Talk:White House Farm murders/GA1

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

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look and make straightforward copyedits as I go and jot queries below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for taking it on, Cas. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:37, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd link uncommon/esoteric words in the body of the text such as Tolleshunt D'Arcy, depression (query over where this should be linked, maybe mood disorder (?)), cutting herself (to self-harm?), Heathrow airport (needs a capital letter too I think...), Colchester, Saint-Tropez


 * who were interested in the women for all the wrong reasons - "all the wrong reasons" - not sure about this, possibly a little informal. Maybe should be in quotation marks?


 * she was diagnosed as schizophrenic --> "she was diagnosed with schizophrenia" is better.


 * an antipsychotic drug that has a sedative effect - hmm, it is markedly less sedating than most other antipsychotics - what is the exact wording of the source? hmmm, it does have some sedating effect and they often used high doses back then. ok....


 * Journalist David Connett, who attended the trial, writes that it was by common consent a truly awful investigation. - "consent" is not the word I'd use...opinion?


 * I think I'd link fingerprint on first instance too


 * by a majority of 10 to two - choose numbers or words...not one of each....


 * I know that Jeremy Bamber has a separate article, but this one feels like his summary is a bit too brief, and may be needs a bit of expanding (particularly his psychological profile), otherwise it leaves a person like me hanging a bit....

Otherwise, looking in pretty "Good" shape.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Cas. Some responses, and I'll do these things tomorrow probably:
 * I'll add some links.
 * I quite like "for all the wrong reasons": it seems to sum it up, so I wouldn't mind keeping it.
 * will change schizoprenic ––> schizophrenia
 * by common consent just means that all agreed
 * will fix 10 to two (I can never decide when I'm supposed to be using numerals or letters; will try to make sure it's consistent)
 * will flesh out the Jeremy Bamber section to say a little more about his personality; I agree that it ended up a bit sparse.


 * SlimVirgin (talk) 02:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * WRT consent, may be it's just the medico in me, but I always view it as consenting for a procedure (or sex), so it looks weird where it is used to mean opinion. I will look in the OED when I get home. WRT "for all the wrong reasons", I agree it is a neat turn of words which sums it up well, and is well known and understood....to me anyway comes across as a little too informal, but I don't see this as a dealbreaker I guess. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay, I added the links you requested, changed to schizophrenia, fixed the numerals, and extended the Jeremy Bamber section. Hope this is okay for now. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * He changed his mind in May 2011, writing that he had come to believe Bamber was the killer. - I definitely think this is worth elaborating on.


 * I didn't elaborate on this, because the journalist in question put forward a personal theory, and parts of it seemed a little strained (e.g. that Bamber committed the murders in a wetsuit). The journalist wrote it for the Daily Mail (see here). I've used the tabloids as sources a few times in the article, but only for issues that the broadsheets covered too (but perhaps the tabloids covered them first or in more detail). But with this new theory, no one else published it so far as I know, so I didn't want to elaborate. I felt it was enough to say that he had been a supporter and that was no longer the case. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, that makes a bit of a headache as if it is really far-fetched, does it give it false credibility by not having the reason....I just feel that as is, it really leaves a reader hanging - maybe focus on why rather than how? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Some of his reasoning is okay – some of the parts about the phone, for example. So I wouldn't want to dismiss it out of hand either. That's why I just kind of skimmed over it. I'll try to find a sentence that sums up the journalist's feelings. The only reason I mentioned it at all is that he was a very prominent supporter – wrote quite a lot in support of Bamber, and is known for uncovering miscarriages of justice in the UK – then suddenly changed his mind. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I added "He changed his mind in May 2011, arguing that some of the evidence in the house, particularly the arrangement of the telephones, had convinced him that Bamber was guilty." I briefly tried to summarize his view of the phone situation, but I'm not sure it makes sense; any rearranging of the phones that Bamber might have done, could also have been done by Sheila if she had planned the killings. (I'm not saying I think she did; just that the placement of the phones in the house doesn't in itself show who did or didn't). Also, to get into Woffinden's view in detail at that point would throw the chronology of the article off. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

1. Well written?:
 * Prose quality:
 * Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:
 * References to sources:
 * Citations to reliable sources, where required:
 * No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:
 * Major aspects:
 * Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:
 * Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?
 * No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:
 * Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: - engaging read. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the review, Cas. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)