Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Murder of Teresa de Simone/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 22:29, 23 January 2010.

Murder of Teresa de Simone

 * Nominator(s): Sanguis Sanies (talk) 06:54, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... this was one of my first extensive works on wikipedia as an anon. and it became my first Good Article. Going over the article, and with the help of the peer review, I believe the article meets the criteria as one of the best articles. Sanguis Sanies (talk) 06:54, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * All three images have fair-use rationales and alt texts. The fair-use rationale for and  would IMO benefit from a more explicit explanation of "purpose of use", similar to that given for the image of the victim. -- JN  466  15:21, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * They should both be updated now. Sanguis Sanies (talk) 05:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments --an odd name 23:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No dab links or dead external links—good.
 * Alt text looks good to me after some edits.
 * Ref dates are consistent ISO style (not sure about the en dashes in place of the usual hyphens, but at least they're consistent). I see e.g. "December 12 and December 27", but they should probably be "12 December" etc. to match the rest of the Day Month Year prose dates. and prose dates are Day Month Year. 07:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed it back to hyphens for the ref dates. Sanguis Sanies (talk) 05:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Lead review:
 * The murder of Teresa de Simone was an English homicide committed in 1979 which led to one of the longest proven cases of a miscarriage of justice in British legal history. The way English is ussed in this sentance, it seems like English homicide is a special type of homicide.
 * Looking at the lead, it's too short. It doesn't say how the murder was commited, where, the criminal trial, etc. It skips from him being released to the consequences.
 * The last para of the lead doesn't give a clear idea where it is going. Reading the first 2/3 lines of it, I think, so what? How is this related? It is, but the connection of the case, ae. its signifigance, should be placed at the beginning not the end.
 * As a result of Hodgson's appeal and the use of archived forensic evidence to solve the crime, announced that 240 other convictions were to be reviewed. Who announced this?
 * The CCRC also wrote to the Director of Public Prosecutions requesting that the Crown Prosecution Service identify and review similar murder cases from the time before DNA testing was available. to identify.
 * I'll be massaging the prose as I go along. As a favor for this review, can you please please please review mine? Thank you, Res Mar 14:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've had a go at making the lead a bit larger, point 5 is incorrect; to add a "to" is incorrect. Sanguis Sanies (talk) 14:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Prose
 * The pub was located centrally in the city What city?
 * What city? Southhampton, as mentioned once in the lead, once in the infobox and once in the same paragraph two sentences before. Sanguis Sanies (talk) 15:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Part of a pair of tights... Don't link in quotes. Res Mar 14:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not clearly stated what the stuff with the blood types means. Res Mar 17:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * More specifically? Sanguis Sanies (talk) 03:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You talk about blood type A vs. blood type O, how he had the right blood type for the crime scene, but never say what this means, exactly. Res Mar 17:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments It's seemingly well-written, but there are several detail items needing attention.
 * "The murder ... was a homicide" You don't say.
 * You've used en dashes all over the place where hyphens should be used. I fixed one but you need to go through and fix all of them. Ex. "pre-1990", "22-year-old", "full-time" and so on. Please review WP:HYPHEN and WP:DASH.
 * Why is the name of the pub in italics all over the place? This and other items indicates this has not been carefully prepared with regard to WP:MOS.
 * It's somewhat overlinked. Please avoid linking simple definition items and common nouns. This needs some attention.
 * Great job, just needs some fit and finish. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  18:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Better? Thanks for the comments. Sanguis Sanies (talk) 03:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Support, all my issues have been addressed and I've combed through it again to do some fine-tuning. Thanks for all your hard work and for giving us the opportunity to read about this fascinating case. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  15:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose until the following are resolved: Change to support.
 * Overlinking British, part-time, barmaid, postmarked: any term that is obvious to an English reader (British), or does not add to the understanding of the article, should not be linked.
 * The beginning of a sentence cannot start with a number (240, £250,000)
 * Why is Southern Daily Echo in bold?
 * Is there a reason for this odd capitalization mid-sentence: located As of December 2009?
 * Again, this seems like a disruption in sentence punctuation: appeal being refused.[Appeal 20] "in 1998 an inquiry... 
 * Hodgsons is Britain’s longest Isn't his name Sean Hodgson?
 * While I appreciate the background of someone who apparently was a murderer, I am just as mystified why someone would inappropriately confess to a murder or 200 crimes he did not commit. What information is there on Hodgson's obviously very bad judgment to confess?
 * External link to Googlemaps for Copnor Bridge in the prose should be removed
 * Please make sure to follow logical quotations, per the MOS. I found at least three instances of punctuation in the quotations.

I found the amount of detail impressive, and the article led me to understanding an interesting case. But in places the writing seemed choppy and per the above examples, seemed as if the article had been ravaged by edits or vandalism, leaving sentences incomplete.

Let me know if you have questions. --Moni3 (talk) 00:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) "wikipedia is for everyone", just because the article is written in British English about a British murder using British sources does not mean that the article is "British", an American, Peruvian, Singaporian, or anyone else might not know what these terms mean; particularly "barmaid" and "postmarked" as they may not be a directly translatable word in their culture. Additionally each work is only linked once. 2) Since when? I can certainly change it, but I would like to know your reasoning. 3) fixed. 4) fixed. 5) changed the full stop to a colon. 6) fixed. 7) It's mentioned in the pull quote (and in the article) that Hodgson is a pathological liar (wikilinked in the pull quote); this is the reason that he confessed to all of the crimes. In prison it became apparent he was also schizophrenic and this may have had a bearing on his "obviously very bad judgement." 8) Fixed. 9) Fixed all that I could find (which I think was three), did I miss any? Sanguis Sanies (talk) 09:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * See WP:Overlinking. I agree with it. Actually, Wikipedia is not for everyone. Arbitration Committee exists to prove that. But the point here is that links should direct the reader to things that are strongly associated with the topic or that need further explanation. I would be dumbfounded to meet a reader of English proficient enough to comprehend the level of writing in this article who did not know what Britain was and thus required a link to figure it out. Consider this a whisper to keep you from winning this award.
 * See MOSNUM: Numbers that begin a sentence are spelled out, since using figures risks the period being read as a decimal point or abbreviation mark; it is often better to recast the sentence than to simply change format, which may produce other problems. Both sentences appear to be able to be reconstructed. I did not do it myself because I did not want to compromise accuracy in the article.
 * In my experience and observation, half the people on Wikipedia (let's broaden that to the Internet) are pathological liars, but they don't all confess to horrific murders much less 200 crimes they did not commit. Is there nothing really about Hodgon's background that would explain why he would make these confessions? Did he not realize he may be put in prison for life? What made him finally realize that prison was not an ideal place to spend his waning years? What was the impetus for him to consult an attorney to prove his innocence (i.e., what woke him up)? Schizophrenia does not explain these actions.
 * It may seem like these details are overly picky and if I came off as being a complete bitch I apologize, but FAs appear on the main page, and are examples of Wikipedia's finest work. The FA project has its detractors on Wikipedia and off, and the merest detail of atypical sentence structure, grammar or syntax blip causes a fresh round of criticism. Should your article appear on the main page you may get much harsher criticism on that day on the talk page than you ever get here. Better to catch it now than be caught in a vortex of bad-mannered anonymous commentary amid the regular storm of vandalism. Not that I'm cynical or anything... --Moni3 (talk) 13:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Point one and two should be taken care of.
 * Not to sound flippant but there is a massive difference between two 13-year-olds having an E-Peen contest and Pseudologia fantastica, so yes, a severe pathological liar will confess to murder - It's a mental illness akin to Münchausen syndrome. Additionally all the reliable sources (including the judge on the appeal) put it down to pathological lying. As for what "woke him up" the second paragraph of "appeals" covers this (briefly); essentially he always maintained his innocence (which to be fair: he was!) and always seemed to be contacting lawyers to take his case. Sanguis Sanies (talk) 05:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've changed to support with most of the issues resolved. I think there is more room to discuss Hodgson's background, but you have the sources, and even when FAs are promoted, they are never finished, so I'm suggesting, bordering on urging, you to see what you can add that might better explain why Hodgson the individual--as opposed to a pathological liar or a schizophrenic--might have confessed. Otherwise, I thought the article was well-written and explained the case and its implications admirably. Well done on the whole. --Moni3 (talk) 13:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose on image concerns: Simone's photo is a lesser concern than those of Hodgson's. Jappalang (talk) 03:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * File:Teresa de Simone.png: Although now we cannot obtain a "free" photo of her unless someone surrenders his or her copyright or licenses it out, I am not really sure if seeing the victim of this crime is significant (my tendency is that the perpetrator is of more significance here). Furthermore, I doubt her visage is representative of "DNA profiling" in British law history.
 * File:Sean Hodgson (old).jpg: Sean Hodgson is still alive, hence a free photo is still possible (per WP:NFCC 1).
 * File:Sean-Hodgson-L-celebrates-001.jpg: Again, Sean Hodgson is alive, and so is his brother Peter. The event was such publicised that many photographers (professional and amateur) are on hand to capture the moment.  Try asking the author of this and this photo if he or she is willing to release them under Creative Commons 3.0 (with or without Share-alike) license.

Comments Very interesting article. I'm willing to support, but there are some prose and logic issues to deal with (sorry!) Lead: and why are we using footnotes and citations here? I thought the lead didn't need them if you go over it in the body? I'd rather see you say, on First Appeal, ya-di dah, on Second Appeal, ya de da do...instead of actually citing.
 * What is a proven case of miscarriage of justice? Is miscarriage of justice a prosecutable crime in Britain?  Or is this the longest documented case? Or the longest successfully adjudicated case of the miscarriage of justice? What does longest mean? Most appeals? Most retrials (here in the US we get retrials, sometimes).  Longest over time?
 * Over the course of his 15-day trial it was revealed that Hodgson was a pathological liar and had confessed to numerous crimes, including crimes that he could not have committed and crimes that didn’t appear to have happened. Over the course of his 15-day trial, it was revealed? Is this like God and Moses and the 10 Commandments, it was revealed?  Or is this a lesser revelation.  Perhaps In the course of the 15-day trial, the defense(?) painted Hodgson as a path. liar who not only had confessed to more than 200 crimes, but who also had confessed to crimes that had not happened.
 * didn't? did not.

In March 2009, after serving 27 years in prison, Hodgson was exonerated and released when a DNA analysis of semen samples which had been preserved from the original crime scene showed that they could not have come from him.[2][Appeal 2]   There is too much in the sentence. In?, On appeal, DNA analysis of semen samples preserved from the original crime scene proved that Hodgson had not committed the rape. Exonerated, Hodgson was released in March 2009, after serving 27 years of his life sentence. As a result of Hodgson's appeal and the use of archived forensic evidence to solve the crime Operation Iceberg was created by the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) with the aim of using DNA evidence in pre-1990 rape or murder cases. Again, too much info in one sentence. The use of archived forensic evidence in Hodegson's successful appeal suggested the possibility of other miscarriages of justice. The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) created Operation iceberg to review use of DNA evidence in pre-1990 rape or murder cases.
 * This led?
 * The CCRC also wrote to the Director of Public Prosecutions requesting that the Crown Prosecution Service identify and review similar murder cases from the time before DNA testing was available. Too many steps. You can explain this later.   The CCRC also requested that the Crown Prosecution Service identify and review similar murder cases pre-dating DNA testing.  (automatic DNA testing?)
 * Lace, who was 17 at the time of the murder, confessed to police in 1983 that he had raped and killed de Simone but officers refused to believe him. He committed suicide in December 1988. Lace, who had been 17 at the time of the crimes, had already confessed to rape and murder of de Simone in 1983, but officers had refused to believe him.  Lace had committed suicide in December 1988.
 * On the evening of 4 December 1979, 22-year-old Teresa Elena de Simone had been working as a part-time barmaid in the Tom Tackle public house in Commercial Road, Southampton (now called The Encore public house) I'd move now called The Encore) to nearer to Tom Tackle (and Tom Tackle needs italics, like Encore has)
 * I would really like to see subsections in the murder section. A description of the victim, a description of the search, and then the discover. This might make it easier for you to keep like things together.  Just an idea.
 * As de Simone's movements for the entire evening previous to her death were known and documented, the semen could only have come from her assailant Hmmmm, if her movements were known, then don't they know who the assailant was?  I guess I'm not following the logic of this.  Looks instead like the police assumed that the semen could only have come from her assailant.

I have to run for the moment, but I'll get back to this later....Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Most of the above should be taken care of. The sentences have been broken up. The Murder section could be broken up (maybe Movements before the murder, Murder, Discovery and forensics or something similar. Most of the information on the murder would have been recorded in the newspapers of the day which occurred 31 years ago, The Times is making efforts to put it's old papers on the web but it will still take a long time (not mentioning all the newspapers that may have recorded the murder that might have gone under). Sanguis Sanies (talk) 23:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I do think breaking up the sections would make it more readable.
 * There are still readability/smooth prose issues. The cause of death was determined to be strangulation,[Appeal 5] and the presence of "white frothy mucous" in the victim's mouth led the pathologist to conclude that death had followed a "long, slow strangulation".[Appeal 5] The pattern of injury to the neck, and the absence of finger-mark bruising were consistent with ligature strangulation, possibly by clothing having been gripped and twisted against the neck. Also visible were "a series of multiple, roughly horizontal, linear, bruised abrasions on the front of the neck [which] matched the description of a [gold chain and crucifix] which the deceased had been said to be wearing that evening" indicating the possibility that this was used as the ligature[Appeal 5][10][14] and leading to the tabloid press dubbing the murderer the "Crucifix Killer".[15][16] The chain was not present when the body was discovered and has never been recovered.  The (Court/City/?) pathologist identified strangulation as the cause of death, and the presence of white frothy mucous in the victim's mouth led to the further conclusion that death had followed a "long, slow strangulation".  ....[gold chain and crucifix], which the deceased...  This led to the conclusion that the crucifix chain had been the murder weapon and to the tabloid press dubbing the murderer as the "Crucifix Killer".
 * Your description of the circumstances leading to the murder is choppy. Teresa de Simone, a 22 year old clerk at the XXX gas board, lived at home with her mother, name, and stepfather, name. To widen her social circle and help pay for a recently purchased vehicle, a Ford Escort, she had taken an evening job at the Tom Tackle Public House, on Commercial Road, Southampton. The pub, located centrally in the city, stood within 50 yards of etc. In the middle of the second paragraph, you start to talk about Savage's testimony, which seems out of place to me: I think stick to the description of the discovery.  The statement that Savage was the last witness to see de Simone before she was killed is misleading: wouldn't that make her the killer?
 * This text... "Savage testified that she drove into the covered parking area and that they sat chatting for a while before de Simone made the short walk to her car, at which point Savage reversed out and drove away from the scene.[9][11] Savage was the last witness to see de Simone before she was killed.[11] In a statement issued at the time, Detective Superintendent John Porter said: "It is 99% certain that the girl was murdered, attacked, chatted to or met by her killer in a matter of seconds after Jenni Savage left her. He could have been waiting, and seen Jenni leave. It is possible that he was actually sitting in Teresa's car, as we found the nearside [passenger] door unlocked."[9] ... actually belongs in the investigation section, not in the murder section. This is part of the picture that the police assembled.  Or at least put it after the Pathologist's assessment of when she died.  This was confirmed by Jenna Savage's statement, ya da.  The mother's discovery that her daughter had not returned home should come before what Jenna says.  Then all your "preliminaries": victim, discovery of the crime, collection of forensics, etc. is in a logical sequence.
 * Numbers <10 should be written out. Legal slang should be clarified (such as care order).  Jumper is a sweater?  A pullover? Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Article should be reorganised, Care order doesn't have a wikipedia or wikitionary page, a jumper is a sweater. Sanguis Sanies (talk) 04:06, 23 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.