Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Murder of Leigh Leigh/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 07:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Murder of Leigh Leigh[edit]

Nominator(s): Freikorp and  Ohc ¡digame! 09:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC) [reply]

This article is about the grisly murder of a 14-yo schoolgirl in Australia. I am the GAC reviewer of this article. Having examined all the relevant criteria and looked in detail at the background of the story, I believe it is complete for all important details, and all matters of substance and form are of or near to FA standard.  Ohc ¡digame! 09:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review from Nikkimaria[edit]

Resolved issues
  • File:Leigh_Leigh_headstone.png: Australia typically doesn't have freedom of panorama for engravings and photographs. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:13, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Nikkimaria. I must admit I didn't even know what freedom of panorama was until I read your comment, so please forgive my lack of knowledge on the subject. Section 65 of the 1968 copyright act [2] states: "The copyright in a work to which this section applies that is situated, otherwise than temporarily, in a public place, or in premises open to the public, is not infringed by the making of a painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of the work..." I can assure you this headstone is in a place that is open to the public. Granted section 65 defines 'work' as "sculptures and to works of artistic craftsmanship", which i'm not 100% a headstone falls into, but I don't see the problem here. I don't think anyone holds the copyright to the headstone, nor do I see how anyone could. The only reason I knew where to find the headstone to take a photo of it is because there is already a photo of it in the Australian Cemeteries Index [3]. Clearly people take photographs of Austrlaian headstones and put them on the internet, apparently without any controversy. Can you explain in a bit more detail what the issue is here? Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 01:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Freikorp, that the work is in a place open to the public is not in dispute. However, unlike say a public sculpture or a building, this particular work is primarily two dimensional - its features are engravings and a photo. The Australian copyright act specifies that their freedom of panorama law does not extend to either engravings or photos. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Nikkimaria, is the new FUR image i've uploaded to replace the headstone acceptable? Freikorp (talk) 11:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    So this is an image that was used in the media but is not by the media - do we know what the original source of the image was? Also, the "unique historical image" tag is very hard to justify - I would recommend instead using {{non-free biog-pic}}. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I've changed the tag accordingly; thanks. Leigh was a Newcastle High School student. It is the last annual school portrait photo that was taken before she died; obviously it was taken by whoever the school hired for their photos (does that mean the school holds the copyright?). As to which newspaper it appeared in first, and how the media got hold of a copy, I am not sure. I had to search through microform for The Newcastle Herald to write this article as online Australian newspaper archives don't usually go back to the 1980's. The Newcastle Herald repeatedly published a different photo of Leigh, but as it is on microform, the quality is insufficient for wikipedia. Does not knowing who published the image first or how they got a hold of it present a problem? Freikorp (talk) 04:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    To a degree. All fair-use tags require that you include information on the copyright holder and the image's current status. Based on your description, the photo likely would have been a work for hire, meaning it may be owned by the school, the photography company, or possibly even the parents, depending on the practices of that company. However, we can't know for sure. I suggest you include an explanation on the image description page that the copyright holder is unknown and what steps you have taken to try to determine its status. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Thanks for your comments. Freikorp (talk) 14:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I just found something new. This reliable source [4] publishes the photo, and specifies the source as "Supplied". Does that mean anything to you? I was thinking that might mean it was willingly given to the newspaper by the copyright holder. Also while we're on the subject, is there any way I could justify FUR for the image of Matthew Webster (Leigh's murderer) as seen in said article? Or would that be pushing it? I've always thought the article would benefit from a photo of him. Freikorp (talk) 14:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I would guess supplied by the family, who would most likely not be the copyright holder; even if it were supplied by the copyright holder, that note would not be sufficient to make it free for our purposes. As to the other image, that's less likely to be justifiable: assuming that Webster is still alive he is now out of jail and theoretically available for the creation of a free image, so the biog-pic tag would not apply. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Nikkimaria, just confirming that the current image is acceptable for FAC as User:Casliber's support is pending sorting out the copyright for the info box image, which I assumed was OK now. Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 11:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I left a message on User:GrahamColm's talk page, regarding the lack of reviews here. Apparently 2 votes of support isn't enough to pass FAC, and as this nomination is making its way towards the end of the list I am becoming a bit worried it won't get any further comments. Graham said the lack of reviews was a shame, and encouraged me to solicit further reviews whilst this nomination is still open, otherwise i'm just going to have to re-nominate it at a later date. As you've already reviewed the image, is there any chance I can beg you to review the whole article? Happy to do some form of QPQ; i've never reviewed at FAC but happy to review several DYKs or a couple GA nominations, which I have experience doing, in exchange. No worries if you're too busy though, i'll be happy enough with support on image or more information on what I need to do to get it. Freikorp (talk) 03:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    To confirm, the lead image has an adequate FUR to justify its use here. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cas Liber[edit]

Well-written and neutral, it appears pretty comprehensive at first read. I remember this case in the media at the time. Will jot notes below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:16, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved issues
I might hav missed it but adding what she got drunk on'd be good too.
Link asphyxial, postmortem, resin,
  • Done. I linked resin, but do you think I should have linked "hash" instead, which appears earlier in the sentence? Freikorp (talk)
  • Missed that - either could be argued for here - so no biggie which. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:23, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cannabis resin.. - why capitalised here?
  • The word appears capitalised all throughout the article Cannabis; should it not be capitalised in this instance though? I already removed it, but I can add it back just as easy of course. Freikorp (talk)
  • That's weird - it's not a proper noun. Only reason to capitalise is when discussing the genus, and then it would be italicised as well. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:23, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
John Hatzistergos needs a descriptor as to why he is there "minister etc."
In 2009 a solicitor who acted on behalf of Leigh's family stated that given the advances in DNA testing technology, it was time to re-examine the evidence - this is important, was there any reported follow up on this?
  • This is important, but I can't find any more coverage on it. Out of desperation I sent an email to Dr Kerry Carrington, the most prominent researcher of the case; she informed me that the police 'lost' all of the evidence, and accordingly the evidence is not going to be re-examined as there is nothing to examine. Of course I can't use her email as a source, but it at least answered my question. Freikorp (talk)
Webster spoke to the media about the murder for the first time in 1997, and insisted that he acted alone in killing Leigh - when did he speak?
  • I don't know. The only evidence I have that this did in fact happen is the blurb from the article cited, which was published in 2004 and says he spoke to the media "seven years ago". Freikorp (talk) 22:47, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise looks pretty good - good use of source. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right - cautious support on comprehensiveness and prose, pending the sorting out of best copyright for images. A sobering and depressing story - well done. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:23, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hamiltonstone[edit]

Support from Hamiltonstone. Good article on a distressing subject of socio-cultural significance in Australia. It was hard to read, but purely because of its subject matter.

  • "It is alleged Leigh and several other under-age girls". Should this read "It was alleged"? Is this really still a current allegation?
  • I have made some other edits - feel free to check. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 08:32, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks so much for your edits and support. Freikorp (talk) 09:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Brianboulton[edit]

Oppose: I am sorry to have to oppose, but I do not think that, at present, the prose meets the relevant FA criterion. I recognise the enormous amount of developmental work that has been done on the article, particularly by Freikorp, but it is not yet, in my view, the finished product. It's a great pity that the article did not receive a peer review – not that the nominators are in any way to blame, since it sat for two weeks at WP:PR without attracting comment. Please note for the future that I will almost always respond to a polite request for a peer review, unless the subject is professional wrestling.

Resolved issues

I have only read the first half of the article. These are my main concerns:

  • There is a dearth of background information such as one would expect to see in an article like this. Rather than moving straight to the murder, the lead should be followed by a "Background" section that will provide readers with, for example, some parental background: whether Leigh's parents had been married, when they separated, if they remarried, with whom Leigh was living at the time of the murder. The section should also cover some general aspects of Leigh's life, such as her relations with her parents/step-parents, whether she had siblings, where she went to school, what sort of interests she had, etc. Some of this information becomes apparent during the reading of text, a section as indicated would be of considerable help to the reader.
  • Created a new 'Background' section. This is a work in progress - I should be finished by tomorrow. Freikorp (talk)
  • Done. Freikorp (talk)
  • Some of the narrative writing is very loose, with too many unattributed assertions. Examples:
  • "It was alleged Leigh and several other under-age girls were specifically invited to the party for the purpose of getting them intoxicated and having sex with them". By whom were these allegations made – newspapers, witnesses, prosecuting counsel? (Also – there is something slightly wrong with the wording of the sentence, which does not parse in its present form.)
  • Specified it is based on witness reports. If you'd like it to be reworded i'm afraid you'll have to make a suggestion, as i'm not sure how to address that concern. Freikorp (talk)
  • " Police were said to be going through the painstaking task..." – who said this?
  • I've attributed the comment to it's author, and changed it to a direct quote. Freikorp (talk)
  • " The community of Stockton was said to have harboured suspicions about Shearman..." – again, said by whom?
  • "Dr Kerry Carrington ... described the investigation..." When/where did the doctor give this description?
  • Specified the book the made the description in. Freikorp (talk)
  • When/where did Detective Chaffey make the statement referred to?
  • "It is believed that prosecutors did not charge NC1 with rape as a conviction on such a charge would have been unlikely due to a lack of evidence" – what is the basis for this "belief"?
  • I've attributed the belief to the journal it was published in. The basis is, in part, the rest of the sentence, that Leigh's assertion that she had been raped as reported by witnesses was legally hearsay. Freikorp (talk)
  • A few minor prose issues
  • "...mixing the bottle of Jim Beam that had been purchased for her and her friend with Coca-Cola." Very awkward phrasing, capable of several interpretations. And "Coca-Cola" should be wikilinked
  • Wikilink done. I've reworded the information, any better now? Freikorp (talk)
  • You should name the stepfather at first mention, rather than later. Also, the reference to "Leigh's parents" is confusing; I imagine you mean her mother and stepfather.
  • Some interpretation of the blood alcohol level figure is necessary; the raw data will be meaningless to most readers.
  • The only thing I can really think to say is that it is more than twice the legal blood alcohol limit to drive in NSW, but i'm not sure how relevant that information would be in this case. Do you think that information be relevant, or do you have a better suggestion? :) Freikorp (talk)
  • "stepfather" should not have a hyphen
  • "Webster admitted to killing Leigh during his third interview with police". Highly ambiguous.
  • Added some more (rather interesting) information on his confession. Freikorp (talk)

I am not sure whether it is feasible for these issues – together with anything arising in the second half – to be fixed during this FAC, although I hope the co-ordinators will give some leeway in view of your PR experiences. Should this prove impossible, I will be prepared, if you wish, to provide a full peer review before your resubmission. Brianboulton (talk) 16:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting what someone unfamiliar the case sees here - both Hamiltonstone and I, being Australian, I remember the case from the media at the time and remember how much innuendo there was - still I think it points are valid and can be tweaked as advised...go for it Freikorp :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments Brianboulton. It was disappointing to not get a comment at PR, and also to only get an image review at FAC in the first month since the article was nominated, so i'm very happy you've taken an interest in the article, even if it is to oppose at this time. At the end of the day I do want this article to be as good as possible. I'll start working through your concerns this weekend. Btw if you or anybody else wants to verify the newspaper clipping I have used as references in the article just let me know and I will email you the pdf copies I have. Freikorp (talk) 23:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Brianboulton. I've either attempted to address all of the issues you brought up (in particular creating a 'Background' section) or requested clarification on how you want me to fix the issue. I'm now looking forward to your opinions on the second half of the article. :) Freikorp (talk) 12:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding quickly and positively. I should get the chance of looking at these responses, and the rest of the article, a little later today (UK time). If it's OK by you, when I go through the second half I will deal with any minor prose issues myself, rather than raising them here. That should speed things up. Brianboulton (talk) 13:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes fixing prose issues yourself is fine with me, thanks. Freikorp (talk) 00:36, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interim: The first part is looking good now. I've made a few tweaks and adjustments. A couple of suggestions before I look at the second half:

  • Delete the sentence "NC1's community service was supervised by the same church minister who buried Leigh". This detail is emotive, magaziney stuff, not encyclopedic.
  • Attach the single sentence paragraph ("Guy Wilson was..." etc) to the previous paragraph.

Reading on Brianboulton (talk) 08:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's taking longer than I had hoped. Here are my concerns to the end of the "Forensic testing" subsection. More later.

  • "It is believed that Webster was offered a plea bargain that would drop the lesser charges in exchange for his guilty plea for murder." – the old problem: believed by whom?
  • "Wood found that Webster's motivation for killing Leigh was his fear she would report his sexual assault." Since there were no witnessed called, how did Wood "find" this? Did Webster admit this was his motive?
  • I assume the finding was based solely on Webster's confession; yes he did admit to this - i'll add a source for it to the article. Freikorp (talk)
  • ""extraordinary level of compassion": these words need inline attribution. And perhaps "some of the residents of Stockton" rather than the town as a whole?
  • I've removed the sentence; I don't want the article to rely too heavily on the book 'Who Killed Leigh Leigh'. Freikorp (talk) 22:51, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "conversely known" → "also known"
  • "work release" is an American term - is this wording used in Australia? Also, check whether my spelling of "program" in the text accords with Australian usage.
  • I'm not a subject matter expert on prisons, but 'work release' was the term used in parliament (the reference cited) so I think it is appropriate. 'Program' looks good to me. Freikorp (talk)
  • "Before Webster was arrested the media was said to be obsessed with finding something to blame for Leigh's death..." Again, was said by whom?
  • "It was said that Wood's comments..." Ditto
  • "One of Riley's articles in particular was said to have suggested..." Ditto. In fact this whole sentence is overlong and too complicated to follow.
  • I've attributed the statement to Carrington and shortened it. Freikorp (talk)
  • "The media coverage of the murder has been cited..." Same issue
  • I have two sources for this, so i've reworded it to say 'according to multiple sources'. It's a lot easier than spelling out who the two sources are, and the fact that there are two sources makes the assertion more valid and less in need to be specifically attributed in my opinion at least. Freikorp (talk)
  • "This incorrect information has been credited with disassociating the murder from the assaults at the party" – basically, again, credited by whom?
  • "Criticism was also raised regarding the number of convictions". Do you mean criticism was raised in parliament? And what is meant by the "number of convictions"? Does this mean the number of persons convicted in connection with the crime? Needs clarification.
  • Clarified that the criticism was regarding the 'relatively few' convictions. I have not attributed this criticism solely to parliament, as the 3 other sources in that paragraph also critics the lack of convictions. I'm confident that if I spend the time reading through all my sources again (which I don't particularly want to do) that I will find additional sources criticising the lack of convictions. Freikorp (talk)
  • "NC1 admitted to having sex with another under-age girl at the party, though he was not charged for it." That wording sounds as though he didn't have to pay for the sex. Suggest "he was not charged with this offence".
  • "Chaffey is quoted as replying..." Quoted by whom?
  • "Speculation has been raised" – same problem
  • "Leigh's grandmother reportedly..." Same issue, i.e. who "reported" this? Same with "said to have been sent", later in the same sentence
  • "an acknowledgement of four items being sent for testing". Clarify whose acknowledgement.
  • "other items were specifically not sent for testing" – what is the purpose of "specifically" in this wording? Is the sense "deliberately"?
  • Deliberately was what I was going for, but on second look that isn't specifically in the source quoted. Removed. Freikorp (talk)
  • "apparent tests" → "supposed tests"

Brianboulton (talk) 13:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An attempt has been made to address each issue. Thanks so much for the amount of effort you're putting in, I really appreciate it. Freikorp (talk) 22:51, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Can I ask you to go through the final sections, to pick up and deal any outstanding incidences of "it is said that", or similar wordings? I think you see the issue now. I also notice in the article a tendency to overuse the phrase "multiple sources"; one or other of these might be reworded as, say, "several sources". I am a bit time-constrained at the moment, but will finish the review as soon as I can. Brianboulton (talk) 10:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I've just attributed 4 statements in the last two sections. I've also reworded two of the four instances of 'multiple sources' to 'various sources'. 'Several' would unfortunately be inaccurate as in both cases it was only 2 sources. It looks like we've still got a couple weeks before this nomination is in serious danger of being closed, so feel free to take a breather. :) Freikorp (talk) 11:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst researching for the 'Background' section, I was reminded of various tidbits of information. I'm not sure if you noticed, but i added the sourced statement "She was found on her sister Jessie's birthday" towards the end of the 'Night of the murder' section. This was before you told me to delete a different sentence on the grounds it was 'emotive, magaziney stuff'. Do you consider the information about her being found on her sister's birthday to be un-encyclopeadic as well; should I delete it? Freikorp (talk) 12:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My advice is definitely don't include it. Brianboulton (talk) 22:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. Freikorp (talk) 01:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My final comments
  • Single-line paragraphs are a bad idea. You should absorb the opening line of the "Possibility of accomplices" section into the body of the section's text.
  • Done. I then split the paragraph elsewhere as I think it was too large. Freikorp (talk)
  • "Webster's statement that he only penetrated Leigh with his finger has been considered by various sources to be inconsistent with the autopsy findings of genital trauma, and it is also inconsistent with NC1's account that his sex with her was consensual". I don't see the logic of this. Why is Webster's statement inconsistent with NC!'s account. They are two separate events, surely?
  • Oh dear, I worded that poorly. It meant to say that the genital trauma is also inconsistent with NC1s account. I've now reworded this. Freikorp (talk)
  • I have reorganised the prose in the opening "Aftermath" section, and have altered "it was assured" to "assurances were given". You should, however, add by whom these assurances were given.
  • Clarified that the assurance was given by a representative of the commission. Freikorp (talk)
  • In the "Police Integrity Commission" section: "Police were also accused of falsifying reports and withholding evidence..." Who were the accusers?
  • Attributed the accusation to the journalist and the newspaper that reported it. Freikorp (talk)
  • Ref an earlier comment, is "internal affairs" the right expression for Australia? The link article deals exclusively with the US.
  • The term does sound american to me as well, though my source specifically reads "A CHARLESTOWN detective has had his private locker raided by police internal affairs officers who have found a store of `missing' police records relating to the Leigh Leigh murder inquiry." Freikorp (talk)
  • When you say "Enright deliberately omitted the criminal acts and the murder from the play" I think you mean that he did not depict the murder or other criminal acts within the play. In any event the word "deliberately" is unnecessary.
  • "Associate Professor Donna Lee Brien of Central Queensland University stated that without background knowledge of Leigh's murder, it "was judged as shallow and clichéd." Can you provide more of what the prof said, as the sentence does not make sense at the moment?
  • Source reads: "The response to [the film's] premiere at the Sundance Film Festival was unfavourable, reviews in Variety and Premiere were poor, and no American buyer was contracted for the film. It seems that, without the poignant and powerful narrative support of Leigh's tragedy, the film was judged as shallow and clichéd." I've reworded the article to state "Donna Lee Brien stated that without background knowledge of Leigh's murder, it appeared the film was "judged as shallow and clichéd."" Freikorp (talk)
  • I'd omit Dr Carrington's final, somewhat opaque comment that ends the article. I also have doubts as to whether the ferry image is helpful or necessary.
  • I've removed Carrington's comment. The same comment appeared in the last intro paragraph, so I removed it from there as well and added new information in its place as per lead summary guidelines. I also had to reword the article's final paragraph so it was worded in a manner that gave the article a better ending, in the way of reading flow I mean. At the risk of sounding like a child, I rather like colourful pictures, so i'd rather not remove the ferry image unless it's standing in the way or your support for the article, in which case I will of course permanently remove it. Freikorp (talk) 05:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have spent much more time than I normally would on a FAC review, partly because it wasn't your fault that the article didn't get the detailed peer review it needed and also because this is, I think, your first FA nomination. You can probably see now that the article was quite a bit short of FA standard when it was nominated; there is a world of difference between what is acceptable at GA and what is required here. Featured articles, particularly when they become WP:TFA, get scrutinised by large numbers of readers, and it is essential that they justify the claim that they are part of WP's best work. That's enough pontificating by me; I'll leave you to consider my final comments and act as necesary. I have struck the oppose, but want the opportunity to read the whole thing through when you've made your final adjustment. Ping me when you're ready. Brianboulton (talk) 15:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brianboulton. I believe the article is now at a point where I cannot improve it further myself without prompting. I've made an attempt to address every concern you brought up (except the blood alcohol comment, as I requested a suggestion from you on how to do this). After proof reading the article myself I have a query regarding the following sentence which you reworded: "Blood samples were taken from two suspects, The Newcastle Herald reporting this...". You certainly know more about prose than me, so just confirming that reads ok to you? To me it seems to need either a semicolon or a joining word like 'with' in between 'suspects' and 'The'. Thanks again for your review. This is my second FAC, but my first one was archived mainly due to a lack of reviews, so this is the first one that looks like it's going somewhere now. I'm hoping to have this article at TFA if it is approved, so i'm very happy with your improvements and suggestions; FAC certainly has been a lot harder than I anticipated! :) I'm certainly looking forward to what you have to say regarding the article now. Freikorp (talk) 09:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks – I'll be along later to answer your final points. The article is certainly in better shape now, and is looking like good FA material. Brianboulton (talk) 10:46, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Right
  • You need to give an explanation of the blood alcohol level of 0.128, otherwise the point is lost. This source, provided by the University of Notre Dame, says that a level between 0.1 and 0.13 causes "significant impairment of motor coordination and loss of good judgment." I suggest you add these words, or an approximation of them, atttributing and citing to the Notre Dame source.
  • On the matter of adding "with" before "The Newcastle Herald", this is unnecessary and, in the view of some prose experts, should be entirely proscribed. It would be grammatically wrong to replace the comma with a semicolon.
  • I have reworded the "shallow and clichéd" sentence to more clearly reflect the intended meaning: "Brien stated that because the film lacked the "poignant and powerful narrative support of Leigh's tragedy", it was deemed by critics to be "shallow and clichéd".

Support: I am satisfied that the article is now worthy of promotion. Any further prose tweaks will be of a minor nature. This is an article that will tend to stay in the memory; that cheeky but enigmatic face won't easily be forgotten. Brianboulton (talk) 22:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ian Rose[edit]

Note -- I know there's been some discussion of referencing above but not sure that we've had a formal source review for formatting/reliability, or a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing. Pls let me know if I've missed something, otherwise I'd like to see both such checks carried out before we look at promotion. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian. Some source checks were certainly done as part of the GA review, but unfortunately for me I think you're right regarding a lack of source checks at FAC (not that I hold that against anyone as there were plenty of other things that needed resolving at the time). As I am confident I have not, at least intentionally, used close paraphrasing or been misleading with my sources, I offered during both the GA review and here at FAC to email some or all of the pdf copies I have of offline newspaper and journal sources (I have a pdf copy of every offline source used except Coyle 2005 and Who Killed Leigh Leigh, but I can type out individual paragraphs or scan individual pages of the latter) to anyone who is interested in checking them. This offer still stands, though there are of course many online sources that you could do spot-checks with. I am willing to do anything that is required of me to have this article promoted, so don't hesitate to ask me for assistance. Freikorp (talk) 12:31, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on prose from Dank and Rationalobserver[edit]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

  • You use "stated" a lot; I don't have any comment on that now, but I think we should test it for readability.
  • Ha! You're right. I changed 15 of the 40 uses of 'stated' to either 'said' 'saying' or 'wrote', depending on context. Freikorp (talk)
  • "whilst" takes a lot of heat at FAC
  • "offensive behaviour in relation to the 28 January assault": I'm not familiar with Australian police lingo, and maybe this is technical language that we have to preserve, but if not, then "offensive behaviour in the 28 January assault" would be better.
  • "have contributed to it being referred to as": There are more direct ways to say this.
  • Changed to "have led to it being termed a", but feel free to completely reword if you think of something better. Freikorp (talk)
  • "The "unsustainable assumption" that Leigh consented to sex was the turning point in her being blamed for her own assault and murder": I'm not sure what you're saying.
  • The quote is from the two scholars mentioned in the preceding sentences. I'm trying to say that according to the scholars, the belief that Leigh consented to sex was an "unsustainable assumption", and that it was this assumption that led to her being blamed for her own attack - as indicated by the rest of the sentence "because she was supposedly sexually promiscuous, Leigh had somehow "asked for [the attack]". Freikorp (talk)
  • "It took police over three months to press charges against Webster, even though they had established within 10 days that he had lied about his whereabouts, had publicly stated his intention to rape Leigh, and had had the opportunity to commit the crime.": That's my version; the longer version seemed unwieldy, but feel free to revert.
  • Some units (such as 100 metres) may need conversions.
  • Done for 100 metres. I didn't do it for the second use of 2.8 metres as it is converted earlier, or the use of 1.3 meters in the same sentence as since 2.8 was converted earlier, it should be obvious to the reader that 1.3 is a little less than half of 2.8 and therefore a little less than half of the earlier conversion, though if someone else feels this should be converted anyway it won't bother me. Freikorp (talk)

Source review from Nikkimaria[edit]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • "The epithet "slut" in a pretrial psychological report also became a topic of focus for the media" - source?
  • Check MOS issues related to quotes - for example, we don't typically enclose ellipses in parentheses
  • FN34: the university is a publisher not a publication, shouldn't be italicized. There are a few other instances of this type of error - please check and correct
  • Brien citation should include volume and issue number
  • Be consistent in whether you include location for books. Nikkimaria (talk) 07:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • All issues addressed, though I couldn't find any other instances of a publisher being italicised besides the one you mentioned. I may have missed something that would be obvious to others, just point it out to me and i'll fix it. Freikorp (talk) 09:19, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source spot-check from Laser brain[edit]

  • Ref 14a, close paraphrasing
  • Source: "where an uncertain number of young people - two 10-year-olds at one point"
  • Article text: "though it was reported that two 10-year-olds were present at one point."
  • Ref 16a, close paraphrasing
  • Source: "She had a written invitation and permission from her mother, who was told that responsible adults would be attending the party."
  • Article text: "Leigh's mother was told there would be responsible adults present at the party."
  • Ref 17d, close paraphrasing. Additionally, "nationally at high schools across the country" is redundant and poor writing.
  • Source: "Despite these denials, the staff at Newcastle High School (where both Leigh and Webster had been students) found the connection too close and did not book the play for their students. Property was, however, extremely successful in other schools and theatres in Newcastle (as it was on its subsequent lengthy tour of the region and around Australia) and won a number of prestigious awards."
  • Article text: "The play was shown at various high schools in the Newcastle area, and following its positive reception, was shown nationally at high schools across the country, winning several awards. However, Newcastle High School, where both Leigh and Webster had been students, declined to show it."
  • Ref 74a, OK
  • Source: "In February 2004 the Parole Board declined to parole this individual because of recommendations made by the Serious Offenders Review Council that he needed to undertake work release."
  • Article text: "Webster first applied for parole in February 2004. His application was denied on the grounds he needed to first undertake work release."
  • Ref 78
  • Source text: "the charges were dismissed in April this year because of a lack of evidence."
  • Article text: "He was released from prison in May 2005 after the charges were dropped due to a lack of evidence."

Batting 0-for-5 here—I strongly urge this be given a thorough source edit by an independent editor and copyedited for close paraphrasing as needed. I realize referring to a couple of these as close paraphrasing might be debatable, but I think we can do better in terms of distance from the source text. --Laser brain (talk) 00:28, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have just returned from a wikibreak and am able to respond to concerns again, but my co-nominator has already addressed these particular phrases. Looking forward to any further reviews. Freikorp (talk) 03:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Had the article had the thorough source edit recommended by Laser brain? Simply addressing the specific points raised is not enough. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:20, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ian Rose. Laser brain recommended a thorough source edit by an independent editor. Obviously I cannot do this myself, and an independent editor has not yet come forward to do it (though as I state I am looking forward to one doing so), so no, this has not been done. All I can address is what is pointed out to me; with the exception of the above points which were addressed by my co-nominator, I have addressed every issue thus far. Freikorp (talk) 11:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ian Rose. I've noticed this nomination is now at the bottom of the older nominations list. Assuming nobody actually gives it a thorough source edit, how long would it be before the nomination is closed? And am I correct in assuming that despite the level of support it has, that without a thorough source edit it would be archived, not passed? I ask as if it is archived, I will simply be re-nominating it as soon as I am allowed to, so rather than go through this all again over another couple months perhaps I can save everyone a lot of time by attempting to soliciting someone to give it a source edit. Of course, I will not try and solicit support at the same time, rather just the review of the sources. Is this allowed and/or recommended? Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 04:20, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If it got 0/5 on the first pass, I suggest that one of the nominators goes through every cite looking for and removing close paraphrasing. There's no point in a reviewer going through and listing all 100 if it actually scores 29/129. --99of9 (talk) 06:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think 3 of those 5 scores are very debatable, and the other 2 are hardly terrible examples of close paraphrasing, but very well, I'll go over the citations tonights - give me a few hours. Freikorp (talk) 06:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you take a look at my GA review, you will see that I paid close attention to the issue. Instances of close paraphrasing were found and were addressed. The remaining examples found above were either cases that I did not believe were problematic when I reviewed, or were unwittingly introduced subsequent to my review. I would ask Laser brain how many references were checked in their spot-check that gave rise to the five noted above? -- Ohc ¡digame! 07:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just went over every online newspaper reference. I made several small changes to things I thought could be improved slightly, but the only long complete match I found was a sentence that I had simply neglected to specify was a direct quote from the source; I added quotation marks accordingly. Freikorp (talk) 13:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Freikorp. As I mentioned in my comment, there were some edge cases and nothing I would consider egregious at all. I am encouraged to hear that multiple editors have paid attention to the sources. I ran a few more informal checks and didn't see any issues. Please consider my concerns addressed. --Laser brain (talk) 20:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Murder_of_Leigh_Leigh/archive1&oldid=1088822597"