Talk:Murder of Arthur Labinjo-Hughes/GA1

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

Reviewer: Etriusus (talk · contribs) 20:40, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

, starting this GA review. Please use the ✅ template, strikethrough, or some other means of indicating a problem has been resolved. Etriusus (Talk) 20:40, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Images

 * Rights seem to be in order.
 * Can you find a more direct source for the File:Arthur Labinjo-Hughes.jpg image?

Copyvios
Well, Earwig threw a stroke.
 * Appears to be a copy and paste of the wiki article on a blog, likely not a copyvio
 * Is a cited quote, no copy-vio there.
 * The sentences below need to be rewritten. Everything else earwig flags is an attributed quote and not a violation.
 * "Hughes stated Tustin warned him they would have their children taken from them if he did not go along with it as well."
 * "...to stand in the hallway for hours on end as a punishment for his supposed misbehaviour." done

Stability

 * Nothing exciting to note, looks good.

Lead

 * Citations in the Lead unnecessary, per MOS:LEAD
 * The first lead sentance should be a brief, encyclopedic summary of the content. The current sentence isn't quite there yet, just seems like a fact that is listed.
 * "This followed a prolonged period..." Just put it in chronological order.
 * link manslaughter
 * {{tq|The sentences (Tustin 29 years, Hughes 21 years) were then reviewed.." The sentence needs to be rewritten in a more encyclopedic tone.
 * Lead needs to be expanded, its too brief. I've rewritten the lead to deal with these issues

Background

 * "fuelled rage" puffery, please reword, I've reworded the phrasing here, I don't want to completely remove reference to situation of the stabbing because there was an argument about this a while ago and some concerns that it was biased to include the stabbing without any reference to the context.
 * The two separated shortly before.. run-on sentance. Later half of the sentance needs to be reworded for a more neutral ton. I've broken down this sentence.
 * "moved along" Do you mean 'moved in'? The text of the source seems to be implying that his father also moved in at that point I've changed the wording to be a bit clearer
 * Tustin did not mention initially that she had made a suicide attempt in 2013 and her two eldest children had gone to live with their fathers. relevance? Potential POV Taken this out.
 * "summer holidays" be more specific, I think their is a bit of a cultural barrier here, this means the long break students have from school between school years, we use "holiday" with the same meaning as Americans use "vacation"
 * "with whom he had a close bond" puffery, reword taken out
 * "school" what school?, I don't know if this is another cultural divide but its common here for children to do performances put on by their school to mark Christmas, if you mean "the official at school" section I've changed it to "at his school"
 * "was spreading around the world" Clarification not necessary, cut phrase and reword sentence.
 * Hughes' mother asked that he and Arthur... Sentance is confusing
 * Did they just take Arthur there or the whole family. There's a lot of moving in the next paragraph. clarified


 * A social worker went to visit Hughes... run on sentance broke up sentance

Abuse

 * Backgound already has abuse content. Needs to be moved here. done
 * "having been sent out" needs to be more specific clarified
 * 'hairdresser' did the hairdresser do nothing? not mentioned. the source doesn't mentioned them intervening apart from when the partner gives him a drink

Day of the murder

 * 'salt' salt as in NaCl or the drug? please link. done
 * 'a fatal assault' any other details? Seems a bit jarring to come out of nowhere. added detail

Aftermath

 * 'systematic cruelty' puffery changed wording
 * 'football' please link done
 * Any other impact/legacy content out there?

General Note The article frankly needs to be run through and reworded to be in a more encyclopedic tone, please see WP:PUFFERY and WP:NOTE. Article gets a bit too in depth about the background, should be condensed and/or clarified. Since multiple people in this story have the last name Hughes, please specify if it's Thomas or Arthur. These are my initial notes, I'm bound to have more. I'll leave the review open for a response, but may have to fail it should since this is going to be a heafty undertaking, especially in a 7 day timeframe. Let me know if you think you can manage it or not. Etriusus (Talk) 20:40, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I've tried to work through most of the problems you listed above and tidy up the article more generally. If their are any other issues then I'm off work over the weekend so I probably have time to work on them. Llewee (talk) 19:02, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Lead

 * The lead is way too detailed on the abuse. Ideally, it should be balanced between abuse, murder, trial, and social impacts. I've expanded the section on impact to be about the same length as the sections on background and abuse. I'm not sure their is much more to say about his murder and the trial. Particularly as his autopsy is covered in the abuse paragraph.
 * I went ahead and copy-edited this section, please review my edits. Yes, these are all good.
 * ' large amount ' change to 'significant' done
 * It further provoked discussion about the impact which the COVID-19 pandemic had on the conditions of vulnerable children. Be specific that these concerns were about abuse. clarified

Background

 * Both Arthur's parents shared custody of him whilst he lived with his mother. This may be a cultural thing, where I'm from, shared custody means the child lives at both homes depending on the week. Was the mother the primary household? If so, please specify. I was also a bit confused by this initially. Sources describe him as living with his mother whilst they both had custody. Parents here and I assume also in Nebraska or the US have a legal right to see their children and be involved in their lives in most circumstances. They probably agreed informally that she would look after Arthur most of the time whilst Thomas Hughes would have continued to have parental rights.
 * "new abusive" is this relevent? If yes, why? Either reword sentence or remove. Their was a disagreement about this between other editors a while ago. Another editor felt it was biased to just describe her as killing someone without the context and I'm inclined to agree. I have reworded to make it sound less like it's trying to make a point.
 * 'Hughes' again, please specify if this is Thomas Hughes. Do this throughout the article.
 * I think I got most of them but please double check. Arthur and Thomas' last names are too similar to just say "Hughes". I've change all references to him to use his full name.


 * An official at Arthur's school.. arguably a run on sentance, if not its a bit awkwardly long. broke up wording
 * any mental health problems Was he taken to a psychiatrist or a regular doc? Specify. The current wording implies a regular doctor which doesn't make sense on why only mental and not physcial problems are mentioned. He was taken to ordinary doctor for behaviour related reasons and then a child psychiatrist.
 * "Though his mother" Biological mother I assume. Specify it was Olivia Labinjo-Halcrow No it's Thomas Hughes mother, I've clarified now
 * Specify what school he went to found the name

Abuse

 * 'Tustin's son' Do you have a name?, He and his sister are also children so their names aren't reported
 * 'no safeguarding issues' I'm unfamiliar with this term, Its fairly widely used here (See:https://learning.nspcc.org.uk/safeguarding-child-protection) I don't know if its only a British thing
 * 'Tustin later said she had coached the boys' when did she admit this? the trial? specify. I made a mistake here, Hughes actually said this about her. I have corrected it. He apparently said it whilst "giving evidence" I presume at the trial but can't confirm so will leave out
 * By the end of the month, This whole sentence reads weird, please reword broke up
 * either Tustin or Hughes wait, why did Hughes suddenly appear at the hairdressers? Oh, he turned up and swore at Arthur but I left that out.

Day of the murder

 * I cleaned up most of the issues myself

Aftermath

 * Here it is appropriate to call him Hughes, its implicit that Arthur isn't doing anything at this point. I've changed it now anyway.
 * Specifiy what date they were arrested. found date
 * 'Mister Justice' unless this is a rank, remove the Mr., its a formal title
 * 'abuse related to the case' specify excatly what happened. Were they stalked, attacked, etc? It isn't hugely specific but added threats which are also mentioned.
 * added a quote template, tell me what you think, yes it looks good, breaks up the text

Comment: Done, I did some fairly heavy copy-editing, so please take a look. The page had an issue with the overuse of pronouns, to the point It was difficult to track who was who. I think I got most of it. Etriusus (Talk) 04:54, 11 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Oops, forgot the obligatory ping. Etriusus (Talk) 04:55, 11 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for helping with the copy editing, I've worked through your second lot of suggestions--Llewee (talk) 13:16, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

lead
* The lead is still too long. 2 paragraphs is enough. Be brief and cover all point equally.
 * After Arthur's parents separated... Most of this paragraph is excessory info and could easily be condensed to a sentance or 2.
 * As an example look at Spotted lanternfly, the prose of the article is much longer but the lead is very brief.
 * Please review MOS:LEAD


 * with behaviors including forcing Arthur to spend extended periods isolated from the rest of the household. cut
 * Arthur's memory was honoured by his favourite team Birmingham City F.C and association football more broadly. cut

comment coming down the home stretch. The lead needs significant work but everything else I cleaned up on my own.

Hi, I've cut the lead down to about two and bit paragraphs. I think the lead is broadly balanced now but their is a limit to how symmetrical it can be.--Llewee (talk) 09:58, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Excellent work. Did some last-minute clean-up and the article is good to go. Etriusus (Talk) 18:27, 18 June 2022 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Prose is fine; article broadly meets standards of MOS.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * Sources are reliable, and appropriate for this type of article; several were checked against the statements they supported with no issues found.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Article has broad coverage with appropriate level of details.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Yes
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Yes
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * All images have licenses making them available for use in this article, they are used appropriately, and have useful captions.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: