Wikipedia:Peer review/Peter Sutcliffe/archive1

Peter Sutcliffe
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because…

This article could be substantiated and enjoyed by multiple users as a focal point of '70's-80's English history. The orthodoxy of it's subject himself notwithstanding- this article was of importance in documenting 70's-80's police work- which I think is of even more imprtance than the notorious subject matter. The attacks really need review.

Thanks, Zucchinidreams (talk) 22:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this request might be also directed to the Serial Killer Task Force for its specialist knowledge in dealing with similar articles, although outside opinion is always welcome. It's not clear what is meant here by "orthodoxy", or why the details of the victims need to downgraded in importance. Rodhull  andemu  23:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * This request would appear to be mislocated. It would help if it were in the proper place. Rodhull  andemu  00:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments from Jappalang

This should likely not be brought up here first; the instructions state that peer review "is intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work, often as a way of preparing a featured article candidate." Following Rodhullandemu's suggestion above, the article should have been brought to the Wikiproject and worked to an acceptable level (in accordance with policies and guidelines) before being brought here. Regardless, here are some big things I see that hopefully should be resolved before bringing it here.


 * Should the article not be named "Yorkshire Ripper" instead, judging from how it is practically about the case and that the Yorkshire Ripper seems to have more notability than "Peter Sutcliffe" (per WP:COMMONNAME)?


 * Serious lack of citations; many statements and paragraphs are not cited to sources. Independent reviewers have nothing to help them verify the statements made.  Because of this, no peer review can be started.


 * Why are book sources listed even though no information is cited to them?


 * Why is there a heavy reliance on execulink.com? What makes it a reliable source per WP:RS?  Please refer to Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches and Wikipedia Signpost/2008-07-28/Dispatches on how reliable sources are generally determined.  Unless there are quite a few sources relying on this site for their studies or cite its author as an expert, I see no basis to claim this site as reliable.

Note that I am predisposed to closing this, so it would be better to address the above in the Wikiproject review or on the article's talk page per instruction. Jappalang (talk) 06:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)