). And you get GA credit as well, so everybody wins :). Actually I did just have a thought; while I left most of my law books at home I do have a biography of Cecil Whitely sitting on my desk, so I'll see if there is anything in there. I think I corrected the points you brought up about prose, by the way. Ironholds (talk) 07:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Outdent: righto, at the moment the stuff in the book only backs up things already there, so I'll let you add your stuff in before I fill it with lots of little ref tags. Ironholds (talk) 07:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I've stuck my meagre contributions in. Ironholds (talk) 09:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Alright, here is my opinion. GA criteria states that only editors which have not significantly contributed to the article before its nomination should review the article. It is ok to embrace the spirit of "fix it yourself" and make any changes you deem necessary to improve the article. Although I'm not sure many other editors take it as far as you have in this case (you currently rank as the top contributor to this article as far as number of edits, although I suspect this article was transferred from a userspace draft), I usually keep the changes down to minor revisions and additions of material. It wasn't technically necessary for you to request a second opinion, but I will give it to you anyway. I gave the article a quick read, and couldn't find anything wrong. I'd say go ahead and pass it. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 18:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for chipping in, ErgoSum. I realize I've contributed to the article more than is appropriate, and that's precisely why I requested a second opinion. I would prefer it if you would pass the article rather than me, again for that reason. Ricardiana (talk) 18:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Second opinion

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   After a thorough reading, I corrected a few minor copy issues. Interesting article, good job by Ironholds, and I commend Ricardiana for going above and beyond what is expected of a reviewer. Article passed. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 19:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)