Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jack the Ripper/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:53, 30 January 2010.

Jack the Ripper

 * Nominator(s): DrKiernan (talk) 09:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The editors of the page have already taken the article through peer review and good article nomination and seek further guidance on areas for improvement.

The literature on the Ripper is vast. In the interests of focus and length, the details of the victims, murders, clues, and fiction can be found in daughter articles, and are only presented here in outline. DrKiernan (talk) 09:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments A very worthy article on a difficult subject. I have the following comments about the text, which is very well written generally.


 * Murders
 * The canonical/non canonical distinction is puzzling to me. I would imagine that the canonical murders were marked by many of the characteristics listed (removal of internal organs, etc.) but this is not entirely clear, nor is the reason why the first two are considered non-canonical.


 * Canonical five
 * "Stride and Eddowes were killed on Sunday 30 September 1888" It is mentioned that their bodies were found between 1 and 2 a.m.  I imagine this was the early morning hours of the 30th?  Or 1st October?
 * "shortly after 10:45 a.m." Odd reading. Why not just say "soon before 11 a.m." or words to that effect?
 * Watch your non breaking spaces, as in "5 victims".
 * I disagree. If the numeral "5" falls at the end of the line, the reader will not become disoriented when their eyes zip back over to the next line to see "victims". The case of "5 victims" is not specified at MOS or Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers). Binksternet (talk) 10:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Later Whitechapel murders:
 * "that the murder was committed elsewhere and that parts of the dismembered body were dumped at the crime scene." Do the words "crime scene" refer to the railway arch?  I would simply say so, since both the place where the victim was killed (if she was) and where she was dumped could be considered crime scenes.


 * Other alleged victims
 * Fairy Fay. I find the whole sequence here a bit confusion.  If this was a later invention, it might be  best to start something like "Beginning in 1950, newspapers printed accounts of another supposed Ripper victim, who was allegedly killed yada yada.  However, there is no contemporary account of such a killing, and no record of any murders ..." You get the idea.
 * "She was later postulated as the Ripper's first victim," Perhaps "Some theories suggest that she was the Ripper's first victim, but he cannot be definitely linked to her"."
 * "river Thames" Wouldn't you normally capitalize this?
 * "he was not connected to the crimes" Ambiguity.  If you mean that the police were unable to procure evidence of guilt, might want to say so.  It sounds like you are clearing him of being the Ripper, and I'm not sure if it is you saying that or the police.
 * Carrie Brown. The police must have ruled out Ripper involvement quite some time after the fact.  Certainly not while Thomas Byrnes was still inspector!
 * Investigation
 * "Police work today follows the same pattern" Detaining 80 people?
 * "The committee was led by George Lusk in 1888." That sounds appropos of nothing, I'm afraid. Perhaps merge it into another sentence a bit more artfully.  Unless this committe went on for some time, I'd omit the date, too.
 * Criminal profiling
 * "Robert Anderson". I would delink and omit the description of his job.  He was just mentioned.
 * "Queen Victoria" Quite a "commentator"!!  Perhaps make it "Some of those who followed the case at the time, including Queen Victoia, suggested ..."


 * Letters
 * "Some sources list another letter, dated 17 September 1888, as the first to use the name of Jack the Ripper, but most experts believe this was a modern fake inserted into police records in the 20th century, long after the killings took place." I would put this as a footnote.


 * Legacy
 * As a suggestion, you might want to lead off with what is now the second paragraph. That the Ripper had such a positive legacy might be worth displaying to the reader right up front.

That is all I have. I look forward to supporting.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the review. I've made an edit that addresses many of these points either by removal or rephrasing. Points not addressed are:
 * First victim: I'd rather not say "some theories" as this makes it sound like a widespread view held by many.
 * river Thames: I prefer lower case, but am not bothered if it is capitalised.
 * Carrie Brown: I have said "eventually" but I think it was ruled out very quickly by the London police at least.
 * Fake letter: I did put this in a footnote, but another editor felt that it ought to be placed in the text, so I put it back per . DrKiernan (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Support My concerns having been substantively addressed, I feel this is an excellent summary of an topic about which an immense amount has been written.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Support This subject has always interested me, beginning with being terrfied by him when I was a kid and teased about it by my father. Meets FA criteria. Dincher (talk) 22:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments -
 * What makes the following reliable sources?
 * http://www.casebook.org/ripper_media/book_reviews/non-fiction/castofthousands.ada-wilson.html
 * http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/dst-cmdlusk.html
 * http://www.rippernotes.com/ripperology-ripperphile.html
 * http://www.casebook.org/ripper_media/book_reviews/non-fiction/
 * http://www.casebook.org/ripper_media/book_reviews/periodicals/
 * I listed the various bits separately, so in case they are by noted specialists in the field, we can discuss each one based on the author not just the website.
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * To take each page in turn:
 * Christopher Scott is the author of Will the Real Mary Kelly...?.
 * Christopher-Michael DiGrazia provides sources, has published in Ripperologist magazine, and is the co-author of The News from Whitechapel: Jack the Ripper in the "Daily Telegraph". If required, this reference could be replaced by one from an academic peer-reviewed journal, but a subscription is necessary to access it: Wolf, Gunter (2008). "A kidney from hell? A nephrological view of the Whitechapel murders in 1888". Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation vol. 23 pp. 3343–3349.
 * Stewart P. Evans is the author/co-author of Jack the Ripper: Scotland Yard Investigates, Executioner: The Chronicles of James Berry, Victorian Hangman, The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook: An Illustrated Encyclopedia, Jack the Ripper: Letters from Hell, The Lodger: Arrest and Escape of Jack the Ripper, Jack the Ripper: First American Serial Killer, amongst others.
 * The casebook website is operated by Stephen P. Ryder, who is the author of Public Reactions to Jack the Ripper and co-author of Ripper Notes: Jack the Slasher, and Thomas Schachner, who is the co-author of Jack the Ripper: Anatomie einer Legende [in German].
 * As above. DrKiernan (talk) 08:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll leave these out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've taken out five anyway . DrKiernan (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments by Binksternet (talk) 19:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There are in the article instances of both spaced en dashes (in image text and book title) and em dashes (in quoted bits.) My reading of WP:DASH makes me conclude that one of the two dash styles should be changed to the other for consistency.
 * Why are there so many hidden comments? A handful of Rumbelow cites have been hidden near the list of similarly-named murders, a mention of Robert Napper, the victim Mary Kelly as related to tourism, a Begg cite and a Woods cite—all hidden. Could the Rumbelow cites be shown? Could Napper be introduced? Mary Kelly explicitly listed? The See also area typically does not need any referencing.
 * There is no need for a full-stop at the end of sentence fragments in image blurbs.


 * WP:DASH use to say use mdashes sparingly, so an ndash is used in the image caption. The other instances reflect the original sources: an mdash is used in the original quote and an ndash is used in the original chapter title.
 * The hidden comments are references for those murders being named after the Ripper. I prefer to hide them than pepper the sentence with footnotes, which looks untidy and reduces "readability". The references in the See also section are for sources which link those events to the Ripper, but again they look silly if revealed. Napper removed. Mary Kelly is known to have drank at the Ten Bells, the others are postulated to have done so. I think listing her specifically is cumbersome, but the name is hidden there to remind me which one of them was known to drink there. DrKiernan (talk) 20:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Punctuation in quotes can be changed without comment to fit overall article style; it is done all the time in the publishing world. The suggestion to use em dashes sparingly applies just as firmly to their cousins the spaced en dash, as the two have the same usage in sentence interruption. However, your usage of spaced en dashes does not constitute sentence interruption, since one is a chapter title and one is the beginning of image text which isn't even a full sentence. I withdraw any objection to your use of dashes. Binksternet (talk) 01:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, just wanted to pick your brain on the issue of hidden comments, to judge purposefulness or forgetfulness. Binksternet (talk) 01:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've taken out the stops on the image blurbs. DrKiernan (talk) 10:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. Binksternet (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes, very well done and a significant move forward in the article content and quality. Personally, I'd like to see an additional para in 'background'. An excellent source is Bill Fishman's East End 1888 - which includes a chapter on the Ripper, but predominantly deals with the social melting pot. The principle Irish immigration to the area was associated with the weaving trade - which was in serious decline towards the later half of the century. A lot of the overcrowding was due to the development of the docks and railways - which displaced many poorer people into the area. So, I'm not really sure of the relevance of the 'Bloody Sunday' demo specifically to the East End - you can probably supply a justification for that. Of more relevance is probably anti-immigration agitation that lead to the formation of the British Brothers League in 1902. I'd also look to including a Booth poverty map of the district (see one here - but it obviously needs a free source). Anyway, the question always arises as to when we stop; and that's a function of your excellent editing! As it stands, I have no hesitation in expressing my support that this now represents the 'best of wikipedia'. I will declare an interest that in the past I have had my mitts in this article; but not for some time. Kbthompson (talk) 12:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Support Saw this article when it was nominated for GA and it has improved since then. --Moni3 (talk) 14:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Query, can the text squeeze between images in the "Letters" section be solved? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.