Talk:Murder of Teresa De Simone/GA1

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

I will review this article. Cirt (talk) 05:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Image review
Passes here. Cirt (talk) 17:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * One image used in article, a fair use image - File:Teresa de Simone.png - fair use rationale provided on image page.

Stability review
Passes here. Cirt (talk) 17:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) No major issues upon inspection of talk page.
 * 2) Inspection of article edit history appears devoid of disruption as well.

Whoa, new development and lots of new changes. Stability part of review =.
 * Update

I will wait for the nominator to comment on this and evaluate the article. Cirt (talk) 22:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The GA Nominator made a comment . I will think this over. Cirt (talk) 01:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I see some relatively recent IP reverts, is this an issue? Also, are all cites fully formatted using WP:CIT? Not a requirement, but a nicety. Cirt (talk) 04:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Not all cites are formatted, I spent an hour or so a few days ago to fix some (but not all) of the cites, if it is crucial to GA, I (or someone else) could continue the cite formatting. 203.206.85.236 (talk) 11:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Not crucial, but would be helpful. Cirt (talk) 17:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ 203.206.85.236 (talk) 05:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay thanks. Cirt (talk) 05:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Other comments
Me personally see that this article is mutch more GA worthy and ready than let say Huang Nas article. There is a mutch more depth into this article and the length is mutch more satisfying.--Judo112 (talk) 09:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I will think it over a little bit. Cirt (talk) 18:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The huge amount of edits seems to have stopped now for stability review.--Judo112 (talk) 17:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold
This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of October 14, 2009, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?: Quite an interesting piece of history, and an informative read.
 * 2. Factually accurate?: There are some unsourced bits in the article, I will tag these with fact.
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: Have criminal experts, other scholars, etc, commented on this case? This would be interesting for a final section at the bottom of the article titled Commentary or Analysis.
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: Seems to have a neutral tone.
 * 5. Article stability? As I stated above, I am a tad concerned about the major changes due to recent events, but await responses to the other parts of the review.
 * 6. Images?: Passes here, see above.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far.— Cirt (talk) 05:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * 2. Factually accurate?: I have removed one of the sentences fact tagged as it didn't particularly add to the article, the other two I have reworded and added a ref. 3. Broad in coverage?: There is significant commentary in the refs used throughout the article, is that sufficient?, or would you prefer a new section with the commentary taken from the existing refs? 203.206.85.236 (talk) 09:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Confirming change from IP to wiki account Sanguis Sanies (talk) 09:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * A Commentary section would be nice. Cirt (talk) 16:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have performed many searches using terms like commentary on sean hodgson trail and variants like Expert commentary and Legal commentary and opinion (and expert and legal) and mistrial but have found little to no commentary or opinions on the trial save the one added. I have also thoroughly searched each of the cites used for the article and despite my previous claim can find very little commentary. I have reason to believe this may be due to the fact the compensation hearing is still ongoing and the unwillingness of the involved parties to comment, once Hodgson is totally free to talk we may see more commentary rather than reiteration of facts. Sanguis Sanies (talk) 12:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL, a little too literal of searches there. The word "commentary" does not have to appear for it to be secondary source commentary. What do the secondary sources say about the matter, aside from just reporting on the facts? Have there been any editorial/opinions expressed in any of the secondary sources? If so, by which sources? Which authors of those sources said those things? When? Cirt (talk) 17:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Example = . Cirt (talk) 17:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * | Better? Sanguis Sanies (talk) 10:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I would do away with those quote thingies, looks a bit tacky. Cirt (talk) 17:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, whatever happened to ??? Cirt (talk) 17:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Vanished? Seems odd that someone would create the article from scratch (brilliantly I might add!), then nominate it, then stop completely. *Shrugs* Sanguis Sanies (talk) 04:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I would suggest doing away with usage of cquote through the rest of the article, as well. Cirt (talk) 07:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Sanguis Sanies (talk) 08:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Good article = passed
Looks better. Cirt (talk) 08:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)