Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lady in the Lake trial/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 03:32, 27 January 2009.

Lady in the Lake trial

 * Nominator(s): J Milburn (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it's been a good article for a while, and now that the appeal has failed, I don't think the story will develop much in the short term. I am willing to make fixes based on suggestions here, and feel that the article isn't too far from featured status is ready to go through FAC. J Milburn (talk) 19:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I've not read the article, but if by your own admission it is not yet up to FA standard, ("isn't too far from featured status"), then it has been brought here too soon. Peer review, not FAC, is the place for suggestions and fixes. It is a stated requirement for nomination (see above) that you ensure that when you bring an article here, it meets all the FA criteria. You should consider withdrawing and taking the article to PR. Brianboulton (talk) 00:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand what you are saying, but I don't think I really meant that. I meant that I don't see any reason why this could not be raised to featured status- another editor (with a few FAs under their belt) reccomended that I bring the article here some time ago, so I am acting on their judgement now I am sure the article is stable. J Milburn (talk) 16:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, date linking and formatting in the citations are inconsistent, and curly quotes are used. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 02:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Dab links fixed, date linking now consistent (formatting was consistent anyway I believe?) and curly quotes have been removed (or, I changed curly to "n" on the few cite news templates that had it). J Milburn (talk) 17:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Image review - All three images are fair use and, in my opinion, they satisfy WP:NFCC. Awadewit (talk) 16:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments -
 * The following deadlink:
 * http://www.insidetime.org/backissues/December%202006.pdf]
 * Fixed, now hardcopy is cited. J Milburn (talk) 17:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/viewarticle.aspx?id=572560
 * Fixed, story had been archived under a new title, but it's the same article. J Milburn (talk) 17:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * http://www.nwemail.co.uk/news/viewarticle.aspx?id=591441
 * http://www.nwemail.co.uk/news/viewarticle.aspx?id=572455
 * http://www.nwemail.co.uk/news/viewarticle.aspx?id=532403A
 * Evening Mail links have been switched to the hardcopy versions; I had to assume that they were printed the day before they appeared online, but I'm honestly not certain about that. If it matters to anyone, I could probably sift through an archive of papers at my local library, but I'd rather not... Does anyone know of a way I can back up those other Evening Mail links in case they go dead too? J Milburn (talk) 17:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have NO idea how to go about finding an internet archive version of those stories, but hopefully someone watching will have an idea. That would be an option for this problem, I think. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using cite news, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper. (I noted current ref 9, Bunyan, Nigel but there are others.)
 * What makes the following reliable sources?
 * http://www.murderuk.com/
 * The Lean, Sandra No Smoke book is published by this company: http://www.jacketflap.com/pubdetail.asp?pub=11563 which is a "low-cost self-publishing imprint of Diggory Press" What makes the book reliable then?
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The North West Evening Mail and News and Star websites are online copies of local newspaper articles- I occasionally read the Evening Mail, but I am outside the catchment zone of the News and Star. That said, I know all of them, if they appeared online (which they did) were published in the paper too. Inside Time is a magazine for prisoners, which (I assume) are online copies of hard-copy articles. What's the best way around the deadlinks? As for the Sandra Lean book, it has been discussed by reputable sources (Evening Mail, Evening News, and so on) and forms an interesting element of the case as a whole. Lean may not be well known, but her views are respected by the press and so I think we can consider her book a reliable source. Looking through the book, it seems legit- I work in a bookshop, so I see a lot of the "local history book" types with stickers on the back- this is printed professionally, cites all its sources in the bibliography and comes across as a (rather specialist) serious work of non-fiction, by someone who knows what they are writing about. The book is also recognised by Park's supporters, though was in no way written or influenced by them. MurderUK is probably not reliable- I put that down to the fact I wrote most of this article a while ago. Same with the italics- that's something I'm rather fussy about now. I'll see what I can do about that in a sec. J Milburn (talk) 22:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not questioning the reliability of thoses sites (only the murderuk.com site is questionable on reliablity) but was pointing out that the links do not work. They need to be repaired to work or the links need to be removed and the references fixed to point to print versions of the articles. And if the publisher for the Lean book is a self-publisher site, it's effectively a self-published work and needs to satisfy WP:SPS. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * MurderUK has been filtered out. Though I wasn't aware that No Smoke was self published, I would consider it reliable due to the recognition it has received from the press. I will look into getting hold of archived versions of those articles. J Milburn (talk) 23:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see that recognition in the press is an indicator of reliability. A self-published work can be a source about itself but is unlikely to be a reliable source otherwise.Fainites barley scribs 23:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment
 * Carol was said to time her periods away from home to coincide with the school term. School holidays?
 * Done. J Milburn (talk) 08:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Frequent commas after "and". Not BE.
 * Only one I can see is "home for another man, and, indeed, it would" and this is correct, "indeed" is placed in parethesis. (Or, what I call parenthesis; what Americans call parenthesis, I know as "brackets". I don't know the American term for my parethesis.) J Milburn (talk) 08:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It really needs a copy edit for punctuation and sentence construction.
 * Yeah I call 'em "brackets" too.


 * Despite the fact that Gordon owned a large yacht in 1997, in 1976, he owned a 505 racing dinghy, which he sold later that year needs rewording.
 * I've not rephrased it much, but I think it is a little clearer now? Let me know what you think. J Milburn (talk) 08:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Park has three children[43]– Jeremy, who founded freegordon.com in support of his father,[14] and Rachael. Their mother was Carol.[5] Park's third child, Vanessa, was adopted by Gordon and Carol when she was 18 months old, after her mother, Christie, (who was Carol's sister) was murdered by her boyfriend in 1969, aged 17.  is confusing and needs rewording.
 * Done. J Milburn (talk) 08:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Fainites barley scribs 23:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC) Fainites barley scribs 14:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * A number of quotations have single rather than double quote marks.
 * Done. J Milburn (talk) 17:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Some excessive wordiness and over-interpretation. Here Gordon claimed that she had left home for another man, and, indeed, it would seem that their relationship was turbulent, with Carol having left their home in Leece twice before for example. The source just says she'd left home twice before to live with her lover.
 * Rephrased. J Milburn (talk) 17:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Parts of it still read as if the appeal was still pending. I have corrected the lead but the paragraph about the new evidence reads as if the new evidence used in the appeal were still awaited.
 * What are you referring to specifically? "His children, Jeremy and Rachael, appointed a new legal team in an attempt to find grounds for appeal." still sounds OK to me, and nothing else really mentions the appeal. J Milburn (talk) 17:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Rob Rode, Parks' solicitor, hopes to hear from Manchester Crown Court on whether the grounds for appeal are strong enough for it to be taken to the Court of Appeal in London and It has not been revealed what the new evidence is,[21] only that it "was not available at the original trial for example. Fainites barley scribs 18:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hah, showed me. Fixed. J Milburn (talk) 20:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Under "Witnesses". It has also been said that Park had never actually met Wainwright. Actually the source used says Park claimed he had no recollection of meeting Wainright. Not the same thing.
 * Done. J Milburn (talk) 20:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the article ought to mention that one of the children - Vanessa - was a witness for the prosecution. At the moment the article gives the impression that the divide is between Prices children and the victims family.
 * Done. J Milburn (talk) 20:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have read the judges summing up. The section in the article about the evidence concerning the piece of rock and the slate is not accurate and is presented in a way that does not do justice to either the finding of the rock or the forensic evidence. I think the judges summing up of the evidence would in general be a better source for the evidence than newspaper reports. Theres a number of parts where the article says things like "its said by some" or "it has been said" when this derives from newspaper articles. Whilst it is true that a judges summing up does not repeat all the evidence, it does cover it pretty thoroughly. Newspaper reports can add to this but at the moment the points emphasised appear rather selective.Fainites barley scribs 22:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have also read the summing up (though it was a while ago now, so I would have to reread it) but I didn't want to cite it heavily as I considered it a primary source. I thought that it would be best to focus the article on the evidence that the press focussed on, to save me having to make judgements about what to include and what not to, based on what I believed to be important. As it is, I have included details that the press have talked about a lot, and omitted those that the press don't really mention. There's too much evidence to have in a single article. J Milburn (talk) 20:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Is there no better image of Carol Park? The one currently in use is of exceedingly poor quality; it doesn't really show her face, even. NSR 77  T 00:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Not really- this is one of the few I have seen, and is certainly one of the most widely used. There's this one, but that is not used outside the Freegordon website. Would we still have a valid claim of fair use, do you think? In fact, I think I will contact Jeremy Park and ask for permission to use the images on the website. J Milburn (talk) 08:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Contacted- I have been in contact with Jeremy before, he was very helpful in the past pointing me towards some very useful sources, so hopefully he'll be willing to release that (and other) images for use in the article. J Milburn (talk) 09:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Jeremy sadly wasn't happy for the images to be released under a free license. J Milburn (talk) 16:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose, 1c. I'm sorry, but the Lean book is a dealbreaker for me as it stands; examining the prose is not possible until we get past the point. Can you provide some links to how this meets WP:SPS? According to that page, the person must have been otherwise recognized as an expert, or the work must be cited as authoritative by reliable sources. -- Laser brain  (talk)  04:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Lean has been used by various newspapers as an authority (The Scotsman, The Evening News and my the North West Evening Mail (see cited source) and she has been a guest speaker at events about miscarriages of justice. (Source). Her opinions have received attention, and she has been treated as an expert independent of the cases/campaigns she reports on by reliable sources. For that reason, I would consider her book a reliable source. J Milburn (talk) 16:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't get from reading those stories that she is considered an authority. Two of those stories are written by the same woman. I have no doubt her opinions have received attention, but that doesn't = authority. Rather, she strikes me as someone who's been busy will self-promotion and has gotten herself interviewed by reporters and invited to speak at gatherings. -- Laser brain  (talk)  18:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you give me an example of what you are looking for? J Milburn (talk) 18:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ideally, I would like to see some evidence that any of her opinions have been accepted by the media or people involved with the case as being authoritative. My point is that having one's opinions cited in the news doesn't make one's self-published book a reliable source. They seem two different things. I've had my opinion about mass transit published in a local newspaper - but if I self-published a book about mass transit I wouldn't expect it to be cited in an encyclopedia. I hope I am making sense.. or maybe I've just gone off the deep end. -- Laser brain  (talk)  04:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Laser's concerns about sources. Lean's book automatically strikes me as suspect considering the title, but I'm not seeing any sort of SPS fulfilling. What would sway me more than newspapers is other books by recognized authors or summat' (evidence that historians or scholars are giving her accounts weight, rather than just newspapers and interest groups giving her a voice.) -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 15:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The book is reasonably newly published and, to the best of my knowledge, no other books discuss the Park case. There was a documetary, but that was long before the book was published. J Milburn (talk) 16:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.