Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Whitechapel murders/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 01:18, 18 August 2010 [1].
Whitechapel murders edit
Whitechapel murders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
One of the Jack the Ripper series. This article is focused on the murders themselves, and is structured as a history of the murders as they unfolded. Extensive biographical material on the supposed culprit and a history of the development and legacy of the Jack the Ripper character is deliberately excluded, as that rightly belongs in the Jack the Ripper article. DrKiernan (talk) 14:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 14:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question—whilst not a major thing, you have made 52 edits to the article, whereas Colin4C, who was active as of two days ago, has made 124. I had a look at his talk page and the article's talk page, and found that you have not made any attempt to contact him. You are a significant contributor to the article, yes, but might I ask why you have not consulted Colin4C prior to this nomination? WackyWace converse | contribs 14:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Colin created the article, but has only edited it twice since this revision. I invited all editors, of whom Colin is one, at Talk:Jack the Ripper to add themselves as co-nominators at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jack the Ripper/archive1, but none of them did so. I assumed that this nomination would attract a similar level of interest. If Colin is interested, however, I would welcome his co-nomination, as I would any involved editor. DrKiernan (talk) 17:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources comments
- Some of the notes are rather elaborately formatted and are quite difficult to follow. For example, in note 2 I would have thought it sufficient to say "Daily Mail, 16 July 1901, quoted in Werner, pp. 62 and 179". The rest of the information given does not help locate the source.
- It is possible to distinguish between the two Evans and Skinner books by referring to their dates: "Evans and Skinner 2000" and "Evans and Skinner 2001", rather than by constant repetiton of the book title The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook.
- Citation 63 says "Quoted by Rumbelow", but there is no quotation supplied. Why not just "Rumbelow, p. 76"? I think this simplification could be applied more generally.
- Evans and Rumbelow book: The details give "Sutton: Stroud" which on the basis of your normal formats means that Sutton is the location and Stroud the publisher. It is of course the other way round. I would give the publisher as "Sutton Publications", and the location as "Stroud, Gloucestershire" to conform with the other entries.
- Publisher location missing from the Rumbelow 2004 Penguin book. Probably Harmondsworth.
Otherwise sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 18:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. I think the prose is a little bit raw in places, a few examples:
"The Whitechapel murders were eleven unsolved brutal murders of women ...". So what are they now?
"The bodies of Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly had abdominal mutilations of increasing severity." Not sure if this is saying that the abdominal multilations of Nichols were less severe than those of Chapman, which in turn were less severe than those of Eddowes and so on, or whether each woman had abdominal injuries of increasing severity.
"Investigations were conducted by the Metropolitan Police Service, joined after the "double event" by the City of London Police." The investigations were "joined" (how do you join an investigation?), or the City of London Police joined the Metropolitan Police Service?
"Private organisations such as the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee were also involved in the search for the killer or killers. Despite their efforts, and several arrests, the culprit or culprits evaded identification and capture." Makes it look that it was despite the efforts of the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee.
"The murders drew attention to the poor living conditions in the East End slums, which were subsequently demolished ...". So the "poor living conditions" were demolished?
"At this period Whitechapel was considered to be the most notorious criminal rookery in London." At what period?
"On 7 April, the inquest was conducted by the coroner for East Middlesex, Wynne Edwin Baxter, who would also conduct inquests on six of the other victims." So who conducted the inquest on 8 April, or did it only last for one day? Why the subjunctive "would also conduct inquests"?
"Map of the Spitalfields rookery showing the streets where the victims were resident". Some of the phrasing seems a little overly flowery, such as "were resident". Why not just "lived"? Similarly "resided at" in many of the image captions.
"The head of the CID, Anderson, eventually got back from holiday on 6 October". We were told earlier that he was on sick leave, not holiday.
"Her throat had been slit twice from left to right and her abdomen mutilated with one deep jagged wound, several incisions across the abdomen, and three or four similar cuts on the right side caused by the same knife used violently and downwards." Unclear. Was her abdomen mutilated with (should be "by" really) that one deep jagged wound, by the incisions, both, or something else? Apart from anything else "her abdomen had been mutilated by ... several incisions across the abdomen" just looks strange.
Malleus Fatuorum 23:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the read-through. Changes made in line with your specific examples: [3]. DrKiernan (talk) 09:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Given the volume of material on these murders it must be quite a daunting task to organise it for a wikipedia article but I think this makes a good fist of it, and is a worthy addition to the Ripper project. Malleus Fatuorum 13:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I've read through the article a few times now and it reads very well. No problems that I can see and it is very detailed. Although I'm no Ripper expert, it seems a thorough job. --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - This is an engaging, well-written contribution and I agree with Malleus' comment above. Graham Colm (talk) 11:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I generally don't ping for an image review on DrKiernan's noms, because he knows image policy-- but can someone confirm they've looked at images, or can DrK address? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- They're all sourced and public domain in my opinion. No images have been added (or removed) since they were reviewed at Talk:Whitechapel murders/GA1 (diff of changes since GA review: [4]). DrKiernan (talk) 17:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.