Wikipedia:Peer review/Leo Frank/archive1

Leo Frank
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I have done significant amounts of research into the Leo Frank case and while he is not particularly well known, his murder trial led to the formation of the Anti-Defamation League and the revival of the Ku Klux Klan in the 1910s.

This article is currently B-class and I want to get a picture of what it needs for GA quality. In particular, I want to make sure that the citations are both sufficient and consistent in their format. Any other content or general advice is also welcome.

Thanks, Tonystewart14 (talk) 04:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments from OP
I have a few specific questions and observations I've thought of since creating this peer review request. Any feedback on these points, or on the article in general, is much appreciated.
 * For one, there are many book citations that are repetitive (for instance, "Oney, 2003" is cited a few dozen times) and I believe it might be better to just mention each book once and then use Template:Rp for the rest of them.
 * The References and Further Reading sections are also quite lengthy, although this may be good for those who want to see the full repertoire of information on the case.
 * I uploaded his signature that I traced and I made the background transparent. I wanted to make sure it looked good and that it being a PNG, as opposed to a SVG, is okay.
 * In 3.2 (Trial), a quote is mentioned and the citation has a better source needed tag. Some websites also state this fact, but it may be sourced from the book that this citation refers to. The book refers to an unnamed person who was supposedly from the area, but was anonymous and difficult to verify. I'd like to know if the latter half of this sentence (as crowds outside the courtroom chanted "Hang the Jew!") could simply be removed.
 * In 4.1 (Knights of Mary Phagan) a list is present of participants in Frank's lynching. There are 28 names listed, and this list is partially one column and partially two columns. Perhaps this could be shortened to say that there were 28 men listed in Phagan-Kean's list and included a former governor, sheriffs, etc. Tonystewart14 (talk) 03:27, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments
A few comments to kick off the review:
 * Lead - several small issues


 * Ref 3 is unformatted – but why is it necessary to have this citation in the lead? The terms of Frank's pardon are fully covered and referenced in the main body of the article
 * Same issue with refs 4, 5, 6 and 7. As leads are supposed to be broad overviews of the article's main text, it is generally accepted practice not to cite within the lead except in particular circumstances, e.g. a verbatim quote. The citations should be in the main text.
 * mdashes should not be surrounded by spaces
 * "A crowd of 1,200 marched on his home in protest" – clarify that you mean the judge's home
 * "were well-known locally" – in this usage it's two unhyphenated words: "well known"
 * Background


 * There's a lot of uncited information here: the whole of the first para and most of the second para of the "Leo Frank" subsection; the first part of the Mary Phagan paragraph. All this information needs to be sourced.
 * Too much irrelevant or barely relevant detail, e.g. birth and death dates of Frank's parents, likewise Louise Selig's dates. I'd also give Mary Phagan's age rather then the unnecessary dates. Also, we don't need quite so much information to make the point that Mary was a low-paid worker.
 * In the UK at least, the term "industialist" implies ownership or part-ownership of a large industrial organisation. It would not be applied to a salaried manager – maybe US practice is different.
 * The Mary Phagan image needs source information that demonstrates that this is indeed Mary Phagan, and that the image was published before 1923. It can't be assumed that an image has been published, without details of the newspaper or other publication in which it appears.
 * Discovery of the body


 * Wikipedia style section headings require elimination of "the"
 * The murder note image needs a source, and details of its pre-1923 publication. It is not enough to assert publication without details
 * "was torn off" → "had been torn off"
 * "Initially, there was an appearance of rape." I don't quite understand this wording. Does it mean that rape was later discounted? If not, why "initially"?
 * "An undisturbed fresh mound..." etc: This sentence tantalises the reader. You should either briefly explain the significance of this information at this point, or leave mentioning it until later in the article.
 * Police investigation


 * The information in this section is somewhat confusingly presented. For example, I imagine that the purpose of the first two sentences is to highlight Frank's inconsistency, but this is not made explicit
 * "Gradually they became convinced that they were not the culprits" – what led the police to this conclusion?
 * After this point, little or none of the information can properly be described as coming under "Police investigation". A lot of it is concerned with press reports. I suggest you amend the title to something more apposite, e.g. "Imvestigation and reporting"

To be continued Brianboulton (talk) 17:26, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

"Hang the Jew" citation

 * Tonystewart14 mentioned this matter in his remarks, above. I thought it best to include this exchange (from my Talk page) to expand the discussion. Gulbenk (talk) 19:51, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Is there not any book other than Dinnerstein or any non-Dinnerstein derivative source that has that quote in it? I'd imagine one of the other major writers would have mentioned it. I didn't see it in Oney from a brief glance, but I would think that another source exists.

By the way, I requested a peer review of the Leo Frank article, so hopefully we can get some good feedback! I fixed some other references, so I think it's pretty close to GA quality. Tonystewart14 (talk) 14:56, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It's an interesting question. I have not found a pre-Dinnerstein source for this statement (other than the one Dinnerstein himself uses, which is highly suspect). Nothing in the contemporary Atlanta newspapers. That is not to say that one doesn't exist...somewhere. So the tag is one way of asking editors to look for one. So far, all I've found are sources quoting (or misquoting) Dinnerstein. Gulbenk (talk) 19:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Working on it
Thanks Gulbenk for posting this here. I changed the header to level 4 instead of level 2 per the specifications at the top of this page (commented out). The question above is about citation #60 and whether or not it's reliable. I posted above that it might be better to just omit that sentence altogether, so I wanted to get an opinion on that.

I'm also working on addressing the comments that Brian has made so far, and will publish them here once his review is finished. Tonystewart14 (talk) 20:26, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Tonystewart14's response to Brianboulton's 1st part of review
Here's a response to each of Brian's points. I'm still looking for a few sources (see the first point under Background), but everything else is covered. I also updated the Leo Frank page with these improvements.
 * Miscellaneous (not mentioned by Brian but improvements I noticed should be made)


 * Change "moved his bowels" to "defecated" as Wikipedia discourages euphemisms.
 * Letter 'j' in "Grand jury" heading lowercase per Wikipedia guidelines.
 * Lead - several small issues


 * Ref 3 is unformatted – but why is it necessary to have this citation in the lead? The terms of Frank's pardon are fully covered and referenced in the main body of the article
 * I went ahead and took this out.
 * Same issue with refs 4, 5, 6 and 7. As leads are supposed to be broad overviews of the article's main text, it is generally accepted practice not to cite within the lead except in particular circumstances, e.g. a verbatim quote. The citations should be in the main text.
 * I moved these four elsewhere and deleted 1-3 as the information was available in other citations.
 * mdashes should not be surrounded by spaces
 * There is only one mdash in the article, which does not have space around it. Do you mean ndashes as well? (Note 'n' and 'm')
 * "A crowd of 1,200 marched on his home in protest" – clarify that you mean the judge's home
 * I changed "his home" to "Slaton's home" (this is actually the Governor of Georgia)
 * "were well-known locally" – in this usage it's two unhyphenated words: "well known"
 * Fixed all three instances of this (all three had the word "locally" following the phrase)
 * Background


 * There's a lot of uncited information here: the whole of the first para and most of the second para of the "Leo Frank" subsection; the first part of the Mary Phagan paragraph. All this information needs to be sourced.
 * I've added several citations here, but am still looking for the following:
 * Frank, 1st PP: The books I have say he moved a "few months" after birth, not three months specifically.
 * Frank, 2nd PP: I couldn't find a source for his interview in "late October 1907" and becoming superintendent in September 1908. Also, I changed the citation for August 1908 to a secondary source.
 * Phagan: I can't find a source saying that the paper plant was owned by Sigmund Montag.
 * There was also a comment in the Mary Phagan section that asked, "East Point is a city; does this refer to Marietta?--East Point is on the other side of Atlanta from Marietta". According to Phagan p. 12, she says "East Point&mdash;Atlanta&mdash;Georgia", suggesting that East Point was for all intents and purposes Atlanta.
 * Too much irrelevant or barely relevant detail, e.g. birth and death dates of Frank's parents, likewise Louise Selig's dates. I'd also give Mary Phagan's age rather then the unnecessary dates. Also, we don't need quite so much information to make the point that Mary was a low-paid worker.
 * I took out the dates for Frank's parents and Selig. I left it in for Phagan since she is a main figure and to clear any ambiguity in her birth date (her gravestone says she was born in 1900, not 1899). However, I did omit some of the content
 * In the UK at least, the term "industialist" implies ownership or part-ownership of a large industrial organisation. It would not be applied to a salaried manager – maybe US practice is different.
 * The Alphin, Frey and Oney books use this word, although the respective Wiki article and dictionary definitions don't quite fit. What Alphin meant, as she explains in the paragraph where the word is used, was that farmers and other rural workers struggled due to Reconstruction and had to move into the cities. As a result of the high labor supply, wages were extremely low and Frank's wealth was looked down upon by many in the city. I'll leave this word in to describe the Selig family (Frank's spouse), but I'll replace the other two instances.
 * The Mary Phagan image needs source information that demonstrates that this is indeed Mary Phagan, and that the image was published before 1923. It can't be assumed that an image has been published, without details of the newspaper or other publication in which it appears.
 * A very similar image can be found on page 3 of the Atlanta Georgian newspaper (note that it is a large file): http://www.leomfrank.org/library/newspapers/atlanta-georgian-1913-04-28-to-1913-05-08-full-pages.pdf
 * Discovery of the body


 * Wikipedia style section headings require elimination of "the"
 * I took "the" out and left it otherwise the same, although it could be modified if another phrase makes more sense.
 * The murder note image needs a source, and details of its pre-1923 publication. It is not enough to assert publication without details
 * This was published in Henry A. Alexander's "Some Facts About the Murder in the Phagan Case", linked below. According to Dinnerstein's note #4 for Chapter 1 (p. 179), this was a privately published pamphlet from 1914. http://www.leomfrank.org/library/trial/some-facts-about-the-murder-in-the-phagan-case.pdf
 * "was torn off" → "had been torn off"
 * Fixed.
 * "Initially, there was an appearance of rape." I don't quite understand this wording. Does it mean that rape was later discounted? If not, why "initially"?
 * Here are two paragraphs from Oney p. 19-20 (excuse the graphic details):
 * While examining the girl's legs, Anderson noticed that the belts attaching corset to garters were unfastened and that her underpants had been ripped up the crotch. Sergeant Brown, in language that would prove too graphic for the newspapers, subsequently described what the men saw: "By raising the skirt a bit, you could see in between the mouth of the vagina, close to the privates, and it had blood on it and blood on the drawers...It would flow on its own accord...You could see it run from her stomach, this blood coming from her privates."
 * To everyone clustered around the corpse, the significance of the crimson discharge was self-evident. The girl, in the euphemistic terminology of the age, has been "outraged" or "criminally assaulted." And this is how it would initially be reported, yet the last word on the subject of whether she had been raped&mdash;whether she had, in fact, been mutilated&mdash;would not be uttered for a long time, if ever.
 * That's where the "initially" comes from. This could be reworded, as it is apparent (unfortunately) that she was raped based on the aforementioned text.
 * "An undisturbed fresh mound..." etc: This sentence tantalises the reader. You should either briefly explain the significance of this information at this point, or leave mentioning it until later in the article.
 * I took this line out, as this is explained in the second paragraph of "Commutation of sentence".
 * Police investigation

Tonystewart14 (talk) 20:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The information in this section is somewhat confusingly presented. For example, I imagine that the purpose of the first two sentences is to highlight Frank's inconsistency, but this is not made explicit
 * Perhaps this paragraph could be reworded. I added citations to this paragraph and split the latter half about the press reports into a separate paragraph.
 * "Gradually they became convinced that they were not the culprits" – what led the police to this conclusion?
 * For the young friend of Phagan's (Arthur Mullinax), he was simply a victim of mistaken identity (Oney 61). Lee was interrogated extensively by detectives, but eventually became convinced that he was not guilty of the crime (Oney 70).
 * After this point, little or none of the information can properly be described as coming under "Police investigation". A lot of it is concerned with press reports. I suggest you amend the title to something more apposite, e.g. "Imvestigation and reporting"
 * I changed it to that title and separated the paragraphs for investigation and reporting, respectively.

Gulbenk response, part 1
I would not agree that it is apparent that Mary Phagan was raped. The euphemism "outraged" may actually be appropriate in this case. She may have been mutilated. Frank was said to be incapable of normal sex. Dorsey had evidence that he performed cunnilingus on prostitutes. Or Conley may have violated the corpse, post mortem, in a scenario where Frank is the murderer and Conley is the opportunist. In either case, the charge of rape was never made or (I believe) asserted at trial. Gulbenk (talk) 12:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Gulbenk response, part 2
I would also disagree with the removal of language related to the low wages and demographics of the pencil factory workers, and deletion of the notation that "northern industrialists" were held in low regard. Those short sentences provide some basis for the latent anger which still gripped the post-war South, and was expressed by Populist Party candidates like Tom Watson, in the years leading up to the murder and trial. This information provides some foundation for understanding the passion of the crowd, and explains Lindemann's statement that "the powerless experienced a moment of exhilaration in seeing the defeat and humiliation of a normally powerful and inaccessible oppressor". Gulbenk (talk) 12:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Tonystewart14 note
Thanks Gulbenk for your opinions, I'll take that into consideration. Brian, if you have any further opinion, feel free to share that as well (since it's good to also hear from someone who might not know much about the case specifically). Once we hear from Brian, we can decide whether to restore or otherwise change some of the text. I also made the two comments above as section 5 headings for better organization. Tonystewart14 (talk) 17:19, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Otr500 comments

 * This is my first "review" (2nd read of the article) so I trust that will be taken into account. I actually read the article for general readability and not so much for things like punctuation's and such, as I am sure that will be covered. I would just like to throw in that in "the U.S." the term industrialist has pretty much the same meaning as apparently does the UK so I would defer to "if" this term is used in the source.
 * First, WOW!! @ Gulbenk, I think that is a spot on observation for inclusion of what "might" be seen as trivial. In that context it does provide incite (I will not offer that it is reasoning) as to how media can "stir up things" such as emotions of fear, anger, and the like that has resulted in such "mob" actions in recent years. Second, @ Tonystewart14, good luck as I think this articles deserves a review and hopefully nomination. My reasoning is that this person and subject was, and is, controversial at best so if it can be covered to deserve GA status I think that would be great.
 * I agree with the comments I have thus read concerning needed improvements. Concerning the "Hang the Jew" content/citation and that apparently was only found in one reference, I will side on the facts. Reliability for inclusion is required. This "Dinnerstein, Leonard" (Dinnerstein) accounts for close to 10% of the references so I will boldly assume that reliability has not been an issue. "IF" this is so then I am not aware of a need to find corroboration just to prove that the otherwise reliable reference is truthful, not biased, or otherwise questioned. "IF" it is left out because of a lack of corroborating references, it seems we would be calling into questions of reliability, and either the source is reliable or not.
 * I did observe a couple of things in that prior to the "Lynching" section the article is very uniform.


 * 1)- From that point to include the list of names, that seem to me could be better presented (the layout of columns), with less space between them and,
 * 2)- There is a section about "Lynching" and content, then a sub-section "Hanging" that is actually more about events leading up to, and including, the lynching. Since both words means the same result with one being "legal" and the other mob related, I think this can be better presented with either a different naming (of hanging) or leaving it out.
 * 3)- I wonder if such a very long "Further reading" section is warranted? Does someone have an opinion as to when a lot is a good thing or too much?
 * 4)- I looked over (or tried to) the references (per "I want to make sure that the citations are both sufficient and consistent"), specifically on Dinnerstein (First instance of use concerning p. 5) and the notes. I am not up on all the uses of "References" then a "Notes" section that I assume is to agree or explain (or something), as from a general reading and none-expert point of view (mine), it is more confusing. That, however, is not the issue here (just my dislike of use) but;
 * I stopped short. The 3rd reference, first instance of use of Dinnerstein (p. 5), can not be crossed to the notes as listed;


 * Dinnerstein, Leonard. The Leo Frank Case. University of Georgia Press, 1987.
 * Dinnerstein, Leonard. "The Fate of Leo Frank", American Heritage, October 1996, Vol. 47, Issue 6
 * Dinnerstein, Leonard. "Leo Frank Case", New Georgia Encyclopedia. University of Georgia, August 3, 2009.
 * Did I just miss something or would I need to check all three references to figure out "which is which to go with what" as a title seems to be missing or some link to the specific note. That is the only one I looked at so I would observe that "if" my concerns are valid (as opposed to a lack of understanding) I think the use of "References" and the "Notes", to which I assume they correspond, should be reviewed for accuracy of continuity. Otr500 (talk) 22:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Tonystewart14 response
Thanks Otr500 for the review. I didn't think this peer review would get any attention besides Brian and the usual Leo Frank editors, so it's nice of you to chime in. I'll go through most of your comments below with my thoughts. I also updated the page with some of them already implemented.

I would just like to throw in that in "the U.S." the term industrialist has pretty much the same meaning as apparently does the UK so I would defer to "if" this term is used in the source.
 * I agree with you and Brian that the term might not be the most accurate, but it is used by three different authors. Currently, I took it out in reference to Frank, but left one instance in which it refers to his wife's family, in which they were in fact industrialists since they owned factories.

@ Tonystewart14, good luck as I think this articles deserves a review and hopefully nomination. My reasoning is that this person and subject was, and is, controversial at best so if it can be covered to deserve GA status I think that would be great.
 * Thanks. It might be interesting to note that the 100 year anniversary of his lynching is 17 August 2015, so my ultimate goal is to have it be Today's Featured Article on that day. I might do a GA nomination and then FA, but will likely solicit feedback on this once the peer review is closed.

Concerning the "Hang the Jew" content/citation and that apparently was only found in one reference, I will side on the facts. Reliability for inclusion is required. This "Dinnerstein, Leonard" (Dinnerstein) accounts for close to 10% of the references so I will boldly assume that reliability has not been an issue. "IF" this is so then I am not aware of a need to find corroboration just to prove that the otherwise reliable reference is truthful, not biased, or otherwise questioned. "IF" it is left out because of a lack of corroborating references, it seems we would be calling into questions of reliability, and either the source is reliable or not.
 * The Dinnerstein book is reliable overall (it's a 2nd edition of a Ph.D. dissertation), but this specific quote is from an anonymous source. Based on what you said, the book's reliability should be enough, although it might be nice to find a second source. I have access to the Atlanta newspapers from the time, so perhaps I could rummage through them.

1)- From that point to include the list of names, that seem to me could be better presented (the layout of columns), with less space between them
 * I mentioned this when I added some points to my initial peer review request. This could probably just be removed, but I wanted to get feedback to make sure this was okay.

2)- There is a section about "Lynching" and content, then a sub-section "Hanging" that is actually more about events leading up to, and including, the lynching. Since both words means the same result with one being "legal" and the other mob related, I think this can be better presented with either a different naming (of hanging) or leaving it out.
 * I changed this to "Kidnapping from prison" and "Lynching". The latter might be repetitive, but this at least fixes what you said.

3)- I wonder if such a very long "Further reading" section is warranted? Does someone have an opinion as to when a lot is a good thing or too much?
 * I mentioned this after the initial peer review request like #1. I've seen some featured articles like this, but it is in fact lengthy.

4)- I looked over (or tried to) the references (per "I want to make sure that the citations are both sufficient and consistent"), specifically on Dinnerstein (First instance of use concerning p. 5) and the notes. I am not up on all the uses of "References" then a "Notes" section that I assume is to agree or explain (or something), as from a general reading and none-expert point of view (mine), it is more confusing. That, however, is not the issue here (just my dislike of use) but; I stopped short. The 3rd reference, first instance of use of Dinnerstein (p. 5), can not be crossed to the notes as listed;

Dinnerstein, Leonard. The Leo Frank Case. University of Georgia Press, 1987. Dinnerstein, Leonard. "The Fate of Leo Frank", American Heritage, October 1996, Vol. 47, Issue 6 Dinnerstein, Leonard. "Leo Frank Case", New Georgia Encyclopedia. University of Georgia, August 3, 2009.

Did I just miss something or would I need to check all three references to figure out "which is which to go with what" as a title seems to be missing or some link to the specific note. That is the only one I looked at so I would observe that "if" my concerns are valid (as opposed to a lack of understanding) I think the use of "References" and the "Notes", to which I assume they correspond, should be reviewed for accuracy of continuity.
 * I added years for this and Oney, and added full stops (periods) at the end of each citation that lacked them.

One more note: For the lead, I linked to Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles and put a link to the US House for "U.S. Representative" to make this clear.Tonystewart14 (talk) 05:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Gulbenk response, part 3
If you are still uncertain about the use of the word "industrialist", might you consider "capitalist" instead? The two terms may have been applied interchangeably, by some, to describe Frank. But is was Frank's uncle, the one who owned the pencil factory, who was actually the industrialist. Watson referred to Frank and others of his class as capitalists, usually "northern capitalists". He used the term as a pejorative, to label those who exploited the poor for their labor. In 1913 tabloid language, there doesn't seem to be a lot of other labels used to describe the management/profit-sharing arrangement Frank had at the pencil factory.Gulbenk (talk) 00:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This might work, as it's used in the lead: "Raised in New York, he was cast as a representative of Yankee capitalism, a rich northern Jew lording it over vulnerable working women, as the historian Albert Lindemann put it." Brianboulton should be weighing in with some more comments soon, so he might be able to address it then. Tonystewart14 (talk) 23:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think "representative of Yankee capitalism" is as good a way as any of describing the perception of Frank's position. He wasn't himself either an "industrialist" or "capitalist", but was associated with that class. I am sorry to have been so dilatory in returning to the review, but I have much going on at present. I am keeping an eye on this, however, and am pleased that a number of reviewers are helping to improve the article. I will complete snother read-through shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 16:19, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Brian. I edited the relevant line to read "Although Frank was happy, he was not popular, as he was seen as a representative of Yankee capitalism." I look forward to reading your second part of the review.Tonystewart14 (talk) 01:44, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Mary Phagan birth/death dates
The current citation for Mary Phagan's birth and death year is from Find a Grave, which anyone can edit (similar to Wikipedia) and I'm not sure if it's considered a reliable source, although it contains the birth and death at the top of the page. I added Frey p. 4-6 as a second source, but had this reverted by another user since that person claimed the death date was incorrect. While p. 6 does start by saying that Phagan was born in 1900, which is incorrect, it goes on to say that "at least that is the death that appears on the girl's tombstone" and that her mother stated she was born in 1899, which is accepted in all major texts regarding the Frank case. I'd like to know if one or the other (or both) should be cited for this fact. Perhaps there's even another source that's better than these two, although I didn't see the birth and death dates together on any one page of a book. It might be worth noting that Brianboulton suggested taking out the birth and death dates earlier in this peer review, and while I did so for Frank's parents and Lucille Selig, I felt like Phagan should have her full birth and death dates listed as she was the murder victim and thus a major character in the article. Tonystewart14 (talk) 18:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree that Find a Grave is not the best source. But it is probably unwise to leave off the birth/death dates of Phagan, since she is central to the article. Lindemann states (p.240 The Jew Accused) that she was fourteen years old at the time of her murder. That calculation would use the 1899 date. I have also seen 1899 cited in several University of Georgia publications. I have not seen a clear image of the headstone, with the 1900 date. I understand that it was purchased by Tom Watson, who may have relied on someone other than Mary Phagan's mother for that date. If the date issue does not come down overwhelmingly on one side or the other (both using reliable sources) then the one cited most ofter should probably be used, with a notation in the footnotes about the conflict. Gulbenk (talk) 22:04, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You should certainly not rely on Find-a-Grave when dates are disputed. The fact that there is disagreement over these dates rather strengthens my view that exact dates should be omitted. Rather than plump for one version or another it would be better to omit them from the text while adding a note explaining that the dates are disputed among the sources, although there is general agreement that she was 13 years old at the time of her death. Brianboulton (talk) 16:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Additional review comments from Brianboulton
I have read through the rest of the article following my earlier review of the opening sections. I've had to do this fairly quickly, so my comments are not as detailed as I would have liked, but here they are: Section needs considerable rewriting and reorganisation. There is no date information whatever, so we've no idea when these events were occuring within the timeframe of the investigation. It's just a jumble of claims and assertions, the relevance of which is not always obvious. When did Lee make the reported claim, and what is the significance of the "eight minutes"? The statement that "The police appeared to intimidate and influence witnesses" reads like editorial interpretation. A few points: by "the real murderer" I presume you mean "the murderer". Why was Conley held in custody for two weeks, after the no traces of blood were found on his shirt? On a more general point, this is an encyclopedia article, not a newspaper report; thus, verbatim remarks such as "White folks, I'm a liar" are inappropriate. Likewise, "For the next three days, two detectives played good cop/bad cop with Conley, one accusing him of the murder, the other offering him food and consolation" is unnecessary detail. I also see no value in the information that "On May 28, the Georgian said that E.F. Holloway, the plant day watchman, believed Conley had strangled Phagan when he was drunk." – a newspaper account of an individual's private opinion. "The police were satisfied with the new story" doesn't seem consistent with their later re-interviewing him for four hours, and extracting yet another affidavit. Why did the Georgian hire a lawyer for Conley? Chronology is sometimes confusing, e.g. in the "Grand Jury" section you report comments made at the later criminal trial. You should wikilink the term "grand jury" at first mention. The account of the trial makes good reading, but you need to modify the wording "...as crowds outside the courtroom chanted "Hang the Jew!". I suggest someting like "On August 25, Frank was convicted of murder; according to one eyewitness there were chants of 'Hang the Jew!' from the crowd outside the coutroom". This accords with the source – I don't think the "better source" tag is necessary if you adopt this wording. In the "Commutation" section you should not use caps for "reasonable doubt". I feel in this section, particularly in the fourth paragraph, there is overuse of direct quotation and that paraphrasing could be used. Steve Oney is mentioned here, with no indication of who he was or is (I see he is later described as a "Frank scholar" – can there be such a thing?). I am curious to know why "officials" thought Frank would be more secure in a minimum-security facility (we later learn that his throat was slashed by another inmate) The phrase "new heights of ferocity" is not neutral encyclopedic language. The list of names is intrusive – mention the few notable ones in the text, and cut out the rest. Can you say by what means the body was transported from Georgia to New York for burial? None of the lynchers were identified? Did nobody bother to look at the photographs? "a controversial trial" → "the controversial trial". What are "charter members"? By "carrying Phagan's body at the lobby" do you mean "through the lobby"? More precise dating is required in the paragraph dealing with the pardon application: when did the attempt take place? "It denied the pardon in 1983" is imprecise – does not the source give better information? You should get rid of all the fictional stuff in the "See also" section. A line in the text, stating that the case has been the subject of film and television dramatisations, mentioning titles and years, would be sufficient.
 * Suspicion falls on Frank
 * James "Jim" Conley
 * Hearings, sentencing, and clemency
 * Lynching
 * Aftermath
 * General

Sorry to have been so long in delivering these. Brianboulton (talk) 16:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Brian for your review. I'll look at these and implement them soon. In addition to the single quote removal that I mentioned on your talk page, I'll also restore 'prosecution' to 'prosecutor' since the next sentence starts with "He said". Tonystewart14 (talk) 18:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Tonystewart14 response
Thanks Brian for your review. I've gone point-by-point through the second part of your review below. I added two dots to points that I wasn't sure about. I'm also going through and adding sources to statements that aren't properly cited, and changing citations that are primary sources (when a secondary is available) and inaccurate citations to more appropriate ones.

Suspicion falls on Frank

Section needs considerable rewriting and reorganisation. There is no date information whatever, so we've no idea when these events were occuring within the timeframe of the investigation. It's just a jumble of claims and assertions, the relevance of which is not always obvious. When did Lee make the reported claim, and what is the significance of the "eight minutes"? The statement that "The police appeared to intimidate and influence witnesses" reads like editorial interpretation.
 * This all happened the morning after the murder, which is why it's not specifically spelled out. It could be more specific if needed.
 * This part clarifies the next sentence, explaining why two women recanted statements made to the police.

James "Jim" Conley

A few points: by "the real murderer" I presume you mean "the murderer". Why was Conley held in custody for two weeks, after the no traces of blood were found on his shirt? On a more general point, this is an encyclopedia article, not a newspaper report; thus, verbatim remarks such as "White folks, I'm a liar" are inappropriate. Likewise, "For the next three days, two detectives played good cop/bad cop with Conley, one accusing him of the murder, the other offering him food and consolation" is unnecessary detail. I also see no value in the information that "On May 28, the Georgian said that E.F. Holloway, the plant day watchman, believed Conley had strangled Phagan when he was drunk." – a newspaper account of an individual's private opinion. "The police were satisfied with the new story" doesn't seem consistent with their later re-interviewing him for four hours, and extracting yet another affidavit. Why did the Georgian hire a lawyer for Conley?
 * Yes; I changed this. 'Real' means that it was him, not Frank, who killed Phagan.
 * He was still enough of a suspect to warrant holding in custody. Perhaps this could be clarified in the text, although I'm not quite sure how to best word it.
 * I removed these quotes.
 * They listened to the opinions of the pencil factory employees, and realized there was no explanation for the purse missing, which seemed to implicate Conley as this was a likely motive for him killing Phagan.
 * An editor approached Smith and offered to pay his fee if he obtained Conley as a client (Oney 145). I could add this in if need be.

Hearings, sentencing, and clemency

Chronology is sometimes confusing, e.g. in the "Grand Jury" section you report comments made at the later criminal trial. You should wikilink the term "grand jury" at first mention. The account of the trial makes good reading, but you need to modify the wording "...as crowds outside the courtroom chanted "Hang the Jew!". I suggest someting like "On August 25, Frank was convicted of murder; according to one eyewitness there were chants of 'Hang the Jew!' from the crowd outside the coutroom". This accords with the source – I don't think the "better source" tag is necessary if you adopt this wording. In the "Commutation" section you should not use caps for "reasonable doubt". I feel in this section, particularly in the fourth paragraph, there is overuse of direct quotation and that paraphrasing could be used. Steve Oney is mentioned here, with no indication of who he was or is (I see he is later described as a "Frank scholar" – can there be such a thing?). I am curious to know why "officials" thought Frank would be more secure in a minimum-security facility (we later learn that his throat was slashed by another inmate)
 * I added the wikilink to the first instance of "grand jury" as suggested.
 * I made the change to the "Hang the Jew!" statement with the text you posted. Thanks for the suggestion.
 * I took the all caps off of "reasonable doubt" as stated.
 * Steve Oney is the author of And the Dead Shall Rise, widely regarded as the best book on the case as it was published recently (2003) and is over 600 pages long. If there's anyone that could be considered a "Frank scholar," it would be him.
 * I believe this is a mistake - Oney's chapter on Milledgeville describes the prison as benign and more conducive to Frank's situation, but I also don't see how that isn't a contradiction.

Lynching

The phrase "new heights of ferocity" is not neutral encyclopedic language. The list of names is intrusive – mention the few notable ones in the text, and cut out the rest. Can you say by what means the body was transported from Georgia to New York for burial? None of the lynchers were identified? Did nobody bother to look at the photographs?
 * I replaced this with "provoked Tom Watson into advocating for Frank's lynching."
 * I changed the list of names to a sentence with only the most prominent individuals named.
 * It was transported by rail. I added this in.
 * I believe the photographs weren't publicly disclosed yet. I'll double check this.

Aftermath

"a controversial trial" → "the controversial trial". What are "charter members"? By "carrying Phagan's body at the lobby" do you mean "through the lobby"? More precise dating is required in the paragraph dealing with the pardon application: when did the attempt take place? "It denied the pardon in 1983" is imprecise – does not the source give better information?
 * I changed 'a' to 'the' and made a few other changes to that sentence and the ones surrounding it.
 * "Charter members" is defined in the Charter Wiki article as "an original member; that is, one who became a member when the organization received its charter." I'm not sure if that needs to be defined there, and if I did so it would probably make for awkward wording.
 * I changed "at the lobby" to "through the lobby" as you said.
 * I think 1983 is precise enough - an exact date shouldn't be needed for a denied pardon.

General

You should get rid of all the fictional stuff in the "See also" section. A line in the text, stating that the case has been the subject of film and television dramatisations, mentioning titles and years, would be sufficient.
 * There are only six bullet points here, and while some of these are fictional narratives loosely based on the Frank case, they have helped popularize the case and are worthy of mention.
 * With that said, I took out text that said "About the Frank case" between the second and third points, as it isn't necessary and all six are about or based on the Frank case. Tonystewart14 (talk) 03:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * For the points above that I wasn't sure about, I asked another editor about it and got it resolved. I'll work on the article for the next few weeks and nominate it for Featured Article. I won't do Good Article since the backlog is still long (nearly six months) and I want to get this article to be Today's Featured Article on the 100th anniversary of Frank's death - August 17, 1915. I'll close this peer review, but anyone reading this review is of course free to edit the article or write on the talk page as needed. Tonystewart14 (talk) 20:19, 12 December 2014 (UTC)