Talk:Murder of Irene Garza

Requested move 14 February 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover)  NNADI GOOD LUCK  ( Talk &#124; Contribs ) 10:00, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Death of Irene Garza → Murder of Irene Garza – a person was convicted of the murder of the subject, so "murder of ..." is a more accurate title. WWGB (talk) 03:06, 14 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Support, seems the article is only at this title because there was no murder conviction at the time of its creation. BegbertBiggs (talk) 23:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Now her murderer has been convicted this is unambiguously correct. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Irene Garza dispute
I am planning to bring this matter into the dispute resolution process. I would welcome comments from Larry Hockett on his reasons for originally reverting the edits on the Murder of Irene Garza article on 10/15 and then reverting it again on 10/16.

In his first reversion, Larry specifically mentioned my use of the word "notorious" in the text and commented on typos. He also thought the original version of the article was fine as it was. I had reverted the article back to my version on 10/16, fixed the typos and removed notorious. In my remarks, I encourage any and all future edits to the article. Larry reverted Irene Garza again the same day.

I quote from the help article on reverting "Reverting a contribution is sometimes appropriate. However, reverting good-faith actions of other editors can also be disruptive and may lead to the reverter being temporarily blocked from editing"


 * On the issue of needless reverting, I hear you and agree that there are situations where that can be very disruptive. I'm thinking that we can work together to address specific issues on this entry rather than reverting each other.


 * My concern is that there are new problems introduced by the copyedit, and these problems may cause the entry to fall short of the Good Article criteria. I think this could be a simple issue of lack of awareness regarding the GA criteria. The copyedit introduces some non-neutral language, including three mentions of the word "finally" and a number of undetected typos, such as the change from "moved from" to "moved rom". The copyedit introduced a number of contractions, punctuation issues (1970's), missing periods (such as between "local canal" and "An autopsy" in the lead). It just looks like the new copyedited version was published without being previewed.


 * As I said, I think we can work this out by approaching individual issues together. I would invite more comments from the OP, and I would also welcome feedback from other editors. If the writing is judged to be so poor as to no longer meet the GA criteria, a Good article reassessment is a viable option. Larry Hockett (Talk) 17:01, 16 October 2021 (UTC)