Chandra Levy edit
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I am listing this article for a second peer review. The previous review helped improve this article considerably, but I would like to request an additional pair of eyes for further improvement towards FA standards, with a focus towards latter sections summarizing the case.
Thanks, KimChee (talk) 00:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for looking at this article. I have added some images and would like to request a review of their appropriateness to the article; they have been the subject of some past contention and would like a previously uninvolved party to check them. Cheers. KimChee (talk) 04:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Finetooth comments: This is very good, close to FA quality. I made couple of minor proofing changes, and I have a short list of other suggestions.
- I see no problems with the images or their licenses. I came to this conclusion before reading some of the discussions on the article's talk page, and reading them did not change my mind.
Identification of the prime suspect
- "Lanier replaced the lead detective on the case with a team of "a fresh set of eyes" who had more homicide experience." - Pairing "team" with "a fresh set of eyes" is a bit odd since "team" implies multiple detectives with multiple sets of eyes. Would "Lanier replaced the lead detective on the case with a team with more homicide experience" be better?
- "However, after errors in processing contaminated some of the gathered evidence with DNA from employees of the prosecution," - Would it be helpful to link "DNA" to DNA profiling? You have linked it later, but maybe it should be linked here on first use. Or, perhaps a link to DNA would be useful here, and the "DNA profiling" link could be left as is.
Trial of Grandique
- "The motion also alleged that one juror, who did not take notes, had breached instructions "not be influenced by another juror's notes." - This is not a complete sentence as written. Here's a possible fix: "The motion also alleged that one juror, who did not take notes, had breached instructions "not [to] be influenced by another juror's notes." It's OK to insert [to] in brackets indicating that the word is not part of the direct quotation but is an editorial insertion. I assume these were the judge's instructions; if so, maybe that could be added; i.e., ""The motion also alleged that one juror, who did not take notes, had breached the judge's instructions "not [to] be influenced by another juror's notes."
Media coverage
- "In 2002, D.C. newspaper Roll Call first reported about the possible connection of Ingmar Guandique to the case" - Tighten by one word by deleting "about"?
Aftermath
- "Levy's disappearance came after a number of other high-profile cases which created resources for missing young adults." - The cases didn't create resources directly. Perhaps this could be re-worded for clarity? Maybe something like "cases that led to the creation of resources"?
- "those efforts to locate Chandra Levy or find her killer were quickly distracted by the speculation" - Would "diluted" be better than "distracted"?
How about "overshadowed"?
- "Police have learned from that mistake." - This assertion, which is apt to be questioned, needs a source. If it can be sourced, I would consider adding a tag line like, "According to X, police have learned from that mistake."
- "Morales, who was serving a sentence for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and crack cocaine" - Link methamphetamine and crack cocaine?
Further reading
- Daugherty belongs before Higham in the "Further reading" section if you want them to be arranged in alphabetical order.
Other
- I'm sure you will update the article on Friday or as soon as possible after the scheduled sentencing and that further updates may be necessary.
Done, though the new section for Sentencing and appeals may need some copyediting. KimChee (talk) 01:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- I couldn't help but wonder if Condit's marriage survived. I think I would mention it in the article, though, only if he and his wife divorced as a result of the Levy case. Otherwise, keeping silent on the matter, as you have, seems best.
I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 18:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- "Overshadowed" is just right. The subtle mention of Condit's wife is just right. The revised "Sentencing and appeals" section looks fine with one possible exception: Susan Levy responded, "Did you really take her life? Look me in my eyes and tell me." before being reminded by Judge Gerald Fisher to address the court and not Guandique directly. The double terminal-period problem arises here because of the nested complete sentences. When this sort of thing pops up in my writing, I usually opt for a work-around. Maybe: Before Judge Gerald Fisher reminded her to address the court and not Grandique directly, Susan Levy responded, "Did you really take her life? Look me in my eyes and tell me." Please let me know when you take this to FAC. I think it's ready. Finetooth (talk) 19:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)