Talk:Murder of Deborah Linsley/GA1

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

Reviewer: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 14:11, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I'll give this a go; I know the train route well.

Lead
Splitting hairs a bit, but the name "Debbie" is not referred to anywhere else in the article.
 * Good point. This is because on the one hand, loads of sources (BBC, C4, and—err!—The Croydon Advertiser) use the diminutive, but I kept to encyclopaedic formality style in the article proper. What say you, ref. "Debbie" there?
 * Yes, I noticed sources used "Debbie" but none of them say why. Easiest solution is to just change the opening sentence in the body to "Deborah "Debbie" Linsley was..." Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  17:01, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Kay, simples, yeah, cheers.

Background

 * Is it important to mention every station the train travelled between Petts Wood and Brixton?
 * Maybe not, of course, but it was touching on the fact that, later, men are mentioned getting on and off at different stops, so this was emphasising the stopping nature of the journey I guess.
 * "The train Linsley travelled on was one of 64 that still utilised such coaches in their rakes." What does "rakes" mean in this context?
 * Now wikilinked.

Death

 * "She was subsequently buried in the bridesmaid's dress she was to have worn at Gordon's wedding" - Do we have a date and location for the funeral?
 * Excellent, thanks. Yes, found the info on an LBC report not sure I can link to that in an EL section?). It also mentions how her mum supported capital punishment, but I'm omitting that...
 * "Linsley's murder hastened the removal by British Rail of the compartment stock such as she had died in" - this sentence, particularly, "such as she had died" jars with me, but I can't think of a better way of writing it. Any ideas?
 * Fair point. I've tweaked it to British Rail had slowly been getting rid of the type of closed compartment that Linsley died in, and her murder hastened their removal., although it can probably be refined further?
 * "The stock was due to be completely withdrawn and replaced by 1991" - this implies it wasn't completely withdrawn and replaced by that date. Was it or not?
 * The rolling stock concerned,, was gradually phased out over a period of more than ten years, beginning in 1984 and not completed until 1995, although after 1988, priority was given to those trains still having cars with compartments - the last compartment cars were withdrawn in 1991. Withdrawal could not proceed more quickly than the delivery of the replacement trains, primarily and . -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 16:25, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah—of course, that's because it's a contemporary report saying that "they should be gone in 3 years time". Tweaked that with a source as to the date.

Case reopening

 * "and the blood they had left at the scene, sufficient blood was collected" - duplicate of "blood"
 * Yea, tweaked that: how about Linsley's killer had clearly sustained injuries and had left sufficient blood at the scene to be collected and stored. This would later allow for a complete DNA set to be built...?
 * Works for me Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  17:25, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Not much else to say about this - a well written, concise yet informative article. On hold. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:11, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Cheers, very kind of you to say. I haven't (yet) addressed all your points, because some might be worth chewing over again (that is, I've explained why it says what it says on a couple of occassions, with no prejudice against subsequent alterations). What I have addressed thoufhg can ve seen here. (Of it's it's well written; you copy-edited it first!!!)  —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap sh*t room 16:58, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Well I think my concerns have been addressed, so I'm happy to pass the review now; as the old saying goes, "if you can improve it further, please do". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  17:27, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Cheers I forgot to ask, can I use The Sun as a source in this?  —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap sh*t room 19:10, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Er, it's not that Sun is it, the Sun-Herald's something else? <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  19:17, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Err, no, it is that Sun, wot won it etc :)  thoughts? No swearing please, this is a family site.   —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap sh*t room 19:26, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I've replaced all references of it with Times sources, except for the part talking about the Sydney Morning Herald, which I can't find an obvious swap for. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  20:02, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know what this means. I never used The Sun so there weren't any refs to replace? I was asking yesterday because this article has quite a ot of extra details not found elsewhere, incl. name of the au pair, the football at Wembley etc. And although I've never used the paper in an article yet, I was seriously considering it with this. —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap sh*t room 11:07, 11 August 2018 (UTC)