Talk:Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Maile66 (talk · contribs) 13:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * *First glance is that the lead paragraph needs a re-write. Saville was a very important and well-loved, and trusted, man in the U.K., but not everybody outside the U.K. knows that. I found myself wandering through the lead sentence and wondering where his birth and death dates were, etc.  Sex scandals are everywhere all the time.  Give the reader a sense of who this man was and when he died. The first sentence in Jimmy Saville does that well. Then come in with the sex scandal and what year it began. — Maile  (talk) 13:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I've added a sentence that may meet those concerns.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a start. Would you like to add that he had been knighted? — Maile  (talk) 14:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Won't the second sentence do?! (PS: There's only one letter "L" in Savile.) Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I missed that. Thanks. — Maile  (talk) 15:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * *Background section and flow
 * - Because the lead is a supposed to be a summation of the article, it would be good if this section included the information of what is now in the first two sentences in the lead. Otherwise, the information in this section comes out of nowhere with no prior background on Savile.
 * - Maybe you could follow that information by moving the two-sentence paragraph about his death to right beneath it, making it all part of a first paragraph in the Background section. Then you have established a flow that makes sense to his claims of the secret of his success, and the rumors. And add the word "had" to that sentence "Savile had claimed the key..."
 * - "Interviewed under caution" seems to be a legal phrase? Outside the U. K., people won't know what that is. Maybe rephrase it so readers know.
 * - Also, there is copyvio/close paraphrasing here:
 * Article: "Savile was interviewed under caution by police investigating an allegation of indecent assault"; source: "Jimmy Savile interviewed under caution over indecent assault allegation" and "Sir Jimmy Savile was interviewed under caution by police investigating an allegation of indecent assault at a children’s home in the 1970s"
 * Article: "The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) advised there was insufficient evidence to take any further action and no charges were brought"; source: "the Crown Prosecution Service advised that there was insufficient evidence to take any further action, and no charges were ever brought"
 * Article: "an allegation of indecent assault by Savile at the home in the 1970s had been investigated in 2008, but there had been insufficient evidence to proceed." source: "The allegation was investigated but there was insufficient evidence to proceed."
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * Excessive use of quotes throughout the article.
 * Section "Department of Health investigations"
 * The first half is primarily an excessive list of links to 32 hospitals. Don't give us a list, tells us about it. Not every hospital involved has to be named.
 * Half of the "findings" subsection is one big excessive block quote.
 * *WP:LINKFARM Way too many external links, needs to be pared down. The news items and commentary can be eliminated entirely from the links. — Maile (talk) 14:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:
 * - Citation 16, "Jimmy Savile was hiding in the light", not sure what it is supporting in that sentence
 * - Citation 17 "When Jimmy asked Louis about..." points to "Page not found" when clicked. Is that suppose to be the source of the quote that follows it?
 * C. No original research:
 * Government reports on the investigation are used as sourcing, which are Primary Sources, and also original research.
 * Citations 6, 8 and 116 are the same source - Crown Prosecution Service report on the investigation "Giving Victims a Voice".
 * Citation 30 End Violence Against Women Coalition, appears to be an evidence report submitted in a judicial inquiry.
 * Citation 119, not formatted correctly, is a report of the investigation submitted by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary for England and Wales (HMIC)
 * Citation 140, not formatted correctly, is a copy of a letter to the Secretary of State for Health regarding oversight of the investigation
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * *Image of Savile's tombstone appropriately labeled "Non-free media" - this one is OK as used.
 * *Image of Savile in a parade was apparently taken in 2006, but has no source, except to say who originally uploaded it and when. The uploader is listed under "Author" but makes no claim as to having taken the image. Although tagged as licensed, there is no way to determine its license/copyright without more information on who took the image.
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * , this one really should go through Peer review. I only skimmed the surface here, and had to start checking every sentence, every citation. After spending the better part of two days on this, it would be pointless for me to go on through the rest of the article. This was not ready for GAC and will need a good overhaul before it is.  The nomination instructions do state that a nominator should be a significant contributor. At the very least, this one should have been checked thoroughly against GAC criteria before submitting. There's too much wrong with this one. You or anyone else are welcome to overhaul the article and resubmit it to GAC.  But it does need a great deal of work. Good luck. — Maile  (talk) 20:40, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * *Image of Savile in a parade was apparently taken in 2006, but has no source, except to say who originally uploaded it and when. The uploader is listed under "Author" but makes no claim as to having taken the image. Although tagged as licensed, there is no way to determine its license/copyright without more information on who took the image.
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * , this one really should go through Peer review. I only skimmed the surface here, and had to start checking every sentence, every citation. After spending the better part of two days on this, it would be pointless for me to go on through the rest of the article. This was not ready for GAC and will need a good overhaul before it is.  The nomination instructions do state that a nominator should be a significant contributor. At the very least, this one should have been checked thoroughly against GAC criteria before submitting. There's too much wrong with this one. You or anyone else are welcome to overhaul the article and resubmit it to GAC.  But it does need a great deal of work. Good luck. — Maile  (talk) 20:40, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * , this one really should go through Peer review. I only skimmed the surface here, and had to start checking every sentence, every citation. After spending the better part of two days on this, it would be pointless for me to go on through the rest of the article. This was not ready for GAC and will need a good overhaul before it is.  The nomination instructions do state that a nominator should be a significant contributor. At the very least, this one should have been checked thoroughly against GAC criteria before submitting. There's too much wrong with this one. You or anyone else are welcome to overhaul the article and resubmit it to GAC.  But it does need a great deal of work. Good luck. — Maile  (talk) 20:40, 9 October 2015 (UTC)