Wikipedia

Talk:Peter Dupas

Latest comment: 7 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Learn more about this page
Former good article nomineePeter Dupas was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 16, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
October 23, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

GA nomination On Hold

edit
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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)Reply

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)Reply

GA Nom failed

edit
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
  • 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)Reply

Too many quotations

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I added the quotefarm tag. See Wikipedia:Quotations --*momoricks* (talk) 12:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Copyedit tag

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I added the tag because this article needs some help in order to abide by the MOS. I'm a member of the Guild of Copyeditors, but don't have the time to dive into this right now. --mo talk 00:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Peter Dupas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:34, 13 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I would recommend that the portions of this article dealing with the legal cases be condensed a bit. For example, unless a person either wins his appeal or there is some unusual legal grounds for appeal, you don't need to spell out all the appeal grounds for every appeal he makes in such detail. It would be more interesting to just read shorter summaries of the court proceedings.

Also, the big honking quote that goes on for paragraphs from a judge saying how bad the guy is, is really overkill for an encyclopedia article. It's pretty clear by the time you get to that point in the article he's a bad guy, will reoffend and should not be out. It doesn't add anything to have that long of a quote from a court saying the obvious. TheBlinkster (talk) 15:30, 18 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 9 external links on Peter Dupas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:24, 29 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Peter Dupas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:19, 1 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Peter_Dupas&oldid=1207061381"