Talk:Ipswich 2006 serial murders

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Ipswich 2006 serial murders was a nominee for good article, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Archive
Archives
1, 2, 3


Contents

[edit] Timeline

I feel that this article is pretty good at the moment, but the thing that bugs me is the timeline. I suggest that we edit the timeline to include more prose, or that we incorporate the timeline into the article. My personal view is that the 'timeline' section lets the article down. Is there any consensus on how to deal with this? I'm not around for another few days, at least, to spend enough time on the subject. I'm comfortable with adding prose and description to the timeline, but not with adjusting the rest of the article accordingly. Is it possible that we make a group effort on the timeline? Blammermouth (talk) 02:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I say intergrate into the rest of the article. Million_Moments (talk) 10:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Not many comments on this so I think I will go through the timeline and wright in the relavant information into the appropriate sections of the article. Million_Moments (talk) 18:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
OK I am now redebating the timeline section of the article as most of the information is contained in the article already. A Peer review suggested we place the information in a table. Perhaps with column headings of "date" and "Developments". With so many things happening over a short amount of time I do think the timeline may be important. Million_Moments (talk) 07:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spouse

In the info box Pamela Wright is listed as a spouse. The two were never married, and the surname is a coincidence. She was not involved in the case. I do not think she should be listed as his spouse. Granted they lived together and shared a surname, but I don't see the inclusion of her name as important, or relevant. And by the way spouse redirects to marriage. Blammermouth (talk) 02:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC) Thanks for finding the wrong link spouse should redirect to Work spouse not to marriage. We could clarify that this is a legal standing under english law and link to the marriage one, but spouse in england means what is listed under work spouse. Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 13:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC) sorry me again, could not find spouse link to marriage, in article could you change to Work spouse please. Ta Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 13:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

what a can of worms, work spouse is not perfect, but neither is marriage. Spouse was merged with marriage at some point, thereby missing out the non wedded spouse. Common law wife / husband might start to cover it. On the other note his spouse is mentioned twice, do you want both removed as I believe they should stay. as I said before he 'blamed' the behaviour of his partner (working shifts / lack of sex etc) as a part of the reason he did what he did. This mkes the person relevant to the case IMHO. If others disagree lets please discuss. Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 15:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Redirects

There are several redirects such as Suffolk Strangler and Ipswich ripper that link to this page. Should they continue to link here, or should be perhaps re-direct them to the Steve Wright biography? I'm not sure really. Million_Moments (talk) 10:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd say leave them as redirecting to the main article. Reason being is that if somebody is searching for any of these terms, which are generally media sensationalism, would likely be looking for the article anyway. My 2p. Blammermouth (talk) 13:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Originally, I was going to place this GA on hold, but as I dug deeper into the issue with sourcing, I feel there are far too many issues than can be fixed within a reasonable time. As such, I feel no choice but to fail at this time. When the issues noted below have been addressed, including a copyedit, feel free to renominate.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    Article is in need of copyediting. I spotted several grammatical errors in the opening paragraph alone. The writing feels stilted in some places, as well, and does not always flow well.
    B. MoS compliance:
    Use of mixed date format, need to all be in international format due to region of focus (dd month yyyy), and article missing some basic wikification of those dates. Some refs misplaced (should always be behind punctuation), other issues with number formatting such as xx hours and xx-hours. No consistency. Some references also have formatting errors and too many inconsistencies.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    There are places where multiple statements appear to be completely unsourced.
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    There are some questionable references used in the article. #21 simply says "Police autopsy." Did an editor actually go to the police station and look at the autopsy report? Is the autopsy online? Where is the back up for such a claim? #25 claims the source is a "Press Association photograph," but gives no link to this photograph? Also, photographs are rarely considered reliable sources. Several references, such as 39 and 40, claim to be from "Press Association: News Wire service" but gives no additional information. News wire items are either online or printed in other papers. They are not just floating around on their own. Free Internet Press is not a reliable source. Ref 51 is missing details. News of the World is a tabloid paper and not a reliable source.
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Collectonian (talk) 20:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The only time News of the World is used a source is in reference the the reward they offered to catch the killer. Million_Moments (talk) 16:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I think as long as its just for that, it should be fine then. :) Collectonian (talk) 17:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Are all tabloid newspapers counted as not a reliable source, if not why bring this one up, and if they are that is an amazing amount of work to do. As a GA reviewer to discover that I may have to make value judgments on a newspapers reliability would create too much extra work. I can judge some web sites by the language used and layout etc, but what is so different from the News of the World to The Sunday Times or Wall Street Journal, or La Stampa if I know nothing about them. Personal knowledge is fine, but a value judgment used as part of a review I am not so sure about. Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 13:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, in general a tabloid is not considered a reliable source except in a case like this, where its citing something they themselves did. Beyond that, most do not have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, and instead for the opposite. And yes, part of being a GA (and especially an FA) reviewer is being willing to check the sources. Now, if it this were an FA, source checking would be even more detailed, including checking every last link rather than the cursory look to make sure there are no forums, tabloids, etc. Proper sourcing is part of the GA criteria. For those I don't know about, as in this case, some quick research is all that is needed to see if it meets the basics of WP:RS. Any GA review requires at least some value judgments in weighing the article against the criteria. Collectonian (talk) 14:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
OK accepted, but checking the sources how? you look at the tone of the webpage from the paper etc but even that can lead one up the garden path. The Daily Star is referenced here (the Sunday version did German bomber found on moon) and The Times sometimes does not present itself on the web as a paper of note. Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 14:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Generally, start with its Wikipedia article, which will usually note the paper's classification. I'm not saying I did as thorough a check as I would for FA, the News of the World was one that stood out so I checked into it. You are correct, though, the Daily Star is also a tabloid so that reference needs to be replaced or the statement as well. Collectonian (talk) 15:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA work in progress.

  1. Date format. I have changed the obvious date that was inconsistent with the rest but surely we do not need the year after every one, can someone advise? Also do we wikilink all the dates in the article as that would make it full of a lot of blue links IMHO making it harder to read. I have checked through the usual Wikipedia:Editor's index to Wikipedia but are none the wiser. Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 20:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
found this for some clarification of wikilink dates. Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 20:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
All of of the full dates must be in the same format, and partial dates should also be consistent with the same format (so dd month). Years don't have to be added, they just need to be consistently in the same format. Also, all full dates should be wikified to enable them to be auto formatted per user preferences (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Autoformatting and linking. Partial dates should not be wikfied. Collectonian (talk) 22:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks will begin, hopefully soon. Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 06:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Could someone fix the date refs in the appeal section? I can't seem to make it work no matter what I change it to...must be having a mental block. Million_Moments (talk) 21:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk archives

The archive box isn't working does anyone know how to fix it? Million_Moments (talk) 10:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixed it. The first two talk page archives had different names from the current article name so it was confused. Collectonian (talk) 15:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] layout section for each victim

Looks much better except for the overbleed into the next section and that the images start to move away from the information about the person. I originally did the "criss-cross" layout to crudely overcome both problems. This layout is better if the two can be solved. Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 14:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to experiment, I just thought the bullet points looked a bit odd. If we could expand each section by a couple of lines we could probably avoid the overbleed. I was wondering if we should intergrate some of the lead for this section into the relavant sections, I actually think it needs a bit of work to avoid repetition. Million_Moments (talk) 10:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I am moving the lead of the victims section to head up the police investigation section, and putting the information about victims between that and the court case as I think that makes more sense. Million_Moments (talk) 21:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inforbox

I was wondering if it would be better if we used this serial killer info box: {{Infobox Serial Killer | name= | image= | caption= | birthname= | alias= | birth= | location= | death= | cause= | victims= | country= | states= | beginyear= | endyear= | apprehended= | penalty= }}

rather than the current one in this article. Though you lose info like spouse and parents I feel that for this article this infobox would be better at summarizing it and the other infobox would remain on the actual Steve Wright biographical article. Sound like a plan? Million_Moments (talk) 12:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

try it and let everybody see. Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 18:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Not sure where to put this photo

I took this photo of the memorial garden near to where Paula & Annette were found. It doesn't really fit under any of the current article headings. Blammermouth (talk) 20:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

My vote says put it in the infobox. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
if it can I go for the info box as well, excellent idea in 1st instanced. Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 21:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Do we mean replacing the image of Wright? Blammermouth (talk) 21:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I do. Put the Wright image elsewhere, ideally where he and his case are being described in the bulk of the article, and put this photo in the infobox. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
My only issue with that is that it doesn't seem to look that great or clear in thumbnail. Blammermouth (talk) 21:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- second to that, the infobox is specifically a serial killer one. Blammermouth (talk) 21:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it should replace the image of Wright, and it is a serial killer box so the new image would thinking about it look out of place. How about at the end of the timeline of events section as in essence it is part of a timeline and shows the continual aftermath of such a train of events. Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 09:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I am with the vote on not putting it on the infobox. It would be best in the victims section if we can put it in without jucking up the layout. Million_Moments (talk) 16:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps it's worth bearing in mind that this article is not about Steve Wright, it's about the murders themselves. Perhaps the infobox isn't correct in this article... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Well an infobox is expected in such an article, and the serial killer one is the most appropriate as it contains details of the killings as well Million_Moments (talk) 17:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Sure, infoboxes are expected everywhere, but it doesn't mean it's most appropriate one. However, I'm preprared to concede that it's a pretty weak lead image since it's quite ambiguous. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I put it under 'verdict' in the end, it just seemed best to maintain aesthetic balance as well as being at least slightly relevant. Blammermouth (talk) 16:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References

I think we are only a couple of references away (where I have placed {{fact}} tags) from being able to re-nominate this article for GA but i am really struggling to find references for all this data concerning how many officers were involved and how much CCTV footage they went through. Anyone know of a reference? Or a way we could rewrite it to use a different reference perhaps? Million_Moments (talk) 17:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lamplugh

I think since this news story suggests that police are not really pursing a link between Lamplugh and Wright we should remove this section of the article and perhaps intergrate a line or two elsewhere, perhaps in the Wright biography section. Million_Moments (talk) 21:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I doesn't need to be a section any more IMO. But it should be still be briefly mentioned elsewhere in the article. Your suggestion is probably the best. --GracieLizzie (talk) 22:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wright subsection

I'm going to cut down the Steve Wright section a little as per Wikipedia:Summary style since he has his own article. It also will help prevent this article from getting to long. Somebody has proposed that Steve Wright (serial killer) be merged into this article but I disagree. However with most of that article repeated here you can see why they would propose it. Million_Moments (talk) 14:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree also. It is the length of the paragraph on him in this article that is wrong. Lradrama 18:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I would argue that the Steve Wright article should be merged in, on the grounds that his only notability is the events of these murders Bluewave (talk) 21:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
There are a large number of serial killer articles and articles on the actual murders themselves for example Soham Murders and Ian Huntly. Plus Wright is being investigated in conjuction with other murders, and these murders and wright are extremly notable having made international media Million_Moments (talk) 21:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
To avoid confusion, can we just discuss the matter on the relevant talkpage? And, for goodness sake, there are very few serial killers notable outside their killings. And many have their own articles, and no I'm not providing the list yet again; it's in the other discussion. Lradrama 15:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)