Wikipedia:Peer review/Matthew Charles Johnson/archive1

Matthew Charles Johnson


I've listed this article for peer review because I recently got this page to GA and I am looking to see its likelihood of being promoted to FA-class.

Thanks, GMH Melbourne (talk) 03:49, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Template:FAC peer review sidebar
I have added the article to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar. Please consider reviewing articles listed there. Z1720 (talk) 17:08, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

UC
Interesting article. A few fairly quick points:


 * Bearing in mind WP:NOTNEWS, could you outline the notability case for this subject? Most of the sources seem either to be connected to his trials or to be closer to sensationalist tabloidism than scholarly sources (the Vice article, namely). Can we demonstrate that this person has enduring notability, beyond the interest that existed in his crimes and trial at the time?
 * The tone of the article sometimes gets a little too empathetic, or a little too close to journalistic, for an encyclopaedia. A few illustrative examples:
 * : better to be factual about what these challenges were.
 * : infamous is not a neutral word or really one we can verify. Better to simply state that he committed this crime.
 * There are a lot of slightly euphemistic references to "troubled youths", "difficulties" etc in his childhood -- as above, we should be dispassionate and factual here.
 * : became involved in seems like a mealy-mouthed way of saying that he began misusing them (unless you mean that he dealt them).
 * : phrases like this as WP:EDITORIALISING and always best avoided.
 * : likewise, euphemistic and slightly informal. Better to cut to the chase: "In 1997 (or whenever), he was injured at work [and lost his job?]; in January 1998, he carried out [again: euphemism of "was involved in" should be avoided] a series of armed robberies..."
 * In general, try to make sure that people from around the world can understand it: so "at the age of 11 or 12" is better than "in Year 7". Similarly, it's a good idea to convert AUSD amounts into USD.
 * Our paragraph on the Conyers murder casts the very strong aspersion that he was guilty, despite the jury's verdict to the contrary. Are we following sources in doing so? If not, the detailed account of what was "alleged", which is presumably untrue (at least as far as the law is concerned), should be cut down or reworded as what happened to Conyers.
 * What makes Roberta Williams notable enough for a redlink?

UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC)