The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot ( talk) 07:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC) [1]. reply
This article is about the grisly murder of a 14-yo schoolgirl in Australia. I am the GAC reviewer of this article. Having examined all the relevant criteria and looked in detail at the background of the story, I believe it is complete for all important details, and all matters of substance and form are of or near to FA standard. Ohc ¡digame! 09:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Resolved issues
|
---|
|
Well-written and neutral, it appears pretty comprehensive at first read. I remember this case in the media at the time. Will jot notes below: Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 22:16, 27 September 2014 (UTC) reply
Resolved issues
|
---|
|
Right - cautious support on comprehensiveness and prose, pending the sorting out of best copyright for images. A sobering and depressing story - well done. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 06:23, 28 September 2014 (UTC) reply
Support from Hamiltonstone. Good article on a distressing subject of socio-cultural significance in Australia. It was hard to read, but purely because of its subject matter.
Oppose: I am sorry to have to oppose, but I do not think that, at present, the prose meets the relevant FA criterion. I recognise the enormous amount of developmental work that has been done on the article, particularly by
Freikorp, but it is not yet, in my view, the finished product. It's a great pity that the article did not receive a peer review – not that the nominators are in any way to blame, since it sat for two weeks at
WP:PR without attracting comment. Please note for the future that I will almost always respond to a polite request for a peer review, unless the subject is professional wrestling.
Resolved issues
|
---|
I have only read the first half of the article. These are my main concerns:
I am not sure whether it is feasible for these issues – together with anything arising in the second half – to be fixed during this FAC, although I hope the co-ordinators will give some leeway in view of your PR experiences. Should this prove impossible, I will be prepared, if you wish, to provide a full peer review before your resubmission. Brianboulton ( talk) 16:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC) reply
Interim: The first part is looking good now. I've made a few tweaks and adjustments. A couple of suggestions before I look at the second half:
Reading on Brianboulton ( talk) 08:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC) reply It's taking longer than I had hoped. Here are my concerns to the end of the "Forensic testing" subsection. More later.
Brianboulton ( talk) 13:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC) reply
I have spent much more time than I normally would on a FAC review, partly because it wasn't your fault that the article didn't get the detailed peer review it needed and also because this is, I think, your first FA nomination. You can probably see now that the article was quite a bit short of FA standard when it was nominated; there is a world of difference between what is acceptable at GA and what is required here. Featured articles, particularly when they become WP:TFA, get scrutinised by large numbers of readers, and it is essential that they justify the claim that they are part of WP's best work. That's enough pontificating by me; I'll leave you to consider my final comments and act as necesary. I have struck the oppose, but want the opportunity to read the whole thing through when you've made your final adjustment. Ping me when you're ready. Brianboulton ( talk) 15:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC) reply
|
Support: I am satisfied that the article is now worthy of promotion. Any further prose tweaks will be of a minor nature. This is an article that will tend to stay in the memory; that cheeky but enigmatic face won't easily be forgotten. Brianboulton ( talk) 22:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC) reply
Note -- I know there's been some discussion of referencing above but not sure that we've had a formal source review for formatting/reliability, or a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing. Pls let me know if I've missed something, otherwise I'd like to see both such checks carried out before we look at promotion. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 11:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC) reply
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank ( push to talk)
Source review - spotchecks not done
Batting 0-for-5 here—I strongly urge this be given a thorough source edit by an independent editor and copyedited for close paraphrasing as needed. I realize referring to a couple of these as close paraphrasing might be debatable, but I think we can do better in terms of distance from the source text. -- Laser brain (talk) 00:28, 24 October 2014 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot ( talk) 07:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC) [1]. reply
This article is about the grisly murder of a 14-yo schoolgirl in Australia. I am the GAC reviewer of this article. Having examined all the relevant criteria and looked in detail at the background of the story, I believe it is complete for all important details, and all matters of substance and form are of or near to FA standard. Ohc ¡digame! 09:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Resolved issues
|
---|
|
Well-written and neutral, it appears pretty comprehensive at first read. I remember this case in the media at the time. Will jot notes below: Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 22:16, 27 September 2014 (UTC) reply
Resolved issues
|
---|
|
Right - cautious support on comprehensiveness and prose, pending the sorting out of best copyright for images. A sobering and depressing story - well done. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 06:23, 28 September 2014 (UTC) reply
Support from Hamiltonstone. Good article on a distressing subject of socio-cultural significance in Australia. It was hard to read, but purely because of its subject matter.
Oppose: I am sorry to have to oppose, but I do not think that, at present, the prose meets the relevant FA criterion. I recognise the enormous amount of developmental work that has been done on the article, particularly by
Freikorp, but it is not yet, in my view, the finished product. It's a great pity that the article did not receive a peer review – not that the nominators are in any way to blame, since it sat for two weeks at
WP:PR without attracting comment. Please note for the future that I will almost always respond to a polite request for a peer review, unless the subject is professional wrestling.
Resolved issues
|
---|
I have only read the first half of the article. These are my main concerns:
I am not sure whether it is feasible for these issues – together with anything arising in the second half – to be fixed during this FAC, although I hope the co-ordinators will give some leeway in view of your PR experiences. Should this prove impossible, I will be prepared, if you wish, to provide a full peer review before your resubmission. Brianboulton ( talk) 16:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC) reply
Interim: The first part is looking good now. I've made a few tweaks and adjustments. A couple of suggestions before I look at the second half:
Reading on Brianboulton ( talk) 08:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC) reply It's taking longer than I had hoped. Here are my concerns to the end of the "Forensic testing" subsection. More later.
Brianboulton ( talk) 13:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC) reply
I have spent much more time than I normally would on a FAC review, partly because it wasn't your fault that the article didn't get the detailed peer review it needed and also because this is, I think, your first FA nomination. You can probably see now that the article was quite a bit short of FA standard when it was nominated; there is a world of difference between what is acceptable at GA and what is required here. Featured articles, particularly when they become WP:TFA, get scrutinised by large numbers of readers, and it is essential that they justify the claim that they are part of WP's best work. That's enough pontificating by me; I'll leave you to consider my final comments and act as necesary. I have struck the oppose, but want the opportunity to read the whole thing through when you've made your final adjustment. Ping me when you're ready. Brianboulton ( talk) 15:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC) reply
|
Support: I am satisfied that the article is now worthy of promotion. Any further prose tweaks will be of a minor nature. This is an article that will tend to stay in the memory; that cheeky but enigmatic face won't easily be forgotten. Brianboulton ( talk) 22:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC) reply
Note -- I know there's been some discussion of referencing above but not sure that we've had a formal source review for formatting/reliability, or a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing. Pls let me know if I've missed something, otherwise I'd like to see both such checks carried out before we look at promotion. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 11:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC) reply
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank ( push to talk)
Source review - spotchecks not done
Batting 0-for-5 here—I strongly urge this be given a thorough source edit by an independent editor and copyedited for close paraphrasing as needed. I realize referring to a couple of these as close paraphrasing might be debatable, but I think we can do better in terms of distance from the source text. -- Laser brain (talk) 00:28, 24 October 2014 (UTC) reply