Wikipedia:Peer review/Chandra Levy/archive1

Chandra Levy
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because it underwent substantial expansion, notably with differing points of view that reached equilibrium prior to GA review. We are interested in the assistance of an objective third party editor to prepare the article for FA review.

Thanks, KimChee (talk) 01:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: An interesting is somewhat sad article, that probably needs a llittle more attention if it is to succeed at FAC. Here are some points


 * Thank you very much for the detailed comments. KimChee (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Disappearance and search
 * Some awkward close repetitions with "that same day", "the next day" and "the same day"
 * Should "Congressman" be capitalized? And shouldn't it be "US congressman"?
 * ✅. KimChee (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Could we be told what the Klingle Mansion is – museum, gallery, private house, etc?
 * ✅. KimChee (talk) 03:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a long gap, betweeen May 10 (search of Levy's apartment) and July 25 (search in Glover Avenue). What was happening meantime?
 * ✅. I am impressed you caught this important detail. The reason for the delay fits with events that set the tone for the rest of the article. KimChee (talk) 07:12, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Relationship with Condit
 * Two "ands" in the first sentence; sugggest rephrase
 * Word "claimed" overused in second paragraph. Possible synonyms: asserted, maintained, alleged
 * ✅. KimChee (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not clear who the flight attendant Ann Marie Smith is, or why she should be questioned during the investigation
 * ✅. Added information from another source that clarifies her effect on the investigation of Condit in the Levy case. KimChee (talk) 12:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Word missing? "...44 percent of American respondents thought that Condit [was] involved in Levy's disappearance..."
 * The next sentence should not begin "However...", since it doesn't counter the first; rather, it reinforces it. It is appropriate that the third sentence begins "However...", as this does present a contrast.
 * "The poll had a margin of error of three percentage points." Not worth including; all polls do, and the mrgin of error is not a relevant factor here (even ifit understood by readers)
 * Last sentence of section has nothing to do with the the section subject (relationship with Condit)
 * ✅. Moved to more appropriate section of the article. KimChee (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Discovery of remains
 * Area statistics for Rock Creek Park differ from those shown in the park's WP article [2,820.34 acres (11.4135 km2)]
 * ✅. Upon checking, the actual area of the park is 1,754 acres; the 2,820 acres include other parks within the local jurisdiction. KimChee (talk) 07:12, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Correct. We are discussing the portion of Rock Creek Park within Washington DC. However, I am uncertain that the police knew that Chandra Levy would have confined her jog to the DC border.  She was about a mile away from the MD line and if she had stayed on the road instead of taking the trials, she could have easily run into Maryland.  So I don't know which data is best for this article. Racepacket (talk) 22:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅. Moved to more appropriate section of the article. KimChee (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Discovery of remains
 * Area statistics for Rock Creek Park differ from those shown in the park's WP article [2,820.34 acres (11.4135 km2)]
 * ✅. Upon checking, the actual area of the park is 1,754 acres; the 2,820 acres include other parks within the local jurisdiction. KimChee (talk) 07:12, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Correct. We are discussing the portion of Rock Creek Park within Washington DC. However, I am uncertain that the police knew that Chandra Levy would have confined her jog to the DC border.  She was about a mile away from the MD line and if she had stayed on the road instead of taking the trials, she could have easily run into Maryland.  So I don't know which data is best for this article. Racepacket (talk) 22:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Arrest of suspected killer (retitled to "Identification of the prime suspect")
 * "Gaundique's former landlady stated that his face became scratched and bruised around the time of her disappearance." Should be "Levy's disappearance".
 * Ambox notice.png This sentence was rephrased because of other edits to this section (noted below), so this issue may no longer apply. KimChee (talk) 19:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "Guandique denied attacking Levy.[34] On November 28, the FBI administered a polygraph test, which the informant failed." Clumsy, needs rwodin, e.g. "Guandique denied attacking Levy.[34] On November 28, the FBI administered a polygraph test to the informant, which he failed."
 * ✅. KimChee (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Missing from the story is any reason for the change of mind and the decision in April 2009 to prosecute Guandique. What new evidence had come to light? There are further confusions: was Guandique still in prison when the decision to charge him was taken? Why did the court order a search of his cell?
 * ✅. Another excellent observation. I added sources and information pertaining to the assignment of new police investigators in 2006 and new reporters in 2007 that influenced the outcome of the case. KimChee (talk) 10:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What were these errors in processing evidence that led to a nine-month trial delay?
 * ✅. KimChee (talk) 00:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Trial of Guandique
 * We ought to know the trial charges. Presumably first-degree murder, but later there is reference to six charges, four of which were dropped. Then we have "two remaining charges of first degree murder." Was he being accused of another murder?
 * ✅. There were variations in the murder charges that involved kidnapping and robbery. All six counts from the grand jury indictment have been added to the previous section. KimChee (talk) 00:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "Prosecution witness Armando Morales, a fellow member of the Mara Salvatrucha gang..." Fellow-member with whom? And what is the relevance of mentioning the the gang membership?
 * ✅. Rephrased to clarify that Morales and Guandique were fellow gang members, which was relevant in establishing why Guandique would share confidential information to Morales. KimChee (talk) 03:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Is Morales the "informant" from the previous section? Either way, this needs to be clarified.
 * ✅. Rephrased to clarify that the first unidentified informant in the D.C. jail and Morales in the Kentucky penitentiary are two different informants. KimChee (talk) 03:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * At the end of the section I'm puzzled: was Guandique convicted on Morales' evidence and on the statements of the two attacked women, with no forensic evidence to link him to the Levy case?
 * Ambox notice.png Yes, your observation is correct. Though the end of the middle paragraph mentions that the defense argued what you brought up, I added a sourced comment about the conviction having been called a "miracle" for being reached through circumstantial evidence. KimChee (talk) 11:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Media coverage
 * "Following the September 11 attacks, media critics and the cable news executives themselves cited the Levy case, as well as the concurrent sensational coverage of a string of shark attacks, as being evidence of the media in action,[59] as well as illustrating the manner of U.S. news coverage immediately preceding a major attack on the country." I don't know what is meant here, especially the last part. How could the media know that a major attack on the country was about to happen? Unless the idea behind this sentemce can be expressed more plainly, I'd recommend dropping it.
 * ✅ along with other work during a subsequent peer review. KimChee (talk) 03:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "Undocumented immigrant". This is the first indication we have that Guandique was an illegal immigrant. This should have been mentioned earlier.
 * ✅. There had previously been some discussion of relevance versus political correctness with other editors, but I have placed this detail in the lead. KimChee (talk) 03:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "a tale of the tabloid and mainstream press pack journalism that helped derail the investigation." What, specifically, is this referring to? How did the press "derail" the investigation?
 * I hope it is clear, that the press was hounding Condit as their prime suspect, including staking out his apartment building 24/7. Racepacket (talk) 22:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Impact
 * "...a function which it gave up in 2009". Clarify what function it gave up.
 * ✅. This was rewritten to clarify that the organization was actually merged into another. KimChee (talk) 09:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * A story related to a 1997 disappearance cannot be said to be part of the impact of this case. In fact, I'm not sure that very much of the information given in the section can be described as "Impact" - possibly the founding of "Wings of Protection". Maybe a different title would be appropriate.

I hope these comments are helpful, and wish you success with the article If you have queries to raise with me, would you ping my talkpage as I am not able to watch peer reviews at present. Brianboulton (talk) 16:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)