Talk:Death of Charlotte Shaw/GA1
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Sarastro1 (talk) 20:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC) This is an excellent article which summarises a tragic event very well. Just a few points to clear up, but no huge problems with passing this.
- "However, it was abandoned halfway through, in part influenced by Shaw's death, due to severe weather.": I know what this means, but it is a little clumsy. What about: "However, it was abandoned halfway through due to severe weather, as the organisers were mindful of Shaw's death."
- Copy-edited.
- Rather than have five refs after the second paragraph of Background, why not spread them throughout the text. Five refs in a row always seems excessive, and if the paragraph is distilled from so many sources, it would be better to ref more of it.
- Distributed a bit, Five ina row is a bit much.
- "the group believed they had to cross because the alternative route would add at least four miles to the trek.": Cross the brook at this point, or just cross the brook (i.e. the alternative avoided the brook)?
- I have no idea. It doesn't seem to be in any of the sources. It could be that there was a bridge a few miles upstream or that the source was a few miles upstream and they could avoid going over or thorugh the water altogether. I don't know.
- "Believing that the weather conditions, described as "atrocious"…": The quote about atrocious weather conditions has already been used in the previous section.
- Removed
- "Weather conditions" used twice in close proximity in "Death" section.
- Copy-edited
- "developed a capability to handle swift-water rescues": I'm not quite sure what this means. How did the team develop the capability, and what was the capability?
- Clarified
- "The possibility was also raised that the group was under-prepared for the conditions they faced." Raised by who? And it may be better to say "It was suggested by X that…" or even better: "X suggested that …"
- I added something but it's not perfect. See what you think.
- It is a little odd to read "the group member whose bag Shaw had been attempting to throw…" or "the member in difficulties". Can we name this person? If so, I would suggest using her name.
- I'd really rather not, since the person is still very young, is a private individual, the name doesn't enhance the reader's understanding of the circumstances of Charlotte Shaw's death and it risks giving it undue weight. Essentially, I'm erring on the side of caution (with BLP in mind) and deliberately ommitting it.
- Fair enough, I understand your reasoning. My main issue was that it sounds clumsy; not so much of an issue for GAN but if it ever went to FAC it would need tidying I think. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- It could probably be worded better. The difficulty with names is that it implicitly blames the named people (the same reason I deliberately omit the teacher's name).
- Fair enough, I understand your reasoning. My main issue was that it sounds clumsy; not so much of an issue for GAN but if it ever went to FAC it would need tidying I think. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'd really rather not, since the person is still very young, is a private individual, the name doesn't enhance the reader's understanding of the circumstances of Charlotte Shaw's death and it risks giving it undue weight. Essentially, I'm erring on the side of caution (with BLP in mind) and deliberately ommitting it.
- Probably an oversight, but ref 4 does not support the claim that the group was under the supervision of a teacher from Edgehill. Other spotchecks reveal no problems, although the grouping of references is not ideal (see above).
Will look at this when I can.HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Fixed. 12:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Images: Two free images are fine; non-free image rationale looks fine to me.
- My only other point (not an issue for this review) would be that the opening paragraph of the inquest section could be cut back as there is a little redundancy and repetition of words.
- I gave it a quick copy-edit. I think it's a little better now. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
No other problems, and a good read. I'll place the article on hold for now, but this shouldn't take long. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks very much for the review. It wasn't an easy subject to write about, but I'm glad there's a decent article on it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- All the changes work for me and I'm passing now. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC)