Wikipedia:Peer review/Murder of Joanna Yeates/archive1

Murder of Joanna Yeates
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I'm interested to know what it might need to get it to GA or FA. The case has only recently concluded, so I should make it clear I'm looking at this from a long term perspective. At present the article is quite comprehensive, although I feel the trial section may need expanding further. In all the article is 67KB in length and has 124 references which I feel cover the topic in a neutral style. Also it has been surprisingly stable given the subject and the amount of publicity given to this case in the United Kingdom. Thanks, Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

My own thoughts (I contributed to the article in the past; and may do so again if I get the incentive :)).


 * The lead needs a bit of work; it doesn't need references for a start. Material there should be checked for existence in the main body - and if it is missing needs to be inserted. Otherwise a rewrite would probably make it flow better.


 * Find a good copyeditor to work through the article


 * The sectioning might be improved "Murder Case" is a largely redundant heading. I'd drop that & make use of the other existing headings; splitting it into two or three major sections with various sub-sections

I think all of the information is there in the article; it just needs going over and re-organising/cleaning up :) You might want to look at Death of Linda Norgrove which is a similar sort of article that was gotten to Good Article status --Errant (chat!) 14:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking a look. I'll do some work on it then ask someone to do the copyediting. Paul MacDermott (talk) 14:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I think this is probabloy close to GA and not too far off from FA - thanks for your work on it. I agree with the above comments, here are some more suggestions for improvement. Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. As such, nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself, however the Rewards totalling £60,000 were offered for information leading to those responsible for Yeates' death. is only in the lead that I can see.
 * My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but I do not see the memorials in the lead.
 * For Americans, tariff is not clear in ''Tabak was found guilty of murder on 28 October 2011, and was sentenced to life imprisonment with a tariff of 20 years.
 * The lead as an overview should have more general information and the body of the article can have the specifics. I am not sure all the newspapers need to be listed in the lead. Even if they are, I think it could be something like These two papers, the Sunday Mirror, the Daily Record, the Daily Mail, the Daily Express, the Daily Star and The Scotsman were also successfully sued for libel ... I now see the libel papers are not listed in the body - this should be the other way around (detailed list in the body)
 * WP:HEAD says headers should not repeat the name or part of the name of the article if possible. Could the Joanna Yeates section be something like "Victim"? I think this is a case where it could be kept as a section name.
 * There are a fair number of short (one or two paragraph) sections. The article might flow better if these were combined, and the organization might be improved. I wonder if the first four sections could be part of a bigger section. I would have the first two sections combined as something like "Background and disappearance", and then the third and fourth sections could be combined as "Search, public appeal, and discovery of body". I am not sure what the overall name for this overall section could be - perhaps just "Crime" or "Killing" or "Murder"?
 * Murder investigation could just be Investigation - the subsections here are fine with the possible exception of First arrest and release - perhaps this could be combined in a "First and second arrests" subsection?
 * The article uses the quote template, but WP:MOSQUOTE says to use it on quotations of 40 words or longer and these seem to all be shorter.
 * I think it is OK to repeat a title with a name if it iahs been a few paragraphs since the person was mentioned, but I would use Detective Chief Inspector Jones on first use in the Further enquiries section (not where it now is)
 * Watch tenses Reardon was ruled out as a suspect and is being treated as a witness.[44] (should be "was treated")
 * The section on Tabak seems out of place - I wonder if it would work better either before the legalproceedings section, or perhaps after Murder charge and plea and before trial? I am not sure about this.
 * I wondered about Tabak's girlfriend - was he alone or in a relationship when he killed his victim? I see she is mentioned in a reference as devastated by the news, so that could be clarified.
 * The photo of Bristol Prison confused me - I thought the white van in it was being used to move Tabak (i.e. it was a photo of the actual move). Perhaps the caption could be something like Bristol Prison: Vincent Tabak was moved out of here for his safety.[84]
 * Watch WP:OVERLINKing - does pizza really need a link? Add links that increase the reader's understanding or are not likely to be widely known by the average reader - I would link QC though.
 * Watch punctuation of quotes - see WP:LQ
 * Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)