Talk:Murder of Vivianne Ruiz

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Citations?[edit]

@Onel5969 hello there! Good day! Please can you explain the tag you have left? There are 36 citations and more than a dozen sources including three journal articles and ten newspaper articles from reliable sources? Not sure specifically where additional citations are needed. Only the lead is unsourced per WP:MOS. Thanks so much. MaxnaCarta (talk) 12:35, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. My rule of thumb is that if I have to leave more than 3 cn tags, I put the main tag at the top of the article. As you probably know me by now, one of my main concerns is WP:VERIFY, so that means that I feal that all assertions in an article need to be referenced. So in this case, the last three statements in the Post-mortem section are unreferenced, most of the Identification section, and then a couple more scattered through the Richard White, and Pre-trial proceedings sections. The article is extremely well-written and sourced, but those few extra things are still needed for an encyclopedia article, imho. I hope this helps. Onel5969 TT me 12:40, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Onel5969 I will address. I want to take to GA eventually so these are important. Appreciate you as always. MaxnaCarta (talk) 02:46, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @MaxnaCarta: I'm currently seeing several harv errors in this article; and lacking access to the sources, I can't clean them up myself. Can you please do so? This is a useful script to highlight them, if you don't already have it. Regards, Vanamonde (Talk) 16:12, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cielquiparle (talk) 03:26, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • ... that a bloodied fingerprint on newspaper was the central piece of evidence in the murder of Vivianne Ruiz? Source: https://apjl.com.au/the-jane-doe-murder-mystery/
  • The source for these quotes is not available. I purchased a subscription. Happy to email a screenshot of a paragraph to anyone who needs the source to promote.
  • I am not a great DYK hook writer and warmly invite suggestions for improvement on this proposed hook
  • Other facts: Accused had to be extradited from the UK and was arrested by Scotland yard (Free source available), accused had to be tried three times due to bizarre behaviour including threatening to kill a judge (Source is not free), when arrested, the accused was found with a handwritten note stating "convince yourself of your innocence...don't fuck up" (Free source available, Jane Doe Forensic Investigators documentary on Youtube)

Created by MaxnaCarta (talk). Self-nominated at 02:19, 28 December 2022 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: None required.

Overall: Far prefer the first hook over the other two.

Beautiful article; consider going for WP:GA. On that, some notes that don't affect DYK eligibility but would probably come up in that process; or that you might want to tackle regardless:

  • Infobox has "Vivian Lynda Ruiz" - one other "Vivian" but article title and most other places in article use "Vivianne", pick one unless we're specifically explaining the difference
  • Lede is a bit long: Perhaps combine and shorten multiple sentences such as
    • "Prior to being identified, investigators and the media referred to the victim as 'Jane Doe'. It is now standard practice for police to refer to an unidentified deceased person as John or Jane Doe." Or even move most or all that to the body.
    • "Newspaper was located inside her mouth. On its removal, fingerprints in what appeared to be blood were present but could not be immediately identified."?
  • Lede: "The murder of Vivianne Ruiz is thought to be the first officially recorded 'Jane Doe' in Australia." Needs a citation, it's a reasonably important mark of distinction. Again, possibly move to body.
  • "Newspaper was located inside her mouth...The fingerprint found on the newspaper Ruiz's killer had left in her throat" - mouth or throat? I understand it's ambiguous, but we can go into detail in the body, let's pick one for the lede.
  • "former associate of the victim who thought they" - body uses "she".
  • "Later testing demonstrated that a tonal reverse had occurred," - the lede should summarize the body, this isn't mentioned in the body, and should be. Perhaps just move it there?
  • Body: "White body suit with black and white shorts." Sentence needs verb.
  • "Duflou did not undress the victim as it may be significant " - mix of past and present tense, I recommend past
  • "sand fell onto the operating table and collected by an investigator" - is this relevant? It's not mentioned again, presumably there was also lots of dirt and pocket lint, since there were even insects...
  • "German Shepard" - Shepherd, 4 places
  • "Investigators dressed a police-woman of a similar build and age in clothing similar to that worn by the victim." - and did what with this dressed police-woman?
  • "this was money earned by Ruiz she had stored" - which she had stored?
  • "Further testing was conducted. Testing eventually concluded that" - merge sentences
  • "Whites fingerprint", "Whites parents", "Whites parents house", other instances ... - White's, parents', etc.
  • "he remained quite during proceedings" - quiet
  • " any intermediate . fact " - is the dot intentional?
  • "Hidden J found" - who? Is this the judge? If so it would be good to identify them at first mention, rather than just last, since they seem important in a judge only trial.
  • "White was later sentenced to the maximum penalty applicable in New South Wales at the time: 15 years in prison of which he served at least 9" - so he was released? When? Any more on him after the release?
  • References:
    • Pierce, D.S (1989) - this isn't actually used as a reference anywhere in the article - and probably should be
    • "The Jane Doe Murder Myster" - Mystery?
    • "Newphew arrested" - Nephew? GRuban (talk) 17:14, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @MaxnaCarta, GRuban, and Cielquiparle: I have reopened this because I don't feel it's quite ready. Checking through the article I found five statements without obvious citations; there are also harv errors that make very many other references unverifiable. I see a note about a documentary on youtube that is potentially of concern; youtube documentaries may be acceptable if the source is verifiable, but they're frequently not, and again, I cannot check. MaxnaCarta, can you please fix these issues? And this isn't a DYK issue necessarily, but the title strikes me as very odd. Why not simply Murder of Vivianne Ruiz? Vanamonde (Talk) 16:27, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Vanamonde. Can you be more specific, please? Which are the five statements, what is a harv error, and which YouTube documentary are you referring to? I am afraid I can't find the word "YouTube" anywhere in the article. As for the title, I can understand that very well, that is what almost all the references call it, just look through the Bibliography, I see nine instances of Jane Doe in the titles, and not a single Vivianne Ruiz. In fact, I can see an argument to change the article title to something like "Jane Doe (Vivianne Ruiz) murder case", rather than the reverse; we are supposed to call the subject what our sources call it. --GRuban (talk) 16:37, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The five statements are the ones I've tagged; surely that does not require more clarification? The harv errors are so numerous I will not spend time listing them, but here is a tool to help find them; you can also try to click on each footnote. The youtube source is referred to by MaxnaCarta above, I have no idea if it's used in the article because, again the citation information is incomplete. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:52, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks again! With respect, you seem to have placed a tag after nearly every uncited sentence in the article body, is that correct? Now, that certainly is your right, but in general that is not a requirement for DYK. In general one citation per paragraph and quote is seen as sufficient, as can be seen in the Reviewer's Template at the beginning of this edit screen,
    "sourced = Does the article contain at least one citation to a reliable source for each paragraph and direct quote?"
    WP:CITE says that "any material challenged or likely to be challenged" needs an inline citation, but are you really sure it was a requirement to challenge, for example, "White was sent to stand trial for the murder in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.[citation needed]" when the entirety of the next section, something like thirty sentences with many individual sources is about that very trial? Or "He was found fit to stand trial.[citation needed]", when the very preceding -cited- sentence is about him being sent for psychiatric evaluation and the next paragraph - also cited - is entirely about him standing trial? Of course now that you have actually challenged these sentences, they do need to be cited, but, well, um... I, at least would have classed such requests with the "possibly would come up in a GA review, but not DYK blocking" entries as I made above. --GRuban (talk) 18:15, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, quite correct. General practice is to require citation for anything that isn't common knowledge, or a reasonable summary of what comes after. The sentence about being send to stand trial in a given court, for instance; law proceedings are notoriously long and convoluted; that a trial took place in one court is no guarantee it took place there. Similarly, if there isn't a source for him being pronounced fit for trial, we cannot say so. It's original research. Also; unless we have information to the contrary, the convicted murderer is a living person, and all information about him absolutely needs to be cited. The one citation per paragraph rule of thumb is fine when all the information in a paragraph comes from one source. It isn't a free pass on basic verifiability. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:33, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Vanamonde93, thank you very much for the thoughts. I welcome feedback and understand it is a critical component of being an editor and especially if I wish to proceed with processes that require the thoughts peers in order to pass.
That being said, I spent at least a dozen or more hours compiling this. I subscribed to and paid for a copy of the Australian Police Journal. The article is 70 pages long and I read every word twice over when writing this piece. I spent hours watching the documentary to have someone who has likely not watched it come and state it may not be reliable. It is not a "youtube documentary". If you are going to challenge a source, you should actually consume the source and then highlight a point not supported by the source and explain why the source is not reliable. The "youtube documentary" was produced 18 years ago by Channel 7 in Australia and had a full production team. It has merely been put onto youtube and is also available to watch on streaming services. This documentary consists almost entirely of interviews with the police and pathologist who conducted the investigation. Calling it a "youtube source" ignores the fact I never linked to youtube, I linked to WorldCat. Merely because you cannot access a resource does not mean its invalid. I am the one who purchased a copy of the documentary, but found an online version so that people could watch it to review the article if needed, which apparently has not been done. That is fine, I do not expect you to watch a 50 minute documentary but if you are going to intervene and undo a DYK nomination then I would expect more solid reasons to be provided.
Some of your concerns are incorrect. ie: "that a trial took place in one court is no guarantee it took place there". Actually, I can guarantee this. The citation is NSWSC. That stands for New South Wales Supreme Court. Not only does the citation guarantee the court it was held in, but murder in Australia can only be held in the state's Supreme Court. Further, that is the court Judge Hidden was appointed to at the time. I actually physically travelled to the Supreme Court of Victoria library and got my information from the librarian in person. I cannot provide the case to you, it is not accessible. However the onus on me is merely to cite my information. That you cannot access it is not an issue. It is also stated this was the court inside the journal article I paid for. Per my nomination, I am happy to email a snippet of the article to reviewer, but you did not ask for this merely said the court was wrong. I cannot share a snippet on here due to the copyright issues, but if you are on Discord I can send you a small snip also. The magistrate court I named is stated to be that court by the Scotland Yard detective who arrest White, and that is in the documentary. How much more reliable can I get than a video recorded interview of the person who witnessed the events? And, the journal article is not only peer reviewed and in an academic journal, but it was written by one of the detectives who coordinated the investigation.
I propose you please outline in numeric form a checklist of issues you consider need to be addressed in order to pass a DYK criteria, and please provide an argument as to which criteria is not met and why?
I know this is not at all personal, and do not take it as such. I hope I have been polite and friendly in my response. I simply feel that this feedback would be appropriate at a GA or FA review. I feel that an editors personal standards and literal, almost unreasonable interpretation of guidelines and criteria is being applied to DYK, which is of a much lower bar. The reason I have not gone straight for GA is because I know it isn't ready. However, the article absolutely meets the VERIFY standard and the citation tags placed are not fairly placed in my view.
Speaking of the title, the first two paragraphs are why Jane Doe is in the title. I think it is self explanatory.
Thanks very much again, MaxnaCarta (talk) 01:49, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, you're incorrect on several grounds. WP:V is policy, and requires that all content be verifiable. The content I tagged in the article is not. This has nothing to do with my access to the source, it is an issue with properly documenting the source you used. If it's the case itself, that is an acceptable primary source for some content, but you need to cite it. There's templates for that. The harv errors issue is similar; it means that for the most commonly used source, I cannot see anything besides the author and the year. These two issues are specific and easily fixable; were I in your position, I would have found it easier to fix them than to write your lengthy post above. As to youtube; I mentioned it because you mentioned it above, but without complete source information I could not validate the source. I have no objections to a Channel 7 documentary, but I had no means of ascertaining that that's what the McCune source was. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93: there is not a single word in what I wrote that contradicts WP:V. Harvard referencing errors (which actually, I've already fixed), do not contravene the policy. To say that the McCune reference was not identifiable a rather confusing statement. McCune 2005 even if not linked with a working reference, clearly refers to the McCune 2005 reference in the bibliography. I have fixed the issues. Can you please go and check them? If you do not send the nomination back, please list in bullet point form which DYK criteria you feel is not met and why so I can fix any issues you identify. There is only one Harvard reference that is broken, and that is not fixable because of a flaw with the referencing system that doesn't allow the formatting of AU court causes unless the decision is posted on Austlii, which this is not. The footnote still refers to R v White and R v White with a full AGLC citation is included, so verification is there. @GRuban: please can you provide your thought also? Surely this is right to go now. Thanks. MaxnaCarta (talk) 12:18, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
GRuban's thought is this is good to go, again, but then I thought it was good to go before, so let's listen to what Vanamonde has to say. Write. Whatever. I also have more to say but it's long and rambling and may be meandering off topic of this particular DYK review which is long enough already, so I'm collapsing it to make everyone else's life easier.
Extended content

I have this message on the top of my user page that I understand was originally written by User:The Blade of the Northern Lights. It starts with "Our work together here should be our armor, not some sharp, angry, burning sword." - then it gets less poetic. We're here because we want to write good articles, for free, for the world, not for any other benefit but because it's fun, and because we genuinely enjoy the thought that we might be bringing just a little bit more knowledge to other people that we have never met and probably never will. That makes us pretty good people, actually. I mean, sure, in other aspects of our lives we might be surly, or mean, or vengeful, or cheat on our taxes, or our significant others, or I don't know, bake crystal meth or ruin people's lives in some other way. But here, at least, while we're here, we're doing something unselfish for other people. We should appreciate that about each other.

Here at least, with the rare exception of vandals, we got this, we're all in this together. ("The axiom of a true tyrant!" That last link goes to a few pages of an amusing and sometimes surprisingly meaningful webcomic about superheroes, actually, but even farther afield than the rest of this speech, but I am herein incorporating it by reference. When possible, I recommend standing on the shoulders of giants; it helps one see farther. ) This means that my thought is that Vanamonde is genuinely trying to make this a better article, even if it does read as if he might have gotten up on the wrong side of the bed this morning. Yes, I think he's going about it partially the wrong way, I think at least some of his objections, as I pointed out above, are niggling or as Max points out in the Youtube video bit, just wrong, and I think there is a lot to be said for the distinction between DYK and GA and FA, and the first should not be held to the standards of the second or the third, and perfect is the enemy of good. One of those distinctions is that nitpicking can make authors feel bad, and we don't want authors to feel bad, as just getting an article to DYK standard is a good thing, it doesn't need to reach the latter two heights to be very useful. But Vanamonde is experienced, and his heart is in the right place, and some of his objections are actually right, even by my reading of DYK standards, and absolutely should be fixed. And since we are all in this together, honestly, I think even the ones I don't agree are to DYK standards are still worth fixing - because clearly Vanamonde demonstrates that my opinion of what DYK standards are is not the only opinion. My opinion might be wrong! It may well be easier and faster to fix the article than to argue. And we don't want Vanamonde to feel bad either. He's also a good chap, his contributions are also valuable, and we're lucky to have him.

So, yes, so far I think Max has fixed Van's objections as far as I can see; but I haven't looked extremely closely, and if Van thinks some of them aren't fixed yet and should be (and can be - if, as Max writes, our software for harv refs is broken, there's only so much we can do), or even if he finds other things that are missing and can be fixed, and should be fixed to meet his reasonable reading of DYK standards, then we should fix them. And yes, I mean we, all of us, I had read Max's earlier comment and gotten up this morning with the intent to come in and fix whichever of Vanamonde's objections I could; even though one of the main refs is behind a paywall, which I can't get to, I think I can get to most of the others, I'm just slow, and am quite glad Max did the work already. (Here, just to prove it, I'll fix one of my own nits - the news article did not say "Newphew arrested", it did say "Nephew", I logged in to the Wikipedia library and checked, and fixed it. There are others that would be nice to fix like that, but not blocking.) We all help in our own way, but we as long as we recognize that we are all working together, not against each other, together we do a pretty good job.

All right? Long enough of a thought for ya?

--GRuban (talk) 15:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Maxna Carta, I'm not sure why you're framing your comment to imply that I have been holding this up since you made fixes; all your fixes came after my review. Also, harv errors may not be an issue when the source is unambiguous, but for some of your sources, that wasn't the case; see Riley 1992. Regardless; most issues have been fixed. I've fixed the one harv error left; there is a parameter designed precisely for this sort of situation, in which the default ref name is messy. There remain three statements at the ends of paragraphs for which the source is not obvious (one in post-mortem, two in identification). Assuming the sources are higher up somewhere, please duplicate those citations appropriately and I'd be happy to restore GRuban's review. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:34, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Vanamonde, you are one of the most experienced editors on the platform. I've been here a year. I'm trying my best to learn, and I feel like whatever I say, no matter how cooperatively or politely, is just being niggled at like this is some sort of verbal judo. I did not frame my comment to imply you're holding anything up. You wrote that I could have just fixed your issues rather than reply to you, when I actually was following your requests, I just wanted to point that out. Some mentorship and empathy would be appreciated rather than assuming I am trying to frame you in a bad light. I am not here for that. I promise. I'll fix those last two issues then ping you once done. Thanks for the help, I genuinely mean that. I do not believe you are intentionally trying to anything nefarious at all. Thanks again.MaxnaCarta (talk) 22:34, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93:, hi there! I've been on a short holiday and just got back to review this. Those three references you mention all seem to be clear and working. Please can you tell me if this is still an issue? If there is an issue, which reference is it please and what corrective action is required? I cannot see what error you are looking at. Thanks heaps. MaxnaCarta (talk) 00:31, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MaxnaCarta: The problem is with the uncited content, not with a broken ref. I've tagged the statements I was concerned about. I assume they are covered by sources you have already used, but duplicating those would address my concern. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:57, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93: That should be the last of them. Sorry for being prickly the other day. I think your feedback has improved the article, so thanks for volunteering to help out. Cheers MaxnaCarta (talk) 03:11, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restoring tick per GRuban's review above. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:14, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Standard practice where?[edit]

The first section includes the explanatory note, "It is now standard practice for police to refer to an unidentified deceased person as John or Jane Doe."

This is a geographically limited statement, not a worldwide convention: it would make more sense if it specified where. FloweringOctopus (talk) 07:26, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Murder of Vivianne Ruiz (Jane Doe)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Caeciliusinhorto (talk · contribs) 08:02, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will review this shortly Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:02, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, initial thoughts:

Firstly, there are apparently very important details in the lead that just aren't addressed in the body at all.

  • "The murder of Vivianne Ruiz is thought to be the first officially recorded 'Jane Doe' in Australia"
  • "The unique fingerprint evidence that would ultimately convict her killer was also unprecedented"
  • "Later testing demonstrated that a tonal reverse had occurred"

More generally, the article could really do with a copyedit to improve the prose flow. The GA criteria are pretty forgiving, but I find the prose so choppy and awkward in places as to be actively distracting. I also have concerns about the level of detail – lots of attention is given to apparently irrelevant details which pad out the article but make it hard for the reader to see what actually matters. For instance, take the first paragraph of the section §Post-mortem:

A post death examination, known as a post-mortem or autopsy, was carried out to determine the cause, mode, and manner of death, as is common when the cause of death is suspected to be a criminal matter. Two investigators attended the Glebe Mortuary as witnesses. A third officer with expertise in fingerprints also attended. A government forensic pathologist, Johan Duflou, conducted the post-mortem. Duflou did not undress the victim, as it might have been significant in establishing her identity. As the victim's clothing was removed, sand fell onto the operating table and was collected by an investigator.

There are a lot of facts here, but what are they doing?

  • A post-mortem was carried out: important to know
  • A post-mortem is a post-death examination, also called an autopsy, used to determine the cause, mode, and manner of death, and is common in the case of suspected homocides: we can probably assume that most readers know this.
  • Three police officers witnessed the autopsy, one of whom was an expert in fingerprints: do we care? it's never mentioned again
  • Duflou did not undress the victim in case it was signficant in establishing her identity. In fact it wasn't, and I'm not convinced we really care about this, but if it is to be included then I will note that I was confused by this the first time I read it: why did the pathologist not do something which might have helped establish the identity? I assume that the missing relevant detail here is that the police investigators did this instead, but given that we've gone into so much detail so far in this paragraph it is weird to omit that.
  • There was sand on or inside the victim's clothing: again, it's unclear what the actual relevance of this is. It's never mentioned again.

Unless this paragraph is telling us something actually important to know, I would be strongly tempted to cut it entirely and simply begin the next paragraph with "A post-mortem found that..."

The paragraph from the end of the same section illustrates a different problem:

Also found during the post-mortem were a significant number of animal hairs. These were analysed by a forensic biologist who confirmed under a microscope they were not human due to their internal structure. Further testing confirmed they were from a dog. Eventually, tests concluded the hairs were from a domestic dog, possibly a German Shepherd.

We are twice told that these are animal hairs, and then twice that they are dog hairs: surely we can convey this more concisely! For instance: "A significant number of animal hairs were also found during the post-mortem. Tests showed that these were from a domestic dog, possibly a German Shepherd." This communicates essentially the same thing in less than half the number of words.

Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:59, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Caeciliusinhorto-public I will address these concerns within 24 hours and ping you once done. I nominated two GA's and an FA all at once thinking it would (like my first GA), take some months before a reviewer came along. I have been fortunate to have them all reviewed very quickly, but unexpectedly so all at once. Will be with you shortly. Thanks so much and this is very valuable feedback. MaxnaCarta (talk) 02:02, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Caeciliusinhorto-public I've reviewed your feedback against the article. I think you are quite right. There is an excessive amount of detail. Please give me a day or two and I will come back to you. I'm going to review it from end-to-end. I'll ping you with a diff once done so you can take a look. Cheers MaxnaCarta (talk) 05:59, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay – I will wait for you. One quick note in the meantime, though: the infobox gives Ruiz's date of death as 26-27th December, but Barry puts it most likely on Christmas Eve and McCune says 23-25th December. What is the source of the infobox dates? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Caeciliusinhorto-public Here is the diff! Each review is a good opportunity for learning something, and I think this review the biggest lesson for me is summary style. This is an encyclopaedia, not a true crime mystery novel requiring every detail. I have made a substantial cut of a lot of fluff. Please feel free to let me know what you think. As for the dates, I will change. We should go with Barry's source above all else given he was the detective who worked on this. The papers sometimes say it was the 26-27th because the body was found on the 28th. There is some debate as to the exact date and time and I know one officer theorised she was stored under White's parents house for a few days. I'll change it to Barry's date. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 12:47, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Caeciliusinhorto-public @Caeciliusinhorto, hello! Hope you are well. Please do let me know if you have anymore feedback. No pressure. Thank you. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 09:16, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, having read through the article again this is much clearer! It will still need a lot of work if you want the prose to reach FA level, where they require it to be engaging and of a professional standard, but for GA's clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct you are pretty much there. A couple of further quibbles with the prose:
  • After two trials were aborted due to bizarre conduct is "bizarre" the most appropriate adjective here? threatening to kill the judge strikes me as more than merely bizarre!
  • Hidden J found White had killed Ruiz in a fit of passion: strange to name the judge in his final mention, and strange to name him this way. I would say "the judge, Peter Hidden" on first mention and simply "the judge" thereafter.
Onto the other GA criteria:
  • I will spotcheck sources for criterion 2 this week. I will note up front that it would be useful (though not required by a strict reading of the GA criteria) to have timestamps or something for the McCune source rather than just pointing to an entire 45-minute documentary 15 times. I'm also a bit wary of the fact that the main sources seem to be 1: an article by someone involved with the investigation, 2: a documentary largely made up of interview clips from people involved with the investigation, and 3: contemporary news reports. Some searching on my end doesn't suggest an obvious better source out there, but I'm still not super comfortable...
  • Following your rewrite, I'm much happier about criterion 3. One detail that I would expect to be discussed but wasn't: do we know whether White was in fact paroled after 9 years or anything about what happened to him after he was sentenced?
  • No obvious neutrality problems, but again police investigators appear to be very major sources so expect me to be picky about this.
  • No stability issues.
  • Image of Ruiz has an appropriate fair use rationale; the others all seem to be appropriately licensed. I don't know how useful the image of King's Cross is, but I see the connection and there's not an obviously better image in the Commons category – an image which illustrated the nightlife or nightclubs might be a better bet if there is one that I've missed.
Will make further comments when I have spotchecked sources. I'm away this weekend and won't be able to do any editing Friday-Sunday; if possible I will try to get any comments to you before that. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:17, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Caeciliusinhorto appreciate all the feedback. Fixed the prose points. I don't find them quibble at all, I am happy to work on this as much as is required. Also, you don't need to go any faster than you need to. I know we are beyond the seven days, but provided you're okay, I am too. There's always something for me to do here and in life, so happy to work steadily at this, there is no deadline or rush as far as I am concerned.
To the others:
  • I agree that timestamps would be useful. I tried to do this, but could not make the SFNP referencing work with them. I'll give it another go. I agree some other sources would be great for verifiability, but there aren't any. Aren't interviews considered reliable when published by a reliable source though? The two documentaries especially. Plus if not contemporary news, then what? I feel like the news, journal, and documentary combined paint a reliable, consistent picture. I certainly wish that I could find this significantly covered in a book, but even at the State Library of Victoria I only found newspaper articles similar to those used already.
  • As far as my search shows, White is never mentioned in media again after the trial. Could not find anything.
  • Regarding neutrality, I agree entirely. That is why I omitted their opinion and commentary. ie, I would not have quoted their comments about him being a "vile mean character". Not neutral considering the source. Rather than any analysis, this is just meant to be an end-to-end coverage of the sequence of events.
  • I'll hunt on flickr for a nightclub photo. The night time photo of King's Cross is all we have on commons at present.
Thank you! Enjoy your time off. Chat soon. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:57, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, source spotchecking (thank you for your patience!):

  • The body of a female was located on the side of a suburban street in Sydney, Australia on 28 December 1991 None of this seems to appear in the cited source?
Green tickY Fixed. Changed to Fay page 62 which does not state the exact date the body found but rather "early saturday morning between Christmas and New Year". The saturday between Christmas and NY is the 28th. Other newspapers mention the date but don't support the sentence as written. Nothing actually states the date and location together. Hopefully this is fine.
  • Blood staining was present on her head and clothing. Not at the page cited. The previous page supports that there was dried blood (not a stain) on Ruiz's head. The cited page describes the clothing, but says nothing about bloodstains, and searching for "stain" the only discussion of bloodstains I can find is related to possible bloodstains on White's clothing.
Green tickY I actually removed this sentence. The dried blood is not relevant to anything else in the article.
  • Three distinct fingerprint patterns were identified Supported by the Fay source. Timestamp for the McCune source seems to be completely wrong – it seems to be about the six-minute mark?
Green tickY Fixed, I had just been playing around with how to incorporate timestamps. You will find that most if not all McCune references are now timestamped. I am going through the entire video and timestamping (rounded down to nearest five seconds and allowing a slight buffer beforehand) these references for accuracy.
  • The fingerprints were photographed in situ and then enhanced with ninhydrin, an organic compound that can detect fingerprints. The practice is commonly used by forensic investigators in the analysis of latent fingerprints on porous surfaces such as paper, as the amino acids in sweat secretions that gather on a finger's unique ridges transfer to surfaces when touched. Exposure of the surface to ninhydrin converts the amino acids into visibly coloured products and thus reveals the print. Source doesn't seem to support the crucial first claim that the fingerprints in the Ruiz case were enhanced with ninhydrin; it's fine to support the broader claims about its use in forensics. The Fay source can support the first clause.
Green tickY Agreed. However the sentence is better supposed by Fay's monologue in the McClune reference, so used that mid-sentence. Fixed now.
  • The victim's clothing led investigators to believe she had been local to the area Supported, no issues.
  • similar clothing was placed on a mannequin and displayed at locations near where the body was found I'm sure I've seen this in some source or other, but it doesn't currently have a citation and could really do with one.
Green tickY Agreed, and done. Fay at page 76.
  • Investigators fielded a significant number of calls each day from people offering information. no issues
  • White did not resist the arrest, and his relatives were unaware of the police investigation no issues
  • The judge found that White depositing money into his account shortly after Ruiz's death was weak evidence of his guilt This is not exactly what the source says; the judge said that the evidence that the money White deposited was Ruiz's was weak. That this was therefore considered weak evidence for his involvement in the murder is a reasonable inference but not I think one which is supported by the source.
Green tickY Agreed. Thanks for this. My writing has evolved significantly from when I first started, but this is an issue that I am gradually addressing yet remains stubbornly persistent, sometimes unconsciously. In my daily writing, it is my job to be interpretative and infer from statements. Not so when writing articles.

I'm not seeing any copyvio issues, and nor is earwig (though I doubt it has access to any of the sources you used, so I wouldn't expect it to!), but there are several places where the sources cited don't seem to match up with the text. Generally I think the text correct, but the references need to check out!

Noted. I am careful with copyright issues. I try to read, then put the text down and write my article without looking at the text. This is perhaps why sometimes I have those source-to-text issues. I intend on being more thorough with my spot checks before submitting for review from now on. Thank you.

I'm going to be abroad from Thursday until 1st June; I will put the review on hold until then. I suggest you use the time to fix these referencing queries and do your own spotchecks, and I will do another round of spotchecking on my return, hoping to find everything okay to pass the article! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:41, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries @Caeciliusinhorto. Thanks for the feedback. Happy to address! Have a safe and enjoyable trip. Speak upon your return. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:12, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Caeciliusinhorto all done. Thank you so much for being lenient and allowing me such an atypically long amount of time to get the work done. I've had so much work on lately that getting to editing has been impossible. Just finished this afternoon. Looking forward to future feedback. Thank you! — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 09:01, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks MaxnaCarta – will hopefully find time to check this over and ideally finish up the review on Sunday! Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:26, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No worries at all @Caeciliusinhorto. No pressure. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 12:19, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MaxnaCarta: sorry, slightly later to respond to this than planned. Thanks for adding all the timestamps - that must have taken a bit of work! I've spotchecked a couple of these and they seem fine, so that's good. I think there are two remaining issues unresolved:
  • The judge found that White depositing money into his account shortly after Ruiz's death was weak evidence of his guilt – you said you agreed with my comment on this above, but I think you forgot to make whatever edit you were planning? That text remains in the article
  • similar clothing was placed on a mannequin and displayed at locations near where the body was found: source cited supports the mannequin dressed in similar clothing, but says it was at the Sydney Royal Easter Show, not "locations near where the body was found".
Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:18, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Caeciliusinhorto - both sentences removed. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:42, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All looking good now – I'm going to pass the article now. Congratulations! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:50, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Caeciliusinhorto & MaxnaCarta: I don't think this article meets criterion 6 quite yet. In addition to copyright checks, the images also have to be relevant and not decorative per MOS:PERTINENCE and they should have succinct captions that indicate this relevance per WP:CAPTION. Normally I wouldn't make an issue out of this, but the fingerprint image in particular stands out as a decorative image that doesn't add anything to the article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the fingerprint image is necessary, but I would say it's relevant enough to meet MOS:PERTINENCE. Maybe the caption could explicitly say something about the fingerprints found on the newspaper being crucial to conviction or something, but frankly this seems like a pretty minor quibble. MaxnaCarta: thoughts? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:03, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the fingerprint, I pretty much agree with both of you. I can’t argue with either perspective.
Copyright eh. The reason we don’t have the actual photograph of the fingerprint from the crime scene is because of copyright. Despite being all over the internet and almost certainly able to be legally used without risk to Wikipedia, inclusion wouldn’t comply with our policies and so I have omitted it from the article.
I used a generic one instead.
I personally think this image looks good in the article and provides some context. However it does not technically and to the strictest interpretation of the criteria, meet it. Happy to remove if needed — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:06, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Murder_of_Vivianne_Ruiz&oldid=1212698403"