Talk:Murder of Irene Garza

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Death of Irene Garza/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ComputerJA (talk · contribs) 03:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Review

Hello. I'll happily review this article. Just by doing a quick overview, I can tell the article is well-written, properly uses reliable sources, and conforms to the appropriate layout. There was a recent update on the trial in the news, but we can discuss how to include that later. My review will consist of 2 parts. On the first one, I will go over any grammatical/spelling mistakes. On the second part, I will go over each source individually and check that the text is supported by them. Should not take me more than a few days. Please feel free to disagree with any of my suggestions. Anyways, thanks for writing this and I look forward to reviewing it. Big thanks, ComputerJA (☎ • ✎)

Part 1

This is the first part of my review. The article is very well written and did not find major issues with the prose. Below are my comments. I'll be going through the sources later and making sure the text is supported by the sources. Let me know if you have any questions! ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 04:36, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• Death of Irene Garza - From my understanding, "Death of X" articles are for natural causes, while these usually are "Murder of X". What's your take on it? We can wait till after the GA nomination if you decide a change is a good move.
  • For now, with the lack of a murder conviction, I feel like "death of" is more neutral. One could argue that investigators have determined it to be a murder, but I think it's a bit less controversial this way. EricEnfermero (Talk) 05:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
• she went to confession at a church - Link Confession (Catholic Church) instead
  • Done. EricEnfermero (Talk) 05:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
• Following the largest volunteer search to that date in the Rio Grande Valley – to that date → at that time? Not sure which sounds better so keep as it is if you’d like.
  • I like the original, simply because it's clear that it includes that time and also all of the time before that time. EricEnfermero (Talk) 05:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
• Feit, Tacheny and O'Brien were not subpoenaed – link Subpoena, or one of the following (not sure which one): Subpoena ad testificandum or Subpoena duces tecum.
  • Linked to the first option. EricEnfermero (Talk) 05:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
• Garza was born in 1934 – Please add November 15, 1934, per intro. However, make sure that this is supported by a source. I clicked the source and saw only the year in the picture of her grave.
  • Looking into this, trying to determine where I got it. I might just take it out. EricEnfermero (Talk) 05:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
• took her Catholic faith seriously – Would you be okay linking Catholic?
  • Done. EricEnfermero (Talk) 05:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
• attending Mass and Communion every day – Same here, since readers not familiar with Catholicism may not know what this means. Use Mass (liturgy) and Eucharist to link if you’d like.
  • Linked specifically to the Catholic Church versions of those articles, if that's okay. EricEnfermero (Talk) 05:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
• was irregular for Feit – I think the word uncommon sounds better.
  • I prefer irregular, since the priests (to my understanding) were commenting on how Feit's actions that night were different from the expected actions of priests there. If they were commenting on how Feit usually did one thing, but on that day he did something else, I would agree with you. EricEnfermero (Talk) 05:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
• Garza to the church rectory to hear her confession – Link rectory
  • Done. EricEnfermero (Talk) 05:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
• Guerra's attack, but he denied assaulting Guerra – Replace Guerra at the end with “her”.
  • Done. I went with the last name because there were three people mentioned in the sentence, but the others were males. EricEnfermero (Talk) 05:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
• trial ended in a hung jury – link hung jury
  • Done. EricEnfermero (Talk) 05:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
• Feit entered a plea of no contest – Link plea of no contest with nolo contendere
  • Done. EricEnfermero (Talk) 05:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
• An abbot there told monk – link abbot. Monk does not need it because I feel the term is more universal.
  • Done. EricEnfermero (Talk) 05:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
• In recent years, Tacheny has said – fix per WP:RECENT, if possible.
  • Done. I just took out the phrase. Trying to establish that the confession was said to occur then - without getting the story jumbled up. EricEnfermero (Talk) 05:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
• did not receive subpoenas in the case – link subpoena
  • I usually just link the first mention. EricEnfermero (Talk) 05:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you - I meant to erase this one after seeing you used the same word in the intro. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 15:19, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• the discovery process was ongoing as of November – Consider rephrasing the end per WP:ASOF. This can probably help if you add this recent source from February 2017, which states that the trial is now set for April 24.
  • I considered rephrasing, but decided not to. We could try to establish exactly when discovery ended, but I think it's clear that things have moved on. I must have been adding a source about the trial date when you were posting this. EricEnfermero (Talk) 05:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for taking on this review. I'll take a look at the DOB issue. I look forward to Part 2. EricEnfermero (Talk) 05:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Update: I found the DOB on Find a Grave and in an apparently self-published book, so I am taking it out until I find an RS. The 1934 birth year, at least, is sourced to an article in The Monitor. EricEnfermero (Talk) 06:06, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• You're right. I found it in Diane Fanning's book. Even though it's self-published, I think it can be considered a reliable source given Fanning's reputation and previous works per WP:SELFPUBLISH. The book seems to have more information on the investigation/death, so if you're ever interested in getting access to the book, let me know. I have an account with the University of Texas and can get this through an interlibrary loan for free. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 15:19, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Part 2

• Fellow priests noticed scratch marks on Feit's hands after midnight mass, and they said it was irregular for Feit to have taken Garza to the church rectory to hear her confession – (Not required for GA): There's a huge portion of Feit's version of the story that was left out (i.e. giving confession to others after Garza, leaving his keys inside and having to climb to go into his room, thus cutting himself, failing to answer how his slide viewer ended at the canal, etc). I think it is important to include his version since it was part of the investigation.

• was sent to Jemez Springs, New Mexico – City is not in the source Just added a source.

• run by the Servants of the Paraclete – Org. not in the source - Just added a source.

• [1] – (Not required for GA): This source has a lot of interesting details of what Feit did the night Garza was murdered in case you want to expand (i.e. Feit allegedly looking up Garza and placing the bag on her head, etc.)

• he said that he was confused as to why he was being charged so many years after Garza's death – I could not find it in the source. Also, please change the Daily Mail source since it is not usually considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. You can use this one, which seems to contain the same information (except for what Feit said in court).

Above are my final comments. Few things needed to be addressed before we move forward with the nomination. Great job! ComputerJA (☎ • ✎)

I ran a quick plagiarism test and found no serious issues. This article has passed, congratulations! I'll do the appropriate fixes shortly. Thanks for working on this interesting article, EricEnfermero. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 16:05, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 14 February 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 10:00, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

---

Death of Irene Garza → Murder of Irene Garza – a person was convicted of the murder of the subject, so "murder of ..." is a more accurate title. WWGB (talk) 03:06, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support, seems the article is only at this title because there was no murder conviction at the time of its creation. BegbertBiggs (talk) 23:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Now her murderer has been convicted this is unambiguously correct. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Irene Garza dispute

I am planning to bring this matter into the dispute resolution process. I would welcome comments from Larry Hockett on his reasons for originally reverting the edits on the Murder of Irene Garza article on 10/15 and then reverting it again on 10/16.

In his first reversion, Larry specifically mentioned my use of the word "notorious" in the text and commented on typos. He also thought the original version of the article was fine as it was. I had reverted the article back to my version on 10/16, fixed the typos and removed notorious. In my remarks, I encourage any and all future edits to the article. Larry reverted Irene Garza again the same day.

I quote from the help article on reverting "Reverting a contribution is sometimes appropriate. However, reverting good-faith actions of other editors can also be disruptive and may lead to the reverter being temporarily blocked from editing"

On the issue of needless reverting, I hear you and agree that there are situations where that can be very disruptive. I'm thinking that we can work together to address specific issues on this entry rather than reverting each other.

My concern is that there are new problems introduced by the copyedit, and these problems may cause the entry to fall short of the Good Article criteria. I think this could be a simple issue of lack of awareness regarding the GA criteria. The copyedit introduces some non-neutral language, including three mentions of the word "finally" and a number of undetected typos, such as the change from "moved from" to "moved rom". The copyedit introduced a number of contractions, punctuation issues (1970's), missing periods (such as between "local canal" and "An autopsy" in the lead). It just looks like the new copyedited version was published without being previewed.

As I said, I think we can work this out by approaching individual issues together. I would invite more comments from the OP, and I would also welcome feedback from other editors. If the writing is judged to be so poor as to no longer meet the GA criteria, a Good article reassessment is a viable option. Larry Hockett (Talk) 17:01, 16 October 2021 (UTC)