Talk:Geneviève Lhermitte

Court documents
These appear to be the court documents officially charging Lhermitte with the murders: http://www.standaard.be/extra/pdf/lhermitte.pdf --Katerwaul (talk) 04:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Photos
We're having trouble finding pictures of any kind that aren't copyrighted that we can put on this page. Anyone know of any possible pictures we could use? (of anything related to the page, as we have no media added yet) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kslinker5493 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Possible picture? http://static2.7sur7.be/static/FOTO/pe/4/5/3/large_392943.jpg --MartellRedViper (talk) 12:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * What's the copyright status of that photo? --Geniac (talk) 02:21, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

This is just a minor thing, but you might want to have the photo closer to the top of the page. It looks kind of awkward down at the bottom and a photo is supposed to be used at least partly as an attention getter. --Mdcoope3 (talk) 13:28, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I've contacted Getty images and Reuters images about possibly using their photos. All the pictures I found on different news sites came from those two companies, so hopefully we will be granted permission soon. Kslinker5493 (talk) 13:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I was going through the upload wizard for that family picture, and I don't think we have a legitimate claim to fair use for it. If we do, that would mean hunting down more information than just the author of the picture, and I'm not certain we have time for that. --Katerwaul (talk) 16:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Sources for film section

 * Moqadem and Schaar wanting to see a copy of the script: --Katerwaul (talk) 16:06, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Peer Review
Words to watch: As per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CLAIM#WP:CLAIM be careful when using words like "claim" because it calls their credibility of their statement into question --MangoDango (talk) 15:56, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


 * You might want to expand on the section covering the trials and whatnot. Your current priority visibly appears to be about her personal life and influence on popular culture. The section recounting the crime itself could use some polishing. --Seannator (talk) 16:04, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I was a little unclear about the relationship between Genevieve and the doctor. It just kind of popped up that she blamed him or something? I'm still not quite sure. More references are needed and I think a little more delving into her psyche would be beneficial. --Tinaface86 (talk) 16:08, 1 April 2013 (UTC)




 * Delving into what psychologists have said or what witnesses or psychologists in the case have said would be a great thing to add to help clear it all up.The writing needs to be a little more cohesive in some sections, because it feels more like a list than a paragraph. I think the formatting of the sentences contributes to this as well (sort of resembling a list). Some of the writing is written in confusing ways (ex:"Prosecutor Pierre Rans began opening statements with a nightmarish picture of the scene that met emergency services on February 28, 2007 at the former teacher's home in Nivelles, central Belgium."). I feel like some sentences could be rewritten in a more clear, concise fashion. I say this because I had to re-read some sections and sentences. You might want to add her sentence to the trial section. Also, just my thoughts, but I was left wanting to know what the husband's thoughts were? Maybe you have already pursued that, idk. It feels like there is no conclusion to the article (like, where the family thats left stands). In most US trials covered by the media, this info is usually a big part of reporting. I also think it could give the article some balance. You also use the word nightmarish in the section on events. This word could mean different things to different people. It seems sort of an opinion, even though I understand what you mean. I would suggest using a word like gruesome that has a more solid connotation behind it to communicate the testimony more effectively. I see you have a section on Photos...I'm guessing they are hard to find for this. If you could find any photo of her or her home or anything of that sort, it could really help. I'm sorry I have so much to say, I was just trying to give it as thorough of a check as possible, in an attempt to help the article become even better. You have a great topic and a lot of solid information. You have divided the article info up very well, and have organized the sections in a helpful way. Keep up the good work!--Tabbboooo (talk) 18:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Style
It think that the information provided in this article is clear and that the sentences are well-written, but I think the style of prose and paragraph structure could be worked on. Even though there are no bulleted lists, the paragraph structure for almost the entire article has line breaks for one or two sentences. In the "paragraphs" section of the Manual of Style for good criteria, it talks about paragraph structure and running prose.--Eng395jy (talk) 14:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Merge Lhermitte case to here
I'm proposing to merge Lhermitte case into this article because this has much more detail, plus English-language sources. Only the ECHR claim discussed on Lhermitte case is missing from here. Mortee (talk) 17:45, 17 March 2017 (UTC)