Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/2006 Duke University lacrosse case/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2006 Duke University lacrosse case[edit]

Now that the case is closed and the dust has settled, it may be time to get some peer review on this year-long scandal. It got tons of coverage and now the initial district attorney in the case has been disbarred. Makes for interesting reading. Extensive references. Some peer review should get it to Good Article status in a jiffy. --SallyForth123 23:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, folks. This is at least as important as the Virginia Tech massacre because it has to do with the proper execution of law. Feedback please.--SallyForth123 23:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Jude[edit]

Intro: The introduction should be longer for an article of this size, and should be "a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, and explaining why the subject is interesting or notable".(see WP:LEAD)
Timeline of Events:
  • I would suggest that the information be organized into main sections the events at the house, and the events afterwards, with subheadings as needed.
  • Why is it relevant that Mangum was "a single mother"?
  • In the sentance ".... and had already engaged in sexual intercourse..." get rid of the word "already"; it's unnecessary.
  • At the House section begins with "The house had recently been purchased by Duke University". Which house? The article doesn't explain what house, or why the players were there, or given any background information, except on Mangum.
  • "They contacted Allure and requested two white strippers..." Now is probably when you should mention the womens' races, rather than in the previous paragraph.
  • "Evans... was worried that the police would show up and cite him for another noise violation, and he told other players to leave his house." Cite him for another noise violation? The article never mentions a first one. Also, replace the first "and" with "to", and the second "and" with "so".
  • Minute-by-minute list of events: Not sure that it's really necessary; IMO it should be summarized in the article, not listed out.
DNA tests and Arrests and indictments:
  • might be better if they went under an "Investigation" section.
Credibility of the accuser:
  • The entire section is more or less an attack on Mangum's credibility. It violates WP:NPOV. Obviously, you have a point of view; otherwise you wouldn't be working on this article. But the article itself has to be neutral.
Whoa, I wrote none of that section. I just leave that stuff in to avoid fights. Call me a wimp.--SallyForth123 03:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I shouldn't have assumed that. If you plan to nominate the article for GA status, though, that section will have to be changed. --Jude. 14:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have time to review the rest of the article in-depth right now. But general suggestions:
  • The response to the case definitely needs a lot more coverage. The focus should be on the effects of the case, and the signficance of it, not just on the events themselves.
The media coverage was factored out to its own article. See the "Reactions to the scandal".
The "Reactions to the scandal" article should be summarized in that section of the Duke Lacrosse Case.
  • The group of 88 is only mentioned in passing. Needs more coverage.
  • The response to the case by civil rights leaders is not mentioned at all.
  • Why is the "Developments in the case" section after "Aftermath".
  • See also: Presumption of Innocence is a POV push.
It's clear that a lot of work has been put into this article, but it still needs a lot of work on comprehensivity and neutral point of view. If you want me to review the rest of it in depth, I'll do that. Cheers, Jude. 00:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other notes: The information about Mangum's history at the escort service, and her consumption of alcohol, drugs, etc. should probably be later in the article. It's relevant to the evidence from the rape kit, and to the fact that the guard at the supermarket thought she might be under the influence. When it starts the section, it's out of context, and shows bias.--Jude. 15:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated review[edit]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 14:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/2006_Duke_University_lacrosse_case/archive1&oldid=1138559283"