Wikipedia:Peer review/2006 Duke University lacrosse case/archive1

2006 Duke University lacrosse case
Now that the case is closed and the dust has settled, it may be time to get some peer review on this year-long scandal. It got tons of coverage and now the initial district attorney in the case has been disbarred. Makes for interesting reading. Extensive references. Some peer review should get it to Good Article status in a jiffy. --SallyForth123 23:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Come on, folks. This is at least as important as the Virginia Tech massacre because it has to do with the proper execution of law. Feedback please.--SallyForth123 23:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments by Jude

 * Intro: The introduction should be longer for an article of this size, and should be "a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, and explaining why the subject is interesting or notable".(see WP:LEAD)


 * Timeline of Events:
 * I would suggest that the information be organized into main sections the events at the house, and the events afterwards, with subheadings as needed.
 * Why is it relevant that Mangum was "a single mother"?
 * In the sentance ".... and had already engaged in sexual intercourse..." get rid of the word "already"; it's unnecessary.
 * At the House section begins with "The house had recently been purchased by Duke University". Which house? The article doesn't explain what house, or why the players were there, or given any background information, except on Mangum.
 * "They contacted Allure and requested two white strippers..." Now is probably when you should mention the womens' races, rather than in the previous paragraph.
 * "Evans... was worried that the police would show up and cite him for another noise violation, and he told other players to leave his house." Cite him for another noise violation? The article never mentions a first one. Also, replace the first "and" with "to", and the second "and" with "so".
 * Minute-by-minute list of events: Not sure that it's really necessary; IMO it should be summarized in the article, not listed out.
 * DNA tests and Arrests and indictments:
 * might be better if they went under an "Investigation" section.
 * Credibility of the accuser:
 * The entire section is more or less an attack on Mangum's credibility. It violates WP:NPOV. Obviously, you have a point of view; otherwise you wouldn't be working on this article. But the article itself has to be neutral.
 * Whoa, I wrote none of that section. I just leave that stuff in to avoid fights. Call me a wimp.--SallyForth123 03:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I shouldn't have assumed that. If you plan to nominate the article for GA status, though, that section will have to be changed. --Jude. 14:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't have time to review the rest of the article in-depth right now. But general suggestions:
 * The response to the case definitely needs a lot more coverage. The focus should be on the effects of the case, and the signficance of it, not just on the events themselves.
 * The media coverage was factored out to its own article. See the "Reactions to the scandal".
 * The "Reactions to the scandal" article should be summarized in that section of the Duke Lacrosse Case.
 * The group of 88 is only mentioned in passing. Needs more coverage.
 * The response to the case by civil rights leaders is not mentioned at all.
 * Why is the "Developments in the case" section after "Aftermath".
 * See also: Presumption of Innocence is a POV push.


 * It's clear that a lot of work has been put into this article, but it still needs a lot of work on comprehensivity and neutral point of view. If you want me to review the rest of it in depth, I'll do that. Cheers, Jude. 00:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Other notes: The information about Mangum's history at the escort service, and her consumption of alcohol, drugs, etc. should probably be later in the article. It's relevant to the evidence from the rape kit, and to the fact that the guard at the supermarket thought she might be under the influence. When it starts the section, it's out of context, and shows bias.--Jude. 15:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Automated review
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question. You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 14:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
 * This article has no or few images. Please see if there are any free use images that fall under the Image use policy and fit under one of the Image copyright tags that can be uploaded. To upload images on Wikipedia, go to Special:Upload; to upload non-fair use images on the Wikimedia Commons, go to commons:special:upload.[?]
 * If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
 * There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
 * Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km2, and pounds -> lb.[?]
 * Per Wikipedia:Context and Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
 * Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Summary style.[?]
 * This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.[?]
 * There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
 * allege
 * might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
 * Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
 * Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “ All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
 * Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]