Wikipedia:Featured article review/Jack the Ripper: The Final Solution/archive1


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

The article was kept by Joelr31 01:09, 14 March 2009.

Review commentary

 * Main editor aware
 * Notified WikiProject Crime and WikiProject Books.

Requested by numerous editors:.
 * Note Please state the specific FA criteria that are a concern or this FAR will be archived. Joelito (talk) 14:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The article is thoroughly unstable. Even its name and focus has changed considerably. It is essentially a different article from the one that was promoted to Featured status.--Cúchullain t/ c 00:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * During the review, if there is one, we can work on that issue by agreeing a stable version. DrKiernan (talk) 08:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * To do that we'd have to move the article back to its original location. One of the criteria of a Featured Article is that it is stable, which means it should not be moved to a new title without any discussion whatsoever. But that's only one of the issues; other editors listed above named other very serious problems with the article, notably that it is not well written or comprehensive. That's three very major strikes against the article.
 * It looks like you are clearly not done with the article. The best move will be to delist the article and allow you to keep working, then renominate it once it is stable and the other criteria are met.--Cúchullain t/ c 22:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm satisfied with the current version. DrKiernan (talk) 09:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Even still, it is essentially a different article than the one which was promoted. And it still leaves the matters of writing and comprehensiveness.--Cúchullain t/ c 12:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Where is the prose poor, and what is missing? DrKiernan (talk) 12:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I've expanded the notifications in the hope of involving more editors. DrKiernan (talk) 09:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Suggested FA criteria concern is stability. Joelito (talk) 15:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

If I understand the history correctly, the previous version of this article, the one that appeared as the featured article on the front page, was criticised for various things, including the fact that it did not adequately cover the scope proposed by its original title: "Jack the Ripper conspiracy theories". The article seems to have been significantly re-structured using the existing material to meet a reduced scope of focussing on a single book. In this new form it is stable, not having been edited since 26 Jan. As far as its quality goes, it seems fully ref'd, although I'm not in a position to judge the quality of the sources used. Writing and structure seem generally fine throughout. Given the early emphasis placed on the supposed anatomical knowledge of the Ripper, I think more needs to be made of this later on in the article: I assume this is why Gull is implicated? There's also a comment in the lead about the number of editions of the book that I can't see later on in the main text: it should be included in the main text and can probably be removed from the lead. I'm not too good on the MoS, but I can't see any problems there, so I'd say Keep. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 18:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the logic of some of the article. Even though it states that the evidence showed that the bodies were not moved (line15), this is not supported elsewhere in the major Wikipedia article on Jack the Ripper. It is noted that the bodies were probably strangled because of the lack of blood at the scene. This could lead to the conclusion that the bodies were moved after being strangled and subsequently cut up. The blood at the "new" crime scene would be from the evisceration and throat cutting there. Also, the narrow alley that would constrain a carriage would be of no consequence, either, because after the strangulation in the carriage, the body could be carried anywhere. Also, Gorman's recanting of his story could easily be explained by Knight's implication of Gorman's father. I am sure that a better analysis, at least more even-handed, can be done. And further insight could be revealed with current DNA tests of any evidence, whether of the kidney, other letters, or of Gorman himself. I'm sure you can see the major ramifications this could have. But, Scotland Yard's bungling of the chalk graffiti, the Directors vacation overseas, the police's arrival minutes late to the crime scene, the loss of the "From Hell" letter, the lack of current DNA analysis, the illogical conclusions, etc. are not stressed enough in the a fore mentioned article as adding to the conspiracy theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.191.152.205 (talk) 02:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Adding ridiculous bunkum to the article will not improve it. DrKiernan (talk) 07:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Close as keep. There are no substantive demote votes. DrKiernan (talk) (Primary author) 13:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Keep, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 03:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oopos, this is one of my promotions, so perhaps my declaration shouldn't count. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.