![]() | Case of the Hooded Man has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
April 9, 2009. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the
Case of the Hooded Man was so called because the
defendant was made to wear a black
hood when travelling to and from the court? |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The trial section repeatedly says that the trial took place in the Crown Court, or in Lewes Crown Court. This cannot be correct as Crown Courts were not created until 1972. Can someone go back to the original references and find out where the trial actually took place - possible the Lewes Assizes. Similarly, the Crown Prosecution Service was not established until 1986. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 19:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
This case is repeatedly featured in the opening credits of the BBC's version of the Sherlock Holmes mysteries (the Jeremy Brett version). did you know? There is a wide shot that tightens in on a paper boy hawking a paper, and then focuses on a paper that refers to the Eastbourne murders.
On a different note, would you like me to fix up the grammar and punctuation? It's a bit ...ummmm... more flexible that it needs to be. :) Auntieruth55 ( talk) 00:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Will start reviewing shortly. Cheers, Ricardiana ( talk) 01:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Mostly OK here. There are a few problems:
Fine here.
Here is where the big problem lies. Only two sources are cited, and as a result some issues brought up on the article are never fleshed out. For instance, no reason is given as to why Williams was hooded. I found a source through Google Books that does give a reason, as well as other information not found in the article regarding motivations of witnesses, details on the use of ballistics (important as this is an early use of that sort of evidence), etc.
Some sources are available to read through Google Books: the one I'm looking at right now is Written in Blood by Colin and Damon Wilson. A number of other works referencing the murder pop up in Google Books but aren't available on-line to read; those could be inter-library loaned, though.
Aside from the limited number of sources, yes.
Fine here.
Fine here.
I am putting the article on hold. The main issue is with the sources - as more exist that provide helpful, relevant information, they should be incorporated. Ricardiana ( talk) 02:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Alright, here is my opinion. GA criteria states that only editors which have not significantly contributed to the article before its nomination should review the article. It is ok to embrace the spirit of "fix it yourself" and make any changes you deem necessary to improve the article. Although I'm not sure many other editors take it as far as you have in this case (you currently rank as the top contributor to this article as far as number of edits, although I suspect this article was transferred from a userspace draft), I usually keep the changes down to minor revisions and additions of material. It wasn't technically necessary for you to request a second opinion, but I will give it to you anyway. I gave the article a quick read, and couldn't find anything wrong. I'd say go ahead and pass it. -- ErgoSum88 ( talk) 18:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
A critical point seems to be the recovery of the gun that was allegedly used. It is stated that a gun was buried on the beach, but there is no mention of its recovery, although this is implied in the statement "by firing the gun ..." It seems to me a important - if the gun was recovered from where Seymour said it was, then clearly her statement was at least in part true.
A minor point - why was Power arrested - on what charge?
Baska436 ( talk) 00:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
![]() | Case of the Hooded Man has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
April 9, 2009. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the
Case of the Hooded Man was so called because the
defendant was made to wear a black
hood when travelling to and from the court? |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The trial section repeatedly says that the trial took place in the Crown Court, or in Lewes Crown Court. This cannot be correct as Crown Courts were not created until 1972. Can someone go back to the original references and find out where the trial actually took place - possible the Lewes Assizes. Similarly, the Crown Prosecution Service was not established until 1986. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 19:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
This case is repeatedly featured in the opening credits of the BBC's version of the Sherlock Holmes mysteries (the Jeremy Brett version). did you know? There is a wide shot that tightens in on a paper boy hawking a paper, and then focuses on a paper that refers to the Eastbourne murders.
On a different note, would you like me to fix up the grammar and punctuation? It's a bit ...ummmm... more flexible that it needs to be. :) Auntieruth55 ( talk) 00:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Will start reviewing shortly. Cheers, Ricardiana ( talk) 01:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Mostly OK here. There are a few problems:
Fine here.
Here is where the big problem lies. Only two sources are cited, and as a result some issues brought up on the article are never fleshed out. For instance, no reason is given as to why Williams was hooded. I found a source through Google Books that does give a reason, as well as other information not found in the article regarding motivations of witnesses, details on the use of ballistics (important as this is an early use of that sort of evidence), etc.
Some sources are available to read through Google Books: the one I'm looking at right now is Written in Blood by Colin and Damon Wilson. A number of other works referencing the murder pop up in Google Books but aren't available on-line to read; those could be inter-library loaned, though.
Aside from the limited number of sources, yes.
Fine here.
Fine here.
I am putting the article on hold. The main issue is with the sources - as more exist that provide helpful, relevant information, they should be incorporated. Ricardiana ( talk) 02:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Alright, here is my opinion. GA criteria states that only editors which have not significantly contributed to the article before its nomination should review the article. It is ok to embrace the spirit of "fix it yourself" and make any changes you deem necessary to improve the article. Although I'm not sure many other editors take it as far as you have in this case (you currently rank as the top contributor to this article as far as number of edits, although I suspect this article was transferred from a userspace draft), I usually keep the changes down to minor revisions and additions of material. It wasn't technically necessary for you to request a second opinion, but I will give it to you anyway. I gave the article a quick read, and couldn't find anything wrong. I'd say go ahead and pass it. -- ErgoSum88 ( talk) 18:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
A critical point seems to be the recovery of the gun that was allegedly used. It is stated that a gun was buried on the beach, but there is no mention of its recovery, although this is implied in the statement "by firing the gun ..." It seems to me a important - if the gun was recovered from where Seymour said it was, then clearly her statement was at least in part true.
A minor point - why was Power arrested - on what charge?
Baska436 ( talk) 00:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)