Wikipedia:Peer review/Penn State child sex abuse scandal/archive1

Penn State sex abuse scandal
This peer review discussion has been closed. This article covers a current event with significant BLP concerns; even naming the article required considerable debate. It's unlikely to reach GA status as the events unfold, but in the meantime this review is requested to comment on balance, structure, and comprehensiveness. I started a thread asking participating editors if there are other areas which a review should focus on; it can be found here.

Thanks, ~TPW 22:15, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: A few initial queries before any closer reading:-
 * The first, and main concern, is that this is an ongoing affair. I'm not a lawyer, but are you sure you're entitled to call something a "sex abuse scandal" in this definitive sense, when nothing has been admitted or proved? I have looked at, but not read in detail, the long discussion on the talkpage about the title. There does not seem to be total agreement on this.
 * You are adding to the content even while the article awaits peer review; in the last section you mention civil suits filed a few days ago, with the hint that there will be many more. This indicates that the article is not yet stable, and that any detailed review would be premature at this stage.
 * I'm also worried about the chart, which includes numerous assertions, particularly about individuals' prior knowledge—assertions that could be challenged by those individuals when the main case comes to court. The chart uses the term "related cover-ups" as though cover-ups were proven facts.
 * Non-standard layout: It is standard format in WP articles to show Table of Contents on the left. What reason do you have for varying this, for this article?
 * The lead is too short for an article of this length and detail. Per WP:LEAD, the lead should be a concise summary of the whole article, touching on (though not amplifying) all the main areas discussed in the article.
 * Essential date information should be included in the lead. For instance, what was the period of the grand jury investigation? What was the date of Sandusky's indictment? Without this information, a casual reader would not be immediately aware that this is a contemporary case.
 * There are small-scale issues such as MOS and reference formatting, which I won't bother with just now, because I think the above matters need to be cleared up first.

As I am not able to watch individual peer reviews at the moment, perhaps you would ping my talkpage when you have responded? Brianboulton (talk) 23:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)