Wikipedia:Peer review/Charles Manson/archive3

Charles Manson
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate it for GA, but I don't feel it is ready yet. I mainly need a grammar and verification review. I hope I get a lot of comments!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thanks, Crowz  RSA  01:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Previous peer review

Finetooth comments: This is very good, well-written, broad in coverage, and perhaps comprehensive. The major difficulty, I think, is its heavy reliance on the Bugliosi book. I have no idea whether the prose of the article too closely mirrors that of Bugliosi in any particular spot, but please make sure that it doesn't. I made quite a few minor proofing changes (removing spaces from around em dashes and that sort of thing) as I went. Here are other suggestions for improvement.


 * The link checker at the top of this review page finds seven dead links in the citations.


 * I'd be inclined to crop the prisoner identification numbers from the Manson photo or, for that matter, any lead photo in a biography. I would just use the mug shot. You might replace the prison numbers with a caption saying something like "Mug shot, 1971". (The existing caption says 1969, but the license page says 1971; I'm not sure which is correct.)


 * File:Charles-mansonbookingphoto.jpg lists an image source on its description page but not a working link. Can you make the link clickable to make it easy for fact checkers to verify the image license?


 * File:Charlesmanson2009mug1.jpg is licensed as fair use, but if File:Charles-mansonbookingphoto.jpg is free under California law, why isn't this image free? Or is the license for the lead image incorrect?

First imprisonment
 * "subsequently given five years probation" - Maybe "five years' probation"?

Second imprisonment


 * "Manson received five years parole" - Maybe " a five-year parole"?

Manson Family
 * "According to a second-hand account, he overcame her resistance to his bringing other women in to live with them." - Slightly smoother might be: "According to a second-hand account, he overcame her resistance to inviting other women to live with them."

Involvement with Wilson, Melcher, et al.
 * Should the head be more telegraphic; e.g. "Involvement with celebrities"?
 * "The events that would culminate in the murders were set in motion in late spring 1968... " - I believe this is the first time that murder has been mentioned in the main text. Since the lead is to be a summary of the main text, the main text should not have to depend on the lead for important details. I'd add something like "that would culminate in the murders of X, Y, and Z were set in motion... ".


 * "of artist/lifestylist/philosopher" - Rather than using front slashes, it's usually more clear to use specific words. I think this means something like "artist and philosopher". I don't know what is meant by "lifestylist". Isn't everyone a lifestylist of some sort?

Spahn Ranch
 * To keep this section from looking and feeling choppy, I'd suggest merging the one-sentence orphan paragraph at the end with the paragraph above it. I'd also merge the first and second paragraphs by combining two sentences like this: "The entire Family then relocated to the ranch,[2]:250–253, which had been a television and movie set for Western productions. However, by the late 1960s, the buildings had deteriorated and the ranch was earning money primarily by selling horseback rides." Also, the claims about the movie set, the deterioration, and the horseback rides need a source or sources.

Tate Murders
 * "Watson replied, "I’m the devil, and I’m here to do the devil’s business." - Nothing should be linked from inside a direct quotation. In any case, I don't think you need to link "devil" since its meaning is so commonly known.


 * "... were convinced Atkins had stabbed Tate, he falsely testified that he did not stab her." + Shouldn't that be "she did not stab her" instead of "he did not stab her"?

LaBianca murders
 * I notice a bit of overlinking here and there. For example, there's no need to link Leno LaBianca, Leslie Van Houten, or Rosemary LaBianca more than once in this section.


 * "drew Watson there to discover Mrs. LaBianca" - Wikipedia articles don't use "Mrs.", "Mr.", "Ms." or "Miss". "Rosemary LaBianca" would be better. Ditto for another "Mrs." later in this section.

Trial
 * "See "Remaining in view", below." - I'd delete this because it's an imperative, an instruction to the reader, and I don't think it's necessary. Also, if a reader clicks the link, he or she may never bother to read the rest of the "Trial" section.


 * "credit cards so that the people, the establishment, would think it was some sort of an organized group" - "Establishment" should not be linked to from within the direct quotation, per WP:MOSQUOTE.

Remaining in view
 * "Grogan would become, in 1985, the first—and, as of 2009[update], the only—to be paroled." - This seems out-of-date since Fromme has also been paroled.

Recent developments
 * Since "recent" is vague and has a meaning that will change as time passes, it's usually better to use something specific. Perhaps "Developments since 1997" would do.


 * WP:MOSQUOTE deprecates fancy quotes and advises using blockquotes only for quotations of four lines or more. I'd suggest turning the short fancy quote into a normal quotation within the text.

Parole hearings
 * I think I'd paraphrase the quotation and merge the paragraphs to shorten this section a bit and make it less choppy.

References
 * Book entries should include place of publication as well as publisher. See citations 2 and 11, for example. If you don't have this information in your notes, you can usually find it via WorldCat. Ditto for book listings in the "Further reading" section.


 * The date formatting in the citations should be consistent. Citation 82 is out-of-sync.


 * Some of the citations are incomplete. See citation 97, for example. Citations to web sites should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, URL, and date of most recent access, if all of those are known or can be found.

Further reading
 * If these works are important, why not cite them in the main text?

External links
 * Newspaper and magazine names should appear in italics.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 22:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, I'll get to these soon. Crowz  RSA  19:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)