Wikipedia:Peer review/Jack the Ripper royal conspiracy theories/archive1

Jack the Ripper royal conspiracy theories

 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for June 2008.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for June 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed. Queen Victoria was Jack the Ripper. Or was she? Read this article to find out. DrKiernan (talk) 09:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments:

General: The article appears to be primarily about two distinct sets of royal conspiracy theories: those of Stowell, and those of Stephen Knight. The structure of the article, and the titles of the main sections, should reflect this. Also:-
 * Lead
 * I believe that WP:MOS is breached in the matters of the first sentence and delayed mention of the article title. See WP:MOS. There is no reason why the article should not begin: "Jack the Ripper royal conspiracy theories arose from the grisly series of murders…" etc, or some such wording.
 * Why italics for some names in first lead para?
 * Prince Albert as suspect: I found this section somewhat disorganised. It really has three sub-elements; Stowell’s case against Albert Victor, the refutation, and some associated theories. I would subdivide the section accordingly. I would also reconsider the bullet-point format of the refutation subsection. Some points of detail:-
 * CBE seems unnecessary after Stowell's name
 * The Criminologist should be explained - what sort of magazine is it, etc
 * How did Stowell "clearly present" Albert Victor as Jack the Ripper without naming him?
 * We need to be clear (second para) that we are talking about claims, not fact. I suggest a combination of sentences: "…driven Albert Victor insane, and that in this state he…".  Also: "Following the murders of 30 September 1888, Stowell claimed…"
 * Perhaps: “Stowell stated that his source….”, to avoid repetitions of “claimed”
 * Comma required after "Jullian’s source" (I’m not going to list all possible comma infractions, but a thorough check is desirable).
 * "However, Stowell’s claims are untrue" sounds POV. Should be reworded: "However, Stowell’s claims have been shown to be untrue", or similar
 * "visiting country houses on private visits" is clumsy
 * "alibi" is a loaded word, which always carries some connotation of possible guilt. Is it possible to describe Albert Victor’s proof of innocence in another way? (In fact, the "solid alibi" sentence could be omitted altogether).
 * Suggest: "or was hundreds of miles from London"
 * Why not give title of Harrison’s biography of Albert Victor?
 * Prince Albert Victor’s indiscretions: I don’t really understand this title. The section is about a second royal conspiracy theory, a more detailed alternative to Stowells, which is recounted and rebutted at enormous length. The section title should certainly be reconsidered, as should the extent of detail, and again the bullet-point format. Also, in para 3, referring to Walter Sickert as “Walter” makes him seem like a friend of the family.

In short, the article is good on information, but somewhat muddled in structure and in titling, and could probably do with some more images.

Brianboulton (talk) 11:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a look at the article. When I re-wrote the lead, I tried to force in "Jack the Ripper royal conspiracy theories", and I see now that the phrase is unnatural and clumsy. I prefer to leave it out per "If the topic of an article has no name and the title is merely descriptive...the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text." DrKiernan (talk) 08:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Since I reviewed the PAV article, I looked at this too. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 17:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I would mention in the lead that the theories did not come to light until the early 1960s, many decades after PAV's death.
 * The play about his involvement in the murders and PJ Farmer's Gods of Riverworld are not mentioned in the Prince's article.
 * The bullet points for the rebuttal are OK, but I think the points would work as well as paragraphs (combining Annie Crook was not Catholic with the next paragraph)
 * The critical reviews of the movies are oddly referenced - they appear to be from the books, but I think they should still say XYZ's review in the ABC newspaper, cited in this book
 * I also note that refs are supposed to be in numerical order, so [1][2][3], not [1][3][2]. Other