Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/John Christie (murderer)/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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:12, 10 October 2009.

John Christie (murderer)

 * Nominator(s): Wcp07 (talk) 09:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it is sufficiently well-researched and provides an informative overview of the subject, John Christie, a notorious British serial killer. John Christie is considered particularly controversial because of his involvement in the trial of Timothy Evans, whom he helped convict and for whose crimes many believe Christie had in fact been responsible. I have put this article through a peer review and had it copyedited by Ukexpat. I believe it would make a welcome addition to the range of featured articles on Wikipedia. Wcp07 (talk) 09:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Alt text done; thanks. The lead image lacks alt text. As per WP:ALT it should briefly describe what Christie looked like in that image. Eubulides (talk) 14:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I've added ALT text, but it's still not coming up... Could there be a formatting problem? Wcp07 (talk) 09:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It was a problem in the template; I it. Eubulides (talk) 14:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

* Current ref 1 (John Christie...) lacks a publisher and last access dates. Also, this is a wiki page (granted, from the National Archives, but still editable by anyone...)
 * Comments -


 * Done. Reference removed and replaced with one which is WP:RS. Wcp07 (talk) 09:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

* Current ref 48 (Mary Westlake..) lacks a publisher and last access date.


 * Done. Wcp07 (talk) 09:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

* If a work is used as a reference/footnote, it shouldn't be listed in further reading ...
 * Done - further reading section removed. Wcp07 (talk) 09:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

* What makes http://www.10-rillington-place.co.uk/index.html a reliable source?
 * Done. Reference and section that it cited has been removed. Wcp07 (talk) 09:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Just a head's up, normally at FAC we let the person making the comments strike them when they feel they are dealt with. I'm not going to be anal and remove your strikes just to put them back, but for the next time, now you know. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Whoops, didn't realise. Wcp07 (talk) 21:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No great worry, and welcome to FAC! Ealdgyth - Talk 00:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Slight oppose, but also encouragement: Comments: I peer-reviewed this, and saw extensive improvement then. There are, however, numerous issues still to be resolved, including prose, uncited statements, and MOS violations, particularly misuse of hyphens. I have done some additional copyedits during the course of this review. I have not looked in detail at the later sections of the article but a quick glance indicates that there are similar problems there, and that more work is required. A copyedit from fresh eyes would do no harm. These points rom the early and middle parts of the article:- *Early criminal career: I'm a bit puzzled by: "....when the woman's husband returned from the war and found out about the affair. He went round to her house, discovered Christie there and assaulted him." To say "He went round to her house" is an odd way of describing a soldier's return to what was presumably his own home.


 * The sources are unclear on whether the soldier's wife was, at the time of Christie's assault, living in a house owned by her and her husband, or in her own (rented) accommodation. Kennedy's book states that she lived in a "room near Rillington Place", which suggests it was the latter.  The other sources give even less information than this.  I've said it was a "house where she was living" because of this ambiguity. Wcp07 (talk) 03:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

**"Following the murder, Christie resigned from the police force at the end of 1943" makes it seem that his resignation was a consequence of the murder. As the murder has been previously dated, the words "Following the murder" are redundant.
 * First murders:


 * ''Kennedy does indeed suggest that the murder contributed to Christie's decision to resign, because "the strain on an undiscovered murderer of working among men whose job was to discover murderers must have been well nigh unbearable". I've rephrased the sentence to point this out. Wcp07 (talk) 03:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

**"As Eady continued breathing, she inhaled the domestic gas, which soon rendered her unconscious from the carbon monoxide. Once Eady was unconscious, Christie raped and then strangled her. He buried her alongside Fuerst's body in the back garden." These statements require citation.


 * Done: citation added. Wcp07 (talk) 03:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

**Citations required in second part of the section's first paragraph.
 * Later murders


 * Done: required citations added. Wcp07 (talk) 03:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

**"All three of them..." - "of them" not necessary


 * Fixed. Wcp07 (talk) 04:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

**"...he had modified" - delete "had"


 * Fixed. Wcp07 (talk) 04:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

**Another redundancy: "With his last three murders..."


 * Fixed. Wcp07 (talk) 04:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

**More wordiness and slightly awkward phrasing: "When Christie invited his victims back to his flat, he seated them in the kitchen and would release the clip on the tube and let gas leak into the kitchen." Suggest simplify to "He seated his vicitims in his kitchen, released the clip on the tube and let gas leak into the kitchen."


 * Sentence rephrased to suggested version. Wcp07 (talk) 04:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

*Arrest: Can we have a present-day-equivalent for £7.65 in 1953?


 * There are a number of sites on the internet which offer historical currency conversions. I'm not sure how reliable they are though.  Two sites I have used have calculated that £7.65 in today's money is around £143-149, which seems more than one would have expected.
 * If MeasuringWorth was one of your sites, it has impeccable academic credentials. As to the current value of £7.65, this indicates that the UK average weekly wage for a railwayman in 1953 was £8.94, so the £140-odd update looks reasonable. Brianboulton (talk) 10:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I've ended up using Wikipedia's own inflation template, which calculates the figure to £154, so it looks like we're in the right range. For UK prices it references Measuring Worth so it seems reliable enough. Wcp07 (talk) 09:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

*Trial and execution: perhaps "Conviction and execution" a better title? (up to you)
 * Controversy and pardon
 * Convoluted sentence, needs splitting and must be cited: "Christie confessed to murdering Beryl Evans and although he neither confessed to, nor was convicted of, the murder of Geraldine Evans, public opinion at the time widely considered him guilty of both murders, casting doubt on the fairness of Evans's trial and raising the possibility that an innocent person had been hanged."


 * Fixed: sentence split in two and citation added. Wcp07 (talk) 04:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The statement: "This in turn cast doubt on the fairness of Evans's trial and raised the possibility that an innocent person had been hanged" is still uncited. Brianboulton (talk) 10:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Required citation added. Wcp07 (talk) 11:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have done considerable further copyedits in this section, but the prose still looks a bit untidy, and there are other citation issues.
 * I have added some more citations to the text. Wcp07 (talk) 04:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

*MOS: Page ranges in references need ndashes not hyphens, and there is misuse of hyphens in the text: "premises - both", "Pierrepoint - the same" and others.
 * I have addressed all dash issues. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hyphen misuse corrected. Wcp07 (talk) 04:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The article has come a long way since its initial drafting. A little more work should bring it to a promotable standard. Brianboulton (talk) 13:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Note:I have struck my "slight oppose" on the basis of these responses. I still want to check for missing citations and other small fixes and will comment further when this is done. Brianboulton (talk) 10:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Conditional support: All three paragraphs of the "Later developments" section end with uncited sentences. The third of these reads like an editorial opinion and should probably be deleted. It should not be difficult to cite the others. I would like this dealt with before removing the condition; otherwise I think all my issues have been settled. Also I would like to know that the image issues are resolved to Elcobbola's satisfaction. Have you contacted him about this? Brianboulton (talk) 14:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm hoping to have addressed your remaining issues and contacted Elcobbola about the images in the next day or two. Wcp07 (talk) 11:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think I've addressed all your remaining citation issues. Offending sentences have been either cited or removed.  I'm awaiting Elcobbola to get back to me about the image problems. Wcp07 (talk) 11:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose per criterion 3:
 * File:Christie.gif - Image does not have a verifiable source required per WP:IUP. "New Scotland Yard" is not sufficient; how can date or authorship be verified?  License also contradicts the provided information.  If this photo was taken in 1940, the pma claim of 70+ years would not even be possible until 2010, and only then assuming the author died the year the photo was taken.
 * I agree that the licence on this photo is incorrect, even though it came from the Wikimedia Commons and so was assumed to be free. I will try and replace it with a photo with a correct licence. Wcp07 (talk) 09:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have replaced the photo with one with a properly set-out licence that justifies its use. Wcp07 (talk) 12:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Very minor quibble with the replacement, see below. Эlcobbola  talk 15:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Timothyevans.jpg - Image has no information about copyright holder (NFCC#10A) and has no rationale for use in this article (NFCC#10C). How does seeing what Timothy Evan physically looks like assist a reader's understanding of John Christie in any significant way (NFCC#8)?
 * Given Wikipedia's non-free content rules, its use in John Christie's article can't be supported and so I have removed it. Wcp07 (talk) 10:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Timothy Evans Grave.JPG - Image does not have a verifiable source required per WP:IUP. Эlcobbola  talk 14:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The photograph was uploaded by Adebarry, a Wikipedia user who has not made a contribution since December 2007. Contacting him/her to amend the photograph licence does not seem a likely prospect.  Is this necessary though?  It seems clear that this person intended this photograph to be used freely on Wikipedia. Wcp07 (talk) 10:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There is, of course, zero percent chance that they'll amend the summary if not even contacted. It's not a question of intent.  We don't have a source (for self-made photos, usually a statement of authorship) to determine whether the uploader has rights to the image.  Did they take this photo themselves, or did they crop an image they found on Flickr or in another source, believing that modification gave them rights to the new image?  I'm not saying the latter is the case, only that policy requires an explicit statement.  The "source" and "self-made" examples sections of this dispatch might be helpful.    Эlcobbola  talk 15:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Johnchristie.jpg - minor issue with the statement "Copyright of this photograph lies with the people who run the website". I rather doubt AETN UK existed while Christie was alive (how then could they have photographed him?) and I rather doubt the copyright holder would have transferred rights to AETN.  It's better to say copyright holder is unknown than risk a misrepresentation.  Эlcobbola  talk 15:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.