Talk:Murder of Leigh Leigh/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Reviewer: Ohconfucius (talk · contribs) 04:57, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Further to a request on my talk page, I have decided to review this article as my maiden effort in GAC. I shall be posting my initial comments in the next few days. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 04:57, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Initial review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   LEAD

   Why is "bouncer" in quotes? I suggest simply saying "who acted as bouncer"

   Suggest that you replace the rather archaic "gaol" with "prison" without the unnecessary glossing link.

   "Two other persons at the party were charged;" – use of the word "persons" is unusual and sounds a bit legalistic. Suggest simplifying to "Two others at the party were charged"; needs colon instead of semicolon because what follows is an elaboration of the first part of the phrase.

   There is a problem with "as several people who admitting"

   • All issues addressed. Freikorp (talk) 06:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

   First section:

   "On 3 November 1989, a boy celebrated his 16th birthday at the North Stockton Surf club" sounds a bit awkward. The birthday boy was never identified in the article I think it would be better merely stating "At a 16th birthday party held at the North Stockton Surf Club on 3 November 1989"

   "admitted to smoking around fifteen cones..." seems redundant and off topic. We know all these things were going on at the party already. Suggest deleting, or moving it further down the article where his personal intoxication may have greater relevance.

   "find out what had happened to her, however, nobody went" – needs a full stop after "her".

   "Nineteen-year-old Guy Wilson, the other bouncer, and the only other person besides Webster aged over 18 at the party" – this fact can be introduced in the same breath as for Webster earlier in the article.

   "about 92 metres north of the surf club" – 92m seems rather precise for the construction. Suggest rounding to 90m.

   "when her body was found the next morning" seems redundant and can be taken as read.

   "Leigh was found naked, except for her socks and shoes, and her panties and shorts around her right ankle." – the first comma is unnecessary; the second part needs tweaking (substitute "with" for "and", or insert "were" after "shorts").

   "Saltbush" needs disambiguating to the most relevant target

   "also found that Leigh had crushing skull injuries" – remove as repetition.

   "upper right kidney" is too precise and implies there may be a lower right kidney.

   "chocked" I'm unfamiliar with this past participle used several times in the article. Perhaps you mean "choked"

   "blood stained rock" needs a hyphen

   • All issues addressed. And yes, I did mean "choked" :) Freikorp (talk) 06:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

   • Perhaps I wasn't clear, but the introductions to Webster and Wilson should be in the lead but also in the body. Suggest inserting somewhere before "According to a police report": "Matthew Grant Webster and Guy Wilson, both of whom acted as bouncers, were the only people aged over 18 at the party" -- Ohc ^¡digame! 04:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

   • No I should have figured that out :). Issue addressed. Thanks again. Freikorp (talk) 05:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

   • I've just noticed that "This was witnessed by other people at the party; no one came to help her" seems too closely worded compared to its citation. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 01:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

   • Reworded. Freikorp (talk) 11:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

   • some factoids that probably ought to be in the article or reconciled with the sources:

   • "Between 80 and 100 other young people attended the party that night" [1] and [2]

   • Added. Freikorp (talk) 11:58, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

   • the clubhouse where the party was held had been "abandoned"

   • Not sure about this one. According to the Carrington reference, it was rented for the night from the Stockton Lions Club. Carrington describes the building as a "weather-worn" "old surf shed", but makes no mention to it being abandoned. I've added the information on where it was rented from, and have described the building as 'disused'. Comments on this are welcomed. Freikorp (talk) 11:49, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

   • Noted. I have no further issue with this. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 01:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

   • she was hit repeatedly on the head and killed with "a six-kilogram lump of concrete"[3] and [4]

   • The media often stated she was hit with a 6 kilogram lump of concrete. The police reports, however, describe the item that killed Leigh as a 5.6 kilogram "rock". Despite the incompetence of the police involved, I trust their judgement more than that of the media. I've added referenced information about Leigh being struck several times to the post-mortem sub-section. When asked by police regarding how many times he hit Leigh with the rock, Webster replied: "I can't remember, I just freaked. I was spinning out - all these things were going through my head and I bolted". Freikorp (talk) 12:25, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

   • Noted. In this case, I would suggest explicitly mentioning that "5.6 kg rock" was taken from the police report (see next item). -- Ohc ^¡digame! 16:10, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

   • Done. Freikorp (talk) 12:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

   • "blood spattered on to the grassy bush four metres away"[5]

   • I noticed this one myself when writing the article. The article contradicts the police reports, which state blood was found 2.8 metres one way from her body and 1.3 metres the other way. Freikorp (talk) 11:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

   • Noted. In this case, I would suggest merging this sentence with the preceding, explicitly mentioning that both were taken from the police report. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 01:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

   • Done. Freikorp (talk) 12:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

   • "There was no semen found in the body"[6] -- Ohc ^¡digame! 07:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

   • Added. Freikorp (talk) 12:07, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

   Investigation section:

   "Twenty detectives were assigned to the case...Detective Sergeant Lance Chaffey headed the investigation.[8]" – suggest merge these two by saying "Twenty detectives, led by Detective Sergeant Lance Chaffey, were assigned to the case...

   "the squad was reduced to less than 10" – should use "fewer" with countable nouns

   "Webster originally gave an alibi of going to a pub" – "alibi" implies corroborating witness, but only the act of going is mentioned

   "In a subsequent interview eight days later" – "subsequent" is redundant

   "admitted that he not gone to the pub", aside from being poor grammar, is redundant

   "As the hunt for the killer commenced, numerous rumours circulated regarding the crime.[23]" is redundant and can be replaced simply by moving forward "The investigation was described as being "fuelled by mutual suspicion and by rumour and counter-rumour."[30]"

   "On 28 January 1990 ... fined $250 for offensive behaviour." – this is a confusing interlude. Suggest simplifying to "On 28 January 1990, upon being taunted by four boys regarding the murder, Webster assaulted one of them, and he was fined $250 for offensive behaviour."

   "police approached Webster and interviewed him a third time, during which he" – clunky prose. suggest "during a third interview with the police, Webster"

   "walked to the saltbushes together, and he pulled..." – suggest rewording to remove awkward "and": "walked together to the saltbushes, where he pulled..."

   "When Leigh said 'don't' and started pushing him away" – suggest simplifying to "When Leigh rebuffed him"

   • Issues addressed. Is the 'fined $250' sentence still confusing? I mean, is it a bit off topic or superfluous or anything? Or does it work how it is now? Do let me know if I haven't done a good enough job addressing any issue. Freikorp (talk) 05:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

   • It looks fine now. One additional point on that section: suggest relocating "Webster stated he lost his temper" to the beginning of that sentence. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 07:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

   • Carrington's credentials should be presented (In her book, Professor Kerry Carrington, the Head School of Justice at the QUT...).

   Convictions section

   "receiving 6 months custody", "6 months imprisonment" and similarly "100 hours community service" needs an apostrophe after "months" and "hours" respectively

   Cause-and-effect: I don't see the connection between "Webster was the first ... truth in sentencing legislation" and the following sentence beginning "Accordingly", so I would suggest removing "Accordingly". If I am correctly understanding the storyline, the former sentence would fit better just before "Justice James Roland Wood sentenced"

   Suggest merging sentence beginning "Justice James Roland Wood sentenced..." with "Justice Wood found" to read "Finding that Webster's motivation... upon her, Justice James Roland Wood sentenced him..."

   There is a strong factual connection between the next two sentences ("Webster appealed the length of his prison term" and "Justices Gleeson, Lee and Allen stated") which is not reflected by their functional separation. Suggest merging into something beginning "In dismissing Webster's appeal to the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal against the length..."

   Similarly, the causal relationship between sentences beginning "The release of Matthew Webster on parole was discussed..." and "There were initial concerns" could be made stronger by merging; split out the parole board's stipulations.

   I think the sentence starting "Following his release..." should be relocated to the end of the section for more logical follow

   I'm not a huge fan of block quotes, and I don't think the minister's comment in full is all that necessary. Suggest that this be replaced with a mention of the "choice" or "balance" between a release subject to parole and an unconditional release upon having served full sentence.

   • Issues addressed. Well spotted that there is currently no connection between "Webster was the first ... truth in sentencing legislation" and the following sentence. The reference used that currently states he was the first to be sentenced under "truth in sentencing" legislation (Morrow, p. 477.) does not link the two. Page 86 of the Carrington reference (not currently used in article), states "As the fortunes of history would have it, [Webster] was the first person in NSW to be sentenced after the introduction of the 1989 Sentencing Act, and he chose to appeal the length of his prison term. Justices Gleeson, Lee and Allen..." I don't fully understand what the '1989 Sentencing Act' or 'truth-in-sentecing' act as it was called actual changed. The wikilink to Truth in sentencing does not have a sub-section for what it actually means in Australia. Nevertheless, I chose to go with the 'Morrow' reference as the wikilink at least gives the reader some indication of what the legislation might mean. I decided against using the term '1989 Sentencing Act' in the article as there is no wikipedia article on it, so it is not particularly helpful to the reader, but in choosing the Morrow reference, I did not note it does not link these two facts. Whilst it appears that these two facts are linked, I have removed the word 'Accordingly' until such time as I can figure out exactly what the link is. Freikorp (talk) 10:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

   • Thanks for the clarification. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 11:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

   Media section:

   Per Morrow, and quite similar to the opening sentence "The Newcastle and Sydney mass media, perhaps intrigued by the victim's exotically homographic first name and surname, reported Leigh Leigh's death widely, and with greater than usual persistence"

   "Attention instead shifted to the lack of parental supervision at the party" it seems (from Morrow) that the Judge was somewhat responsible for lending this focus which resulted in victim-blaming than on sexual assault.

   Both the media exposure and the play/film contribute to the "celebrity" of the case (and Morrow makes the connection), and I think there can be a one-sentence mention of the play/film in this section.

   • The Morrow reference does seem to imply a connection between the judges comments and the media coverage, but the Carrington reference specifically makes one. "The judge's comments [criticising parents] during the sentencing of Matthew Webster made ready copy for the press who in swooping on it repeated its portrayal of the events that night ad nauseum." I have used the Carringotn reference to make a connection. I have also added a line regarding the film and play. Is the first issue that the paraphrasing is too close? I have reworded it to be less similar. Freikorp (talk) 11:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

   • Thanks, now fine. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 15:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

   Criticism section:

   "Criticism was also raised regarding the lack of convictions" – could be worded differently as "lack of" implies none. Webster and two others were convicted.

   "Chaffey is reported to have stated ..." a bit weasely – a stronger and more direct link to the preceding sentence needed: "Chaffey is quoted as replying"

   "Clothing samples were taken from several suspects,..." – unwieldy sentence. Suggest deleting the rest and simply replacing with "including Guy Wilson"

   "Whilst Scotland Yard would not give any details regarding specific results..." – redundant bureaucratese. Replace simply with "but"

   • Most issues addressed (I think, please check I have understood you correctly). Guy Wilson's admitting that his T-shirt had a blood stain on it (incidentally he stated it was his own blood, but his story of how it got there was described by Professor Carrington as dubious (and with good reason in my opinion), i'll tell you why if you're interested) is of importance due to information in the next (Aftermath) section regarding the specific refusal to clarify on whether his blood-stained shirt was tested. Considering the information in the Aftermath section, do you think the information in the criticism section should still be shortened to just 'including Guy Wilson'? Freikorp (talk) 10:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

   • Thanks, "Clothing samples were taken from several suspects,..." is more a grammatical issue than the pertinence of the blood stain assertion. Suggest revising to "Clothing samples from several suspects were taken,..." -- Ohc ^¡digame! 15:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

   • Done. Freikorp (talk) 20:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

   Aftermath section

   " as her reasons for letting go" – remove as redundant

   "She abandoned her efforts in 1997..." suggest placing more chronologically, i.e. immediately before "In March 1998" as "In the meantime, Leigh's mother abandoned her campaign in 1997..."

   "rejected the unnamed 15-year-olds sexual advances" – "olds" need apostrophe

   "but dismissed the reviews findings" – "reviews" need apostrophe

   • Above 4 issues have been addressed. Freikorp (talk) 10:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

   "He also commented negatively on the lack of convictions" – did he really? (passim)

   • Page 116: "On the second act of violence, Justice Moore said, a number of young males had Leigh on the ground outside the club-house. They poured beer over her, they spat on her and kicked her and verbally abused her. The Judge named six boys involved in these criminal assaults. He then remarked that One of the assailants, and only one, had been detected and charged with assault and sentenced to six months imprisonment. The series of assaults that occurred after Leigh walked back into the club-house were considered by Justice Moore as a continuation of the assaults that began outside. He named a number of boys involved in these, too, most of whom escaped prosecution." Hmm, after actually reading all of that again I get the impression his comments criticise the lack of convictions ("and only one") but I suppose it would be more accurate to say he acknowledged the lack of convictions. Reworded. Freikorp (talk) 10:42, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

   • Noted. no further issues here. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 04:15, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

   "and disciplinary action against the other investigative officers" – please confirm that all of them?

   • No it wasn't all of them, thanks for noticing that. Reworded. Freikorp (talk) 10:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

   Theatrical and film adaptations section

   "film-makers denial" – "makers" need apostrophe

   The quote from Enright is redundant as the film-maker's denial is already noted in the previous sentence.

   • Done. Freikorp (talk) 10:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   LEAD

   The article is about an event and the lead should reflect this; the use of a biographical infobox seems a bit incongruous to me. I suggest you switch to {{Infobox event}}.

   The opening sentence also reads too much like a biography; the exact birth date is not relevant. The death is not mentioned until the third sentence, and needs to be in the first.

   "The media coverage of the murder has been cited", "it is speculated that he was not alone" and "reactions to both the plays and the film were said to be as complex" – re WP:WEASEL and need attribution and/or direct cites.

   • I've mentioned her death in the first sentence, and removed the date of birth. The sentences you requested citations for are all backed up later in the article, but I have now added citations to the lead anyway for good measure. I modelled the article off the featured article Murder of Joanna Yeates, which is one of only two featured articles that begin with 'Murder of' (the other is a murder victim from the 19th century). Whilst I agree with you that Leigh's date of birth isn't needed in the lead, have a look at the Yeates article and let me know which template (person or event) you think would be most appropriate, I think 'person' can work here. Freikorp (talk) 06:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

   • I looked at the Yeates FAC, and it appears nobody paid any particular attention to the infobox used, or asked any questions of the appropriateness of parts that resembled a biography. I still consider that the {{Infobox event}} to be the most appropriate one to be used for this article; I also think that an image of Leigh could be justified (in the infobox?) under FUR as she is deceased. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 15:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

   • Hmm, good point about the FAC for Yeates. I'll convert this article to use infobox event tomorrow. I'm not too familiar with non-free images. The image of Leigh seen in this article is the one that was repeatedly circulated in the media [7], that would probably be the best non-free option. Alternatively, Stockton isn't too far from me. I could easily enough take my own photo of Leigh's grave (I wouldn't be the first person to do that: [8]) which has a photo of her on it. I was considering going to Stockton to take a photo of the building where the party was held (which looks considerably different now, but I have reliable source I could use as an inline citation regarding when it was modified) and replacing the generic photo of Stockton Beach currently in the article with one taken where her body was found, according to the police report. What do you think about that idea for photo's of her and the area? Freikorp (talk) 15:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

   • Good idea, if you have the time. Yes, I'd be happier with a pic of her tombstone than a FUR image as this is closer to the actual subject of this article. But I wouldn't spend any time/money going to Stockton if I wasn't going there for some other reason. The proposed images will not affect the promotion of the article to GA, so you can take your time acquiring them. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 16:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

   • I had the day off work today, so I made the trip. A bit of a drive, and not something i'd normally be willing to do, but whilst I have created a few articles that could reach GA status, this is the only one so far that I believe has a chance of reaching featured status (and I intend to nominate it there eventually), so i'm happy to put the extra effort in. Changed to info box event as well. Have a look at the available fields for info box event and let me know if there are any fields you think need filling out. Freikorp (talk) 11:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

   • Well done. These are really good to the article. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 04:15, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
   • Note that the images all need alts for FAC (not an issue for GA). -- Ohc ^¡digame! 04:19, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

   • Thanks. When I first got to the building that is now a childcare centre, there were kids playing out the front (it was lunch time) so I went and got some lunch myself before coming back and taking photo's once all the kids were indoors. I didn't want anybody calling the police about the strange man taking photos of the children haha, I felt weird enough as it was taking photos of it; one person gave me an odd look lol. Need alts? I'm sorry i'm not familiar with what that means, can you explain? :). Freikorp (talk) 07:05, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

   • You did good. It's alternate text that loads first and appears when an image is loading. Thing about Wikipedia is, if there's a piece of jargon, you're likely to find out what it means by typing it in the search box with "WP:" in front of it. ;-) I think this article is not too far off FA. It now just needs to face the gauntlet. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 07:27, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

   • Thanks, yes I should have checked that first lol. I submitted my first article for FAC 3 weeks ago (FAC/The Fifth Element), one person is supporting it, though i'm not entirely sure how many people have to support it or how long it will take to be accepted. As you're only allowed to nominate one article at a time, i'll have to wait until that nomination is approved or closed before nominating this one. Once this is approve for GA, I intend to nominate it for DYK. There won't be any hard feelings if you've had enough of this article and don't want to, but would you be willing to review the DYK? I only ask as it will take a new reviewer a considerable amount of time to check for paraphrasing and what-not, whereas you already know very well the article has no issues, so I would assume it would only take you a couple minutes to approve it. Also I feel like you got the raw deal in our quid pro quo, as your article was considerably shorter and had significantly less prose errors my review took far less time than yours, so if you'd like me to review something else for you, just let me know. Freikorp (talk) 08:00, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

   • They consider DYK stricter than GA in some respects so I'd prefer to let somebody else look at it. Anyway I don't think I'm supposed to conduct both GA and DYK review of the same – I'd be considered too close to the article. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 15:33, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

   • Fair enough. I didn't consider that it might be frowned upon for you to do both. Well at this stage i'll just wait for your mentor to look at your review. Might work on some of your suggestions in the major aspects section as time permits. :) Freikorp (talk) 07:22, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

   • Whilst we're on the subject, would a picture of a specific area that was used for filming and clearly seen in the film, like under the Stockton bridge for example, be appropriate for the 'adaptations' section in your opinion? Or would the connection there not be strong enough to warrant a picture? I could add a caption regarding both the use of the area in filming and the objections from Stocktonians towards filming in the area. Freikorp (talk) 13:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

   • One image there would be fine. I'd resist the temptation to have any more images there because it's not the primary subject. Consider putting these in the film article. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 04:15, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

   Other than statements of fact, I would mention instances where observations were from Carrington (and maybe group them together where they are within the same section because the article cites her book extensively, and many instances are currently unattributed (or violate WP:WEASEL). -- Ohc ^¡digame! 01:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

   • Found a second source regarding media coverage being described as victim blaming, so no need to attribute that to Carrington anymore. The only thing in the lead that is attributed to her now is the comments regarding reactions to the play, and those comments are hardly controversial or dubious. Do you think this particular statement needs to be attributed to her? I'm thinking it doesn't. I'll look at the other sections shortly. Freikorp (talk) 13:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
   • Other sections have been done now. Freikorp (talk) 07:00, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   compliant

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   pls confirm whether "x" is a valid number for ref 54

   • Yes, this information is in the foreword. Foreword pages start at 'vi' and end at 'xviii'. Chapter One starts on page 3 (after a page that just says 'Part One' and a blank page). Freikorp (talk) 10:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

   C. No original research:

   "Webster's parole was debated in the Parliament" – there is nothing to support this assertion. The source is a Hansard report of a ministerial Q&A, where there did not seem to be any debate. There is also no indication in cited sources of there being any opposition to Webster's parole. Kindly supply relevant citation or revise. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 09:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

   • In retrospect 'debated' is not the right word. I have reworded this information, and I hope it now addresses the issue of original research. Freikorp (talk) 10:58, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

   • Thanks, now fine. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 15:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   The Media section touches on the sociological discourse of the circumstances surrounding the case, and I think Morrow is incisive and pertinent. However, Morrow is used to cite fact only, which seems to be an underutilisation of the source. Among other things, Morrow discusses and attempts to understand Carrington's positioning. Through this, Carrington is shown to be much more of an activist, and her criticisms can be seen in the light of that activism.

   On the whole, I think The Age article is quite a sober and balanced retrospective of the case, and strongly hints at the conspiracy of silence and the various motivations for keeping quiet. I would suggest trying to incorporate more elements to tie up the disparate and conflicting elements in the reporting timeline and events

   It seems that the case has a claim to fame that it resulted in "one of the longest ever investigations into police conduct in New South Wales" up to 2000 (ref 3). It's notable enough to warrant an explicit mention.

   The 'Aftermath' section is thin as the PIC condemnation and disciplinary actions seem a bit sudden – specific reasons for the reprimands ought to be in the article in the relevant place. "also criticised police for breaching instructions regarding the custody and interviewing of children by not contacting the parents of a child questioned about the murder"(ref 3) – did this criticism surface early as is suggested in the Criticisms section, or did it only come to light with the Integrity Commission report? If the latter, suggest moving to bolster the findings.

   • Second thoughts, this isn't really an issue for GA, but the article will benefit greater clarity from the sociological aspects when submitted for FA. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 04:15, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

   B. Focused:

   Overall, I think the 'Theatrical and film adaptations' section is given too much weight, as it goes into too much detail about the play, which has its own article. The second half of the first paragraph, from "and the rape and murder victim is named Tracy..." could be removed with no detriment to the Murder article. While the family's objection to some elements should certainly be noted, as should the lack of change to the revised production, it could be done in a single sentence. I feel that there are too many gritty details of the family's objection and the inner workings of the play

   Similarly, the first half of the paragraph from "Nevertheless, both the play and the film..." to "inspiration for a work of fiction." can be deleted and ejected to the article about the film.

   • Shortened accordingly. Freikorp (talk) 13:27, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   I see no issues

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Obvious from the article history.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   No issue here. Commons image is GFDL compliant.

   The newly added images are created by the nominator of this article and are all properly licensed.

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   The images used are entirely suitable and relevant to the topic.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:I'm satisfied that this article satisfies the GAC, but as I just asked someone to comment on it, but who seems not to have edited since my request, I'll hold of passing this pending their comments. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 04:15, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

   I'm fairly satisfied with the article being GA quality. I'd take a look at the infobox, which seems to have some strange parameters (e.g. 'participants' and 'outcomes') for this specific event. However that's a triflingly minor comment. :) Protonk (talk) 14:41, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

   @Ohconfucius, sorry to seem impatient but i'm rather excited about this article being promoted, is there anything you'd like me to do before you promote the article? :) Freikorp (talk) 00:12, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

• I am most pleased with this effort, and am closing this candidature as successful. Well done! -- Ohc ^¡digame! 01:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.