Talk:Peter Dupas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peer review Peter Dupas has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Peter Dupas was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: October 23, 2006

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

[edit] GA nomination On Hold

Great job so far. Just a few things and I think it's ready to be a GA

This is how the article, as of September 29, 2006, compares against the six good article criteria:

A good article has the following attributes.

1. It is well written. In this respect:

(a) it has compelling prose, and is readily comprehensible to non-specialist readers;
(b) it follows a logical structure, introducing the topic and then grouping together its coverage of related aspects; where appropriate, it contains a succinct lead section summarising the topic, and the remaining text is organised into a system of hierarchical sections (particularly for longer articles);
  • I found the article confusing with it jumping from different time periods. I'd try to break this up into chronological order
  • The lead needs to summarize the whole article and should not contain information in it that is not contained elsewhere in the article
  • Too many one sentence paragraphs and too many one paragraph sections
(c) it follows the Wikipedia Manual of Style including the list guideline;
  • See MoS Direct quotations -- you should use blockquotes for quotes that are part of the flow of the article (which is the case for this article). You should only use the {{cquote}} and other similar ones for what's called "pull quotes" -- quotes that are used like quotes in magazines that are "pulled out" into a box to illustrate, but are not part of the flow of the article.
(d) necessary technical terms or jargon are briefly explained in the article itself, or an active link is provided.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

  • Found a couple of quotes that didn't have cites
Fixed those - thanks. -- Longhair\talk 04:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

5. It is stable, i.e. it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars. This does not apply to vandalism and protection or semi-protection as a result of vandalism, or proposals to split/merge the article content.

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

--plange 01:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Nom failed

  • In Maher's section, it is said that her breast was put in her mouth like Patterson, but yet the Patterson section says her breasts were never recovered.
  • In Maher's, what is the date of his arrest? It just says he was arrested and then later has his trial (with no dates) and so then there's no dates for context until his conviction. Establishing this date would also justify your organization of the murders in order of his arrests instead of by when he committed them.
  • This sentence makes no sense: "claims he saw Dupas leaving the feeling the Fawkner Cemetery on the day of the murder"

--plange 16:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Also, lead should be at least 2 paragraphs summarizing the article per WP:LEAD (which also has a recommendation on length of lead for size of article) --plange 16:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)