Talk:Murder of Joanna Yeates/Archive 2

Tabak's date of birth
Have added Tabak's date of birth (10 February 1978) from this Guardian article, which I found referenced in the Dutch version of this page. Feel free to tweak the sentence if the ref is in the wrong place. Cheers Paul MacDermott (talk) 15:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Problem sentence
appeal for witnesses through Facebook,[59] which has been viewed nearly 250,000 times since 4 January 2011. I'd have expected some sort of part tense volumetrics. "since Jan 2011" presumably includes today? What does that tell us? --Tagishsimon (talk) 05:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The figures actually relate to the number of views the site had received by the following day so I've amended it to say that. Paul MacDermott (talk) 14:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Re-arrangement of the Trial section
I've moved the "defence" (is that the right UK spelling?) out of the first paragraph and made a third paragraph out of it, to fit the sequence in court: pleadings, prosecution, defence, summing up, verdict, sentence. However I've left the two refs which were at the end of the original P1 at the end of the new P1, but also repeated them in the new P3 (after "had not been sexually motivated"). Someone less lazy might want to check, amend or dedupe the refs. --Tagishsimon (talk) 05:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, "defence" is the correct UK spelling. --Stfg (talk) 11:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Viewing violent Internet pornography
The article introduces this subject in the ===Vincent Tabak=== section. That section ends with the QC arguing in court that evidence of his pron habit should be admitted in court. We do not find out until the end of the ===Trial=== section that the evidence was not presented. I think we should be saying at the end of the Tabak section that the evidence was not presented, to avoid introducing a false assumption about the trial in the mind of the reader. --Tagishsimon (talk) 05:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * This information was moved, hopefully the flow is now clearer.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 08:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I did actually deliberate at length as to where this information should go, but wasn't really sure. Obviously it has significance in the events leading up to the crime so needs to be mentioned in the biography section, but at the same time it played a role in the trial inasmuch as the information did not come to light until after his conviction. Seems to read better now anyway. Maybe it is right to say in his bio section that this information was not included at the trial due to the judge feeling it didn't prove his guilt, then go into the trial section in which we elaborate on those proceedings. Paul MacDermott (talk) 13:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Geographic Coordinates
Paul - you're putting long hours into this article; kudos to you for that. I was wondering about the appropriateness of the addition of a couple of geographic coordinates, one for the flat and the other for the Failand site. I presume in one of the refs there'll be a map showing the site, from which we could get coordinates (e.g. by comparison with another map). We'd then be able to use coord to display the two coordinates, perhaps inline in the text, or in a table. That would then allow us to use GeoGroup to provide links to Bing & Google Maps showing both locations. Al that, arguably, is a useful facility for the user, not least since the article discusses the question of the route taken by Tabak. What's your opinion? --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. Great to know the article's coming together. I think adding co-ordinates sounds like a good idea, although I'm pretty hopeless at that sort of thing myself so I'll have to leave it to someone else. I'm happy if you want to add it. There are definately lots of references for the locations so it would be easy enough to use an existing one or find another source. Paul MacDermott (talk) 22:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added a table of coords, sourced from and . If you want to amend, chop it down, move it, lose the section heading, have second thoughts, whatever, I'm not precious about it. The GeoGroup template doesn't seem to be playing; I'll find someone to fix it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Cheers for that. I'll see what people at the FAC think. Paul MacDermott (talk) 23:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Coordinates
I moved this from the article as it needs formatting and I'm not entirely sure how to do that. The table is not entirely necessary also so leaving it out for now shouldn't be a problem. If anyone can format it then by all means pop it back in later. Cheers Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You're a gent, The Rambling Man, and very possibly a scholar. Thanks for doing those tweaks. Good luck with the FAC, Paul. I'll still look in later to see if there's anything I can do. However I have some IRL stuff I should be doing now :( --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)--Tagishsimon (talk) 13:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, no worries! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Cheers, guys. Paul MacDermott (talk) 15:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Two sentences removed from lead - end of P4
The prosecutions added weight to proposed legislation being discussed in Parliament by MP Anna Soubry to prohibit the naming of suspects prior to the formal filing of charges. She withdrew the proposal on 4 February after encountering opposition from the government.


 * I've removed this 'cos I don't think lending support for a private members bill, which I assume this was, is lead-worthy. I don't see this info discussed in the remainder of the article. Maybe it should be moved south, or else junked altogether. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It is briefly covered in the Legislation subsection, but the proposals were not put forward because of the murder. Soubry introduced the Private Member's Bill several months before then. I guess it would probably have largely been ignored but for events in Bristol, so I think I tend to agree with you. Paul MacDermott (talk) 22:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

DNA tests
Draft of another proposed paragraph.

DNA tests were carried out by an Oxford-based laboratory owned by LGC Forensics, the UK's largest supplier of outsourced forensic science services. In an interview with The Guardian in January 2012 Lindsey Lennen, a body fluids and DNA specialist with the organisation who was a member of the team that analysed DNA samples from Yeates' body described the process of determining its source. She said that although DNA swabs matched Tabak, they were not of sufficient quality to be evaluated. Consequently the team deployed a method known as DNA SenCE, which enhances unusable DNA samples through purification and concentration: "We couldn't say whether the DNA was from saliva, or semen, or even touch. But we could say that the probability of it not being a match with Tabak was less than one in a billion."


 * This is interesting and would definitely add to the article. Need to decide how to factor it in though. Probably in the section that covers the investigation, though this paragraph is taken from something that gives a retrospective view of events. Paul MacDermott (talk) 22:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * That's fine. Investigation is the appropriate place, since that's what's being described. That its from a retrospective is neither here nor there. Agree it should go in, but probably somewhat chopped down to something like the example below. (And I reserve my right to change my mind once I see it in place). --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

DNA tests were carried out by LGC Forensics, the UK's largest supplier of outsourced forensic science services. Lindsey Lennen, a body fluids and DNA specialist member of the team that analysed DNA samples from Yeates' body said that although DNA swabs matched Tabak, they were not of sufficient quality to be evaluated. The team deployed a method known as DNA SenCE, which enhances unusable DNA samples through purification and concentration: "We couldn't say whether the DNA was from saliva, or semen, or even touch. But we could say that the probability of it not being a match with Tabak was less than one in a billion."

More stuff on Jefferies
Draft of a proposed new paragraph.

While giving evidence to the Leveson Inquiry on 16 January 2012, Daily Mirror editor Richard Wallace spoke of their coverage of Jefferies' arrest as a "black mark" on his editing record, and described the nature of sources the newspaper had used to compile its stories on Jefferies, which had included the police, public records, internet searches and people known to the former teacher. His statement prompted Jefferies to issue a response through his solicitors, Stokoe Partnership, on 25 January accusing police of leaking information about him to journalists following his arrest: "It has become apparent that evidence put before the Leveson Inquiry confirms our earliest concerns about the confidentially with which the arrest and detention of our client was dealt with by those investigating the murder of Joanna Yeates. As a result of our attendance at the police station and of our reviewing of the material in the media, it became apparent that information had been deliberately leaked by as yet unidentified individuals in flagrant breach of their duty. Our client strongly believes this to be the case, as there was information within the public domain which was only known to those privy to the investigation material. Our client is of the view that this information had been leaked and we share that view." The allegations were denied by Avon and Somerset police.


 * For me, this is getting way off topic; it doesn't give us any information about the murder, and not much information about the investigation. We have other articles on the press / police / hacking stuff, not least the Leveson Inquiry page. It would be more appropriate on one of these. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree - the police and media treatment of Jefferies is one of the reasons this murder is notable, unlike the majority of UK murders which we don't have articles on.--Pontificalibus (talk) 21:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thinking about it this does really deal with Leveson and questions regarding the behaviour of the media rather than this particular case. Although it is true that the fallout from the coverage is one of the things that raised questions about press standards. I've included the whole quote here, but if factored in, much of that would be taken out to leave the important bits. One thing we should consider using though is Wallace's "black mark" quote since that does add an important aspect to the article. Paul MacDermott (talk) 21:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yup, the "black mark" is good. IMO the case was well enough notable long before Leveson et al, because it was the murder of an attractive middle class white female which happened in the Christmas period; culminating in the Christmas day discovery of the body, and the ongoing vilification of Jeffries by the press through the Christmas to New Year break. So, Pontificalibus, I still urge we find a more appropriate place for all of this bar the black mark quote. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Removed paragraph
Philip Davies, however, countered that the news media functions as a "great control on potential abuse by the police". Bob Satchwell of the Society of Editors said that "this cure is far worse than the disease" and would lead to "speculation during criminal inquiries and great unfairness." Satchwell, citing the example of people who disappeared under Latin American dictators, argued that the ability to name suspects protects them by drawing out new evidence. The Bill failed to complete its second reading, but Crispin Blunt promised the Attorney General would examine the area of concern.


 * I've removed this because it is wildly off topic. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Wilson, pizza and sock paragraph removed
Removed and reposted here in case anybody wants to take something from this. Paul MacDermott (talk) 18:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

On 5 January 2011, Detective Chief Inspector Jones announced that one of Yeates' socks was missing when she was found dead and that it had not been found at the crime scene nor in her home. Jones stated that the sock was a long, ski-style size five. Psychologist Glenn Wilson, who was not associated with the police investigation, commented that the killer might have used the sock to strangle Yeates or kept it as a trophy. Hours after the press conference, an elderly man turned in a dark sock for police evidence. The dark sock, however, was not believed to match the one sought by investigators. Another piece of evidence that police were investigating was a pizza label with a note mentioning Yeates that was received by the Bristol Ram pub on 27 December 2010, after her body was found. Investigators determined the note to be a hoax as the label was not from Tesco, and stated, "We take any reports of information in relation to this inquiry seriously."
 * I would say that a mention of the sock lead would be good.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the missing sock has some significance so that's back in now, but in a slightly different place. Might need tweaking slightly though. Paul MacDermott (talk) 22:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. On a quick look (it's late, I'm tired) the sentence you've left in, about the fact of the sock w.r.t. Yeates, is fine. All of the babble thereafter, which you've got rid of, was exactly the right thing to get rid of. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Legislation slimming
Planning to slim this section, but posting here for reference. Paul MacDermott (talk) 22:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Secretary of State for Justice Kenneth Clarke examined a private member's bill that would impose a six-month sentence on any journalist who names an uncharged suspect. The legislation was introduced into the House of Commons in June 2010, by Anna Soubry of Broxtowe, a former journalist and criminal law barrister. She withdrew the proposal on 4 February 2011 after encountering government opposition. In the 4 February debate, Labour and Conservative MPs criticised the press coverage. Mike Freer, MP, referring to "the landlord in Bristol", said "it was the castigation, the crawling over of that gentleman's background, the questioning of his looks, his eccentricity and his sexuality that were abhorrent and that will follow him around for ever." Soubry replied "What we saw in Bristol was, in effect, a feeding frenzy and vilification. Much of the coverage was not only completely irrelevant, but there was a homophobic tone to it which I found deeply offensive. The slurs on the man were out of order." Robert Flello, MP, said that many members had alluded to "the media's dreadful treatment of her landlord". He continued by criticising the press further: "The shameful way in which that man was portrayed in the press-from 'weird-looking' to 'strange', and with questions raised about his sexuality, his teaching practices and even his hairstyle-should embarrass and shame our media".
 * Tweaked this paragraph, removing all quotes but the one from Soubry, and re-organising it slightly. I'm inclined to think there's no need for the subsection now, but I'll leave it in place for the time being. Paul MacDermott (talk) 23:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've rearranged that area slightly, putting a fragment of the penultimate para back in with the previous para, and then swapping the order of the last two paragraphs ... and changed the H3 title to "ramification". I think it works better by providing a context for the private members bill stuff. Which is to say I think there is virtue in retaining the paragraph as it now is; it does convey useful info. After a good long thought, I think your handling of the quotes is good. You've picked the most relevant quote; and in fact I think it is as well not to use the other two since they merely repeat the calumnies heaped on poor Mr. Jeffries. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Miscellaneous gripes
A number of things to think about. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure about the use of the word "planned" in P5 of the lead. Surely they've by now been delivered? Can we think of a better way of phrasing that sentence?


 * I don't like "found that her personal items:, in Background, P3. Exactly what are "personal items". Can we reword this?


 * Why do we have the "Psychologist Glenn Wilson" sentence. Any fule can say anything. He may well be eminent in his field, but in connection to this case he's merely speculating. It adds no value.


 * The rest of the paragraph containing Glenn is of much the same low value. All sorts of leads don't pan out in any case. Is it important to know that there was a hoax receipt (it's hardly of the notability of the hoax in the Yorkshire Ripper case) or that an incorrect sock was handed in?


 * We say "Detectives arranged to interview up to 20 out of the 924 registered sex offenders living within their jurisdiction." based on a Daily Hate reference. IMO, it is vanishingly unlikely that the police limited their enquiries to only 20. The ref actually talks about working with MAPPA ... there's probably a much better sentence to be written here which does not suggest that there was some low limit of sex offenders scrutinised and/or interviewed.


 * Just to note, the "He was paid a "substantial" undisclosed sum in libel damages by eight tabloid newspapers in July 2011 after over 40 defamatory articles were published following his arrest" sentence in ===Arrests and reconstruction of crime=== is startlingly repetitive of (iirc) a later section dealing with the press legal cases. That may be fine, or there may be a way we can handle it more elegantly. I can't judge at this late hour.


 * The para starting "The prosecution case was that Yeates had resisted him, and was in great pain, although Tabak denied there was a struggle." has a miserable first sentence which picks up on some elements of the case. The main part of the prosecution case was that he strangled her. The first sentence should say something about that.


 * The start of the Legislation para is clumsy. Why do we want to know that Ken examined a bill? We probably want to have a different start to that para, along the lines of "The yeates case was mentioned in parliament during a debate on a bill ...." I think we want as few of the words found in the para before "the 4 February debate," and pretty much all of the words following "the 4 February debate,". Let's keep focused on our topic, not get into Anna Soubry, her bill, its withdrawal, &c.

Response
Had a good session this evening and have managed to address most things, apart from the "planned" thing. I did think of "announced" but although I have used the expression in articles from time to time, I'm not really a fan of it because it sounds a tad too journalistic. I'll need to look into whether any of these projects have come to fruition. Everything else has either been trimmed or reworded. Paul MacDermott (talk) 23:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've liked everything I've spotted so far. I'll try to make time to do another long hard look on Monday night. We also need to take a step back and ask, is anything missing? That's always harder to spot than a mangled sentence or a dubious paragraph. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Cheers. Fantastic news that its headed in the right direction. Just been looking for updates on memorials, but Googling "Joanna Yeates" "memorial" produces very few recent articles. However, I did find a Sky News article on the verdict which had a link to this concerning a fund for a memorial garden in Ampfield. I'm guessing these projects are still under development, so this is one thing we'll need to add when it happens. Paul MacDermott (talk) 17:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Legal aid costs
I've just been alerted to this article which talks about the legal aid costs of the case. My thoughts are that we could mention this once the full costs are known, and if some legal attempt were to be made to claw the money back. Having said that, the latter being the case, we would probably then have to float something like that off to a fresh article.
 * Same story here from The Telegraph. Paul MacDermott (talk) 17:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes I think Paul is right, mention when the full costs are known.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This local article contains more details on the numbers.--Pontificalibus (talk) 09:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Cheers, some good stuff here that should serve as a base for a nicely balanced paragraph. We can add something about the costs so far, and I think the quote from the Legal Services Commission is definitely worth including too. I'll put something together a bit later and post it here for feedback. Paul MacDermott (talk) 10:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

New paragraph concerning the legal aid issue. Hopefully this is neutral and doesn't sound like something from the Daily Mob. Paul MacDermott (talk) 23:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

On 13 February 2012 the Daily Mail carried a report concerning the legal aid bill for Vincent Tabak's defence, suggesting it could potentially amount to several hundred thousand pounds, the bulk of which would be paid for from the public purse even though Tabak was earning an annual salary of £45,000 at the time of his arrest. Yeates' parents spoke of their anger at the revelation, with David Yeates suggesting it was ridiculous for Tabak to receive legal aid when he comes from a wealthy background. The Legal Services Commission – which oversees the administration of legal aid in England and Wales – later confirmed it had paid £2,986 to Somerset-based Crossmans Solicitors for his legal advice following his arrest, and £3,358.98 for work carried out at Crown Court, including £2,523 for “disbursements” and £835 for "litigation". A spokesman said the full bill would eventually be made public, adding that anyone facing a Crown Court trial can apply for legal aid: "This ensures these often complex trials are heard thoroughly and fairly. If convicted in the Crown Court, anyone with over £30,000 capital assets can be made to pay an additional contribution."
 * Dunno. It's veering off topic again. To be honest, I'd prefer a single sentence on the costs of the trial; ditto a single sentence on the costs of the police investigation if that info ever surfaced. See also WP:UNDUE. Right now we're being sucked into one of the Daily Hate's favoured rants. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a bit of a challenge this one, because whatever one writes on the subject it inevitably has the danger of ending up sounding as though it's been put together to appeal to the baying masses. Maybe the best thing to do is to wait for the whole lot to be revealed. Then we could simply add a section about the amount to one of the sections, perhaps indicating if Tabak has to make a contribution. Paul MacDermott (talk) 00:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Still looking for more info on this issue, but none seems to be available just now. Paul MacDermott (talk) 10:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What's notable or unusual about his legal aid? It's not normally mentioned by the media in murder convictions. --Pontificalibus (talk) 10:54, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It was mentioned by a few different newspapers, although I do tend to wonder why they were so concerned about it on this occasion when a defendant's degal aid is not usually newsworthy. If I were more cynical I might speculate as to possible reasons why, but here's not really the place for that. Basically, someone mentioned it to me last week so I looked into the topic. I think there could be room for a mention in the context of the overall costs of the investigation, etc, as Tagishsimon suggests above, but maybe not until that information is known. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

FAC comments from Noleander
Reposting here for my own benefit. Lots to do, and I have a bit of breathing space now the FAC is closed. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Noleander
 * Lead - WP:LEAD suggests a maximum of 4 paragraphs in lead; this article has 5.
 * But you don't wish to continue the discussion above? Rules are rules, eh? --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Timeline - The chronology of events is a bit hard to follow ... maybe it is just me. Consider adding a graphical timeline.  (not a FA showstopper).
 * "Investigators determined that Yeates had spent the evening of 17 December 2010 ..."  there is an annoying shift in narrative there.  The article is stating facts event-by-event ("she went to ..." ) but then there is a "future looking" statement about the investigators.  Then back to event-by-event.  Recommend eliminate "Investigators determined that" ... it adds nothing (and all facts in those narrative sections are probably from the investiagtors, true?).
 * Scare quotes:  "... investigators wished to retain the body "for a while""   - What is the purpose of the quote marks?  If a source makes a big deal about that phrase, explain the source's concerns; otherwise omit the quotes (and rephrase to more professional wording).
 * More detail needed - "He subsequently won an undisclosed sum in libel damages for defamatory news articles published following his arrest." I think this is a very important part of the whole episode.   More detail is needed on exactly what the landlord alleged in the libel suits, and what the juries/judges decided.  Which papers were sued?  What did the papers print that was libelous?  Of course WP:BLP is an issue, and the article must be written to not maliciously repeat the false statements, but after the libel suit is public, certainly the allegations of libel can be repeated here safely.
 * Hmmm - the above material needs to be consolidated with the following: "On the same day, Jefferies accepted "substantial" damages for defamation from .."  First, they need to be merged into one section about the landlord's plight.  Second, it is not clear if he sued the papers, or if they just settled (paid) before a suit commenced.   Merge, clarify, expand.

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 21:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Clarification needed: "The authorities declined to reveal additional details while the suspect was being interrogated due to concerns over past media coverage." - What were the concerns?
 * Clarify: "Within 24 hours of news coverage about the production on 18 January, over 300 people contacted the police....".  - This is a bit confusing.  The prior sentences say that a TV show was produced, to be aired on 26 Jan; but then on 18 Jan 300 people called the police.  Did they see the TV show? Was it shown early? If not, what prompted them to call?
 * Clarify: "Tabak's guilty plea was rejected by the Crown Prosecution Service."  - Why was it rejected?  Be specific.
 * Grammar: " ....  depicted women being bound and gagged, held by the neck and choked, and controlled by men. " - Reword to clarify if the "by men" applies to all preceding activities, or just "controlled by".
 * Contradiction: "Tabak pleaded guilty to manslaughter, but denied murder." -This statement is made after the prior section which says "Tabak's guilty plea was rejected by the Crown Prosecution Service."  Either the guilty plea was rejected or not - need to clarify.
 * Location info - " ... that Tabak had strangled Yeates, using "sufficient force" to kill her ..." - Need to explicitly state the location of the struggle/murder.  I gather it was her flat? Need to state that.
 * Media coverage section - This section needs an introduction before it gets into the details of specific problems. What is the common thread of all the material in this section?   Write an overview.  Also, consider re-titling the section, because "Media Coverage" could mean "objective media coverage" ... but in fact the section is talking about Problems with the media coverage, true?
 * State the name: "On the morning of 20 January, the Avon and Somerset Constabulary arrested a 32-year-old man" - Go ahead and say the name of the person arrested. This is an encyclopedia article, not a mystery novel: there is no reason to delay the name until later in the article.  The fact that the police did not reveal the name until X days later can be stated.

WP:LEAD
WP:LEAD specifies 4 paragraphs max. Naturally, each paragraph will contain a variety of material that is not directly interrelated - other than it exists in the same article. For instance, if an article has 12 sections, a lead might have 4 paragraphs, each summarizing 3 of the sections. The fact that each Lead paragraph contains some info that appears to be unrelated is natural in Leads. --Noleander (talk) 22:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I merged the last two, but they were swiftly unmerged again. I'll take a look at it again tomorrow evening, and perhaps tweak it slightly, but I don't want to get into an edit war over it. Paul MacDermott (talk) 22:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I hear what you are saying, but the article is being nomiated for FA, and the lead has to do two things: (a) summarize the entire article; and (b) be 4 paragraphs or less. It would be best if the editor that reverted would instead pitch in and help write the lead.   Stating that a lead paragraph has "unrelated" material is not helpful ... many lead paragraphs are that way, by their very nature. --Noleander (talk) 22:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Patience, Noleander. And ECs. Here's my deal. If we did not have a 5 para restriction it would be natural to break the paragraph into two at the point that we change subject, from media & upshot, to funeral & memorial. Jamming together the two distinct subject matters is wrong by my comprehension of the point of paragraphs, which is to group related information together. If five paras are verboten, then I say we drop the bit about the funeral and memorial service ... arguably they are not lead material in the context of an article about a murder; we cover the same subject matter below ... that for me is a better option than an unnatural join resulting in a jarring paragraph. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And having now read LEAD I find it says "As a general guideline — not an absolute rule — the lead should normally be no longer than four paragraphs". Which is a far cry from "be 4 paragraphs or less". Here we have a situation where it is natural to split a longer para into two shorter paras, because the subject matter is different. IMO it is a better article with a 5 para lead, than as a 4 para lead including a jarring 4th para. Let's not throw babies out with bathwater, eh? Which do we prefer: blind adherence to a rule which expressly says it is not absolute; or paragraphs which obey conventions on paragraphs? --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've put it back to four just for now, but might try rehashing it a little before it goes back to FAC. Maybe starting the sentence differently could allow them to be merged if it was encompassed into something about the aftermath of the case - both of thesee events cover things that occurred subsequently. I've got a couple of weeks to think about it anyway. Paul MacDermott (talk) 23:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Archiving
Does anybody object to my archiving some of this stuff because this page is getting ridiculously long. If nobody voices any major objections in a day or so, I'll hive off everything before and including Refdump 2. That will keep the most recent stuff here. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Go for it. You're doing most of the spade work and are on top of the issues. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Cheers. May as well do it now, I guess. Paul MacDermott (talk) 23:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Prosecution case
Interesting Telegraph article about the prosecution's case. Prosecution offered no reason for the murder, but case was built on his activities following the murder, such as researching the decomposition time of a body, when refuse was collected in the area, constantly discussing the case with friends, etc. Also confessed to a prison chaplain. Will add this to the article later, but am away for a few hours shortly. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Coordinates 2
The following locations were pertinent to the investigation:


 * Which reviewers keep telling you to remove them? --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Some at the last FAC, then User:Nick-D mentions it in his review. Personally I don't understand why people object to it so if you want to put it back then go for it. I said at the FAC I was happy for it to go just to keep the peace to be honest. Paul MacDermott (talk) 22:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I dont see a reason for removing them at the moment. I find them helpful!.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

New guidelines for naming of suspects
I'm wondering whether we should mention Theresa May's recent letter to the College of Policing calling for new guidelines on the naming of suspects. May says that they should have "a right to anonymity" until charges are brought against them. David Cameron subsequently made reference to the Jefferies case while discussing May's approach. Several outlets have covered this, including The Guardian and The Telegraph. Any thoughts? Paul MacDermott (talk) 14:37, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * ComRes poll on the issue reported in The Independent suggests a majority of people are against the idea of naming suspects before charges are brought. Paul MacDermott (talk) 13:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Some of this comes back to the recommendations of the Leveson Inquiry. What Leveson said was that except in exceptional circumstances, “the names or identifying details of those who are arrested or suspected of a crime should not be released to the press or public”.. Critics have compared this with the high profile arrests in Operation Yewtree, and pointed out that additional victims of Stuart Hall might not have come forward if he had been arrested or charged in secret.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 13:21, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that article seems to put things more into context. I think eventually it would be worth including a sentence or two about this, although I get the impression from the earlier pieces that the guidelines are yet to be finalised. Paul MacDermott (talk) 13:50, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Coord refs
You might want to check the format of the two refs I've added for the coordinates. You'll have a better feel for consistency. The google maps ref is interesting: it was created by Avon & Somerset Police, but is served from google maps. Not sure how to represent that in the ref. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Cheers, I'll take a look at them. Paul MacDermott (talk) 21:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The coordinates of the location where the body was found were slightly less than accurate. My adjustment is based on a photograph showing a short yellow line, painted on the road for the benefit of the jury, indicating the exact spot.GdB (talk) 16:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This leads to some original research issues. This edit was reverted, because none of the sources gives this level of detail.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 05:42, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Arrests and reconstruction of crime
Going through the article with another pass of copy-editing (not much to do, to be honest). But in this section I have a question. The current text reads: "A senior police officer granted investigators a 12-hour extension to the arrest on 31 December, enabling them to hold him in custody for additional questioning." Since the arrest was made on 30 December, I was going to move "on 31 December", to make it clearer that the decision to grant the extension occurred on the 31st. However the next sentence reads, "Police subsequently applied to magistrates for further extensions which were granted on 31 December and 1 January." Should the first extension be 30 December? Or was there a second extension granted on the 31st?. I know this is a niggling little thing, but for someone (like me) who is totally unfamiliar with the case, it is a bit confusing. For now, since I don't know which is the correct, I obviously have left what is there. Thanks.Onel5969 (talk) 23:29, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The extensions you ask about both occurred on 31 December. The police are allowed to hold a suspect for up to 24 hours after the initial arrest, so as Jefferies was arrested at 7.00 am on 30 December, the first 12-hour extension would be needed on the morning of the 31st. This would have expired by that evening, so a second 12-hour extension was required if they wanted to continue questioning him. The earlier part of the timeline seems to be explained quite well in the articles I found online, but it gets a bit vague later. I'm not sure if the extensions are continuously granted in 12-hour blocks, but I know they can hold you for up to 96 hours. This UK government website gives a quick overview of how long a suspect can be detained, but doesn't give detail on how extensions are granted after the initial 24 hours have elapsed. Hope this helps. Paul MacDermott (talk) 09:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yes it does, and it was as I thought.  So as it stands now should accurately explain it.  I appreciate your getting back to me.Onel5969 (talk) 13:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Let me know if there's anything else and I'll take a look. Cheers. Paul MacDermott (talk) 23:51, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Paul MacDermott. Have finished the copy editing.  I had one last question. Be interested to hear your comments.Onel5969 (talk) 16:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Fire away. Paul MacDermott (talk) 18:14, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I did have a question, but answered it myself (had to do with the date of death, and so deleted it before I posted my last post, but missed deleting the "I had one last question" part. Onel5969 (talk) 20:40, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries. Paul MacDermott (talk) 20:42, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Numerous unreliable sources are used - likely to impact on FA status?
Looking at the references used for this article, I see The Daily Mirror is used no less than nine times, The Sun seven times and even The Daily Star is used once! Few or none of these instances are simply for quoting a journalist's opinion, nor do they serve to show the wrongdoing by such papers. These papers, particularly that last one, are unreliable sources, and surely need removing from the article to some extent and replacing with non Red-tops? I haven't checked exactly what each instance is referencing, but these red-tops are to be avoided particularly for any BLP related information, so if they're in any way referencing anything about any of the accused, convicted or the victim's family then that would be a major concern. The article is clearly well written and a lot of work has gone into it, and it would be a shame for such an obvious flaw to impact on its FA status.--Shakehandsman (talk) 07:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * None of the British red tops is an ideal source, so there should be attempts to address this. The Daily Mail is also used for quite a few cites, again not ideal.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 08:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The Mail might not be ideal, but is entirely permissible and fine if there's no better alternative. On the other hand, the used of Red-Tops, particularly for BLP info, crosses the line and really shouldn't ever happen and would probably prevent GA status never-mind FA. It would be ok to use them when making statements such as "The Daily Mirror claimed…" but other than that they're pretty much useless. Just looking at that first Mirror ref (4) points to a problem, because it shows the Mirror is used for Yeates' qualifications/university.--Shakehandsman (talk) 08:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * , speaking as the guy who took this through GA, FA, etc, I do hope you were planning to contact me about this and not just submit it for reassessment. There are plenty of sources documenting this case, so replacements shouldn't be hard to find. Much of the redtop stuff was here before I took this on, and although I've always been a bit dubious about their use, I should point out that this article was reviewed several times on its way to FA without it being flagged up as an issue. So this could suggest that process was somehow flawed. Alternatively, two years on from its promotion we're expecting a higher standard from our articles. Give me a few days to reacquaint myself with this topic and I'll replace as much as is possible. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:30, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Have made a start on this, and it's proving less time consuming than I thought it would. Sun and Star refs all replaced. Just need to tackle those from The Mirror, but I've had enough for now, so I'll come back to this tomorrow or Wednesday. Paul MacDermott (talk) 15:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That's much better already, FYI I wasn't planning on submitting it for reassessment, just pointing out that the article clearly wasn't at FA status at present. I was going to delete a few of the very worst refs but it seems you've got rid of most of them now. I don't think standards have really increased much here, I'd guess that whoever assessed the articles wash't familiar with the unreliability of red-tops and that's understandable if they're not from the UK. It may even be possible to get away with using red-tops in very limited circumstances (for example their sports coverage tends to be one of the better parts of the papers), though they're certainly not appropriate for a topic as sensitive as this one, especially when we consider that the papers settled for libel! Anyway it's good to see that Daily Star link gone, we need to be particularly cautious when using any articles about Mr Jefferies--Shakehandsman (talk) 17:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries, pretty much agree with all of that. This is an important article for several reasons, so it needs to be reliable. If you get the chance to look for some better refs to replace the Mirror then by all means go for it. I'll probably start tomorrow afternoon and see what there is. As I mentioned earlier the case had a lot of media coverage, so it's not proving to be as time consuming as I'd imagined. Also, let me know if I've duplicated any sources, and I'll sort them out. I don't think I've done that, but it's always possible. Paul MacDermott (talk) 19:16, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Just noticed the contempt of court ruling against the Mirror and Sun, so that's yet another reason to replace those sources and again goes to show why we don't use red-tops. In terms of further improvements to the article, can I suggest a "see also" section that links to the Robert Murat section of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann article? Sources do discuss both at the same time and they're clearly very similar.--Shakehandsman (talk) 19:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not as familiar with the McCann case, but taking a quick look, I see the same lawyer represented Murat and Jefferies, so linking to Murat seems sensible. It may be possible to add something to the article itself, but I'll have to read up on it. Paul MacDermott (talk) 20:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * All Mirror refs now replaced, apart from one that I removed because the information wasn't essential to the article. Should be ok now, but let me know if there are any problems. Paul MacDermott (talk) 19:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That's much better. I can't find any more red-top refs anywhere in the article. FA status should be much more secure now.--Shakehandsman (talk) 02:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That's great, thanks. I'll add more detail on the ITV drama when that happens, but give me a shout if you can think of any other improvements this might need. Paul MacDermott (talk) 13:14, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think Pauls latest edits has improved the overall quality of the article. So good work!--BabbaQ (talk) 15:42, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Publishers

 * One further possible improvement - a few of the lesser known newspapers don't have their publisher listed, e.g. the Daily Echo, Bath Chronicle and Yorkshire Post.--Shakehandsman (talk) 03:18, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I've filled in the publishers for the Yorkshire Post, Daily Echo and Bath Chronicle, but please let me know if there are others. If possible can you tell me which ones they are and their reference number as it'll make it easier for me to locate them. Thanks, This is Paul (talk) 11:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * So far I have found Gloucestershire Citizen (ref 4), Middlesbrough Evening Gazette (55), South West News Service (82, 84, 88, 90), Evesham Journal (92), journalism.co.uk (34, 118, 131). Also, it seems the correct term is "Small World News Service". --Shakehandsman (talk) 15:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for going through these, I'll take a look at these in the next couple of days. Sources like the Evening Gazette should be fairly easy to get as we have articles about them, but not sure about smaller ones like the Gloucestershire Citizen. I've tried to do this sort of thing with other articles, but they're not always traceable. I'll see what I can do though. This is Paul (talk) 21:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Daily Mail sources
Are there better sources this article could use? There are a half dozen references to the Daily Mail, which is not a very good source. --John (talk) 21:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * What does it look like user This Is Paul is doing? He is currently working to have them all removed. And I will also try to assist with it. --BabbaQ (talk) 21:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * How did it pass FAC in this state? --John (talk) 21:24, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Because it is a really well-written article. Sure it has some Daily Mail sources, but they will be removed. Also a large majority of the refs are from more reliable news sources. Also the comment "How did it pass FAC in this state", how do you mean really? No article is 100% perfect but this article is very close. --BabbaQ (talk) 21:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Mmm. Well, it will be a lot better once the remaining tabloid sources are removed. It should not have been able to pass with them in place. --John (talk) 21:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, they will soon be gone. And it did pass, even though some of the sources were from this particular tabloid because of overall quality by several established users who checked it out. Regards :)--BabbaQ (talk) 21:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Not quite sure how it passed if the Mail is such a problem, but I did take it through the process twice, so it received plenty of reviews. It can always come out of the schedule if it has the potential to cause a shitstorm, but I'll hopefully be able to get more DM sources out before then. This is Paul (talk) 21:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * There are no worries. --BabbaQ (talk) 22:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually there were lots of worries, but as I've replaced them all now it should be ok. This is Paul (talk) 18:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Good work, This is Paul. It's looking a lot better now. --John (talk) 22:26, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, let me know if there are any other issues. Cheers, This is Paul (talk) 22:38, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Did Tabak try to frame Jefferies?
In the recent ITV drama 'The Lost Honour of Christopher Jefferies', Vincent Tabak is presented as having contacted the Police while he was in Holland and given them false information about Christopher Jefferies, tending to suggest that Jeffries had used his car during the night of the disappearance, contrary to Jefferies's own account. Jefferies had already been arrested, as was widely reported. The implication was that Tabak was deliberately trying to incriminate Jefferies to deflect suspicion from himself. I cannot find any mention of this in the current article, so I wonder if in fact this incident was invented by the playwright. It would be ironic if a drama centering on the subject of false accusations contains false accusations of its own, even against a convicted murderer! Tabak's actions as portrayed would, I think, amount to an attempt to pervert the course of justice, which is itself a very serious offence. So I wonder if anyone knows the facts on this point?86.144.116.84 (talk) 21:42, 14 December 2014 (UTC) ADDED BY SAME WRITER: I have now found a source for this part of the story, from which it appears that the drama was entirely accurate on this point. http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/28/joanna-yeates-case-vincent-tabak It does seem to me noteworthy enough to be mentioned in the article.86.144.116.84 (talk) 22:28, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That would indeed seem significant enough to warrant a mention in the article. Kudos to the writers for their attention to detail and getting their facts straight, and kudos to the IP editor for finding the source. I'll leave it to to look at incorporating it into the article. Btw, the quote from the Grauniad is: "There was no escape from the Yeates story in the Netherlands. On 30 December, Tabak and Morson watched a television news report of the arrest of Joanna Yeates's landlord, the former public school teacher Christopher Jefferies, over the killing. At this point Tabak made a huge mistake. Spotting a chance to frame Jefferies, he contacted Avon and Somerset police and suggested the landlord had been out and about in his car on the night of Yeates's death. The murder team sent DC Karen Thomas to Amsterdam and on New Year's Eve she spoke to Tabak at a hotel near Schiphol airport for six hours."  HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  22:58, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed, thanks for spotting that one. I guess the place to add this information would be in Tabak's biography, perhaps at the end of Paragraph 2. I'll look into this tomorrow or Tuesday, unless anyone else wants to do it. This is Paul (talk) 23:33, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * ok, I've added a couple of sentences (see this edit). It may need a little revising, so feel free to make any changes you feel necessary. Cheers, This is Paul (talk) 00:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Pub address
Although it's correct in the article, the map of all coordinates from Google gives the address of The Ram as "Park Road" rather than "Park Street".This is Pablo10:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

How he got in
The prosecution case was that Tabak had strangled Yeates at her flat within minutes of her arrival home...
 * There's no mention of how he entered her flat. He claimed that she'd waved at him through the window, and then invited him in. Valetude (talk) 00:48, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

From what I recall of the case she invited him in, but I'm not sure how relevant this would be to the article. It may have been there at one point but taken out during the various review processes. If you read on a couple of paragraphs it does mention her inviting him to have a drink with her: "He claimed that Yeates had made a "flirty comment" and invited him to drink with her", which kind of suggests that he called at the flat. This is Paul (talk) 18:13, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that input, Paul. You say you don't feel it's relevant. But I still think people would like to hear it confirmed that she did invite him in, and that there was no break-in. Valetude (talk) 00:44, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Now a FA in Chinese Wikipedia
I have translated this article to Chinese Wikipedia here and promoted to FA status, and I want to thank User:Paul MacDermott for his effort to write this amazing article. --Jarodalien (talk) 13:36, 11 January 2016 (UTC)