Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:46, 2 January 2010

January 2010

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 Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:46, 2 January 2010 .

John Christie (murderer)

Nominator(s): Wcp07 (talk) 02:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I nominated this article back in October and addressed most of the issues then. There was one outstanding issue of image use which I was not able to resolve; I believe I have resolved it now. I have linked the previous featured article candidate discussion here. Back then, the main issues were inline citations and copyediting, which I was able to address. Wcp07 (talk) 02:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Article needs WP:PERSONDATA. Wizardman 17:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. Wcp07 (talk) 22:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Mm40 (talk · contribs)

• "hanged in 1953 for his wife's murder, after his" you can remove the comma

Done. Wcp07 (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• "Christie had served in World War I" remove the redundant "had"

Done. Wcp07 (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• In the lead, why is rape linked but not "theft" and assault"?

Links included for theft and assault. Wcp07 (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• Because the second note cautions against the use of necrophiliac, its inclusion is somewhat POV. Moreover, it's not discussed anywhere in the article, so it shouldn't be in the lead.

I've taken out the reference to necrophilia in the lead but I've still included it in the body (under "Later murders"). I think it's important to mention as Christie is commonly held to be a necrophiliac, even if that description might not be particularly accurate. I've pointed out that there is a dispute over whether he is one or isn't, so hopefully that will satisfy POV concerns. Wcp07 (talk) 04:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• "Timothy Evans was charged with both murders, was found guilty of the murder of his daughter and was hanged in 1950" repeats the word "was" three times

Redundant "had's" removed. Wcp07 (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• "When Christie's own crimes were uncovered three years" two things: I think "own" is redundant, and "uncovered" isn't the most encyclopedic.

Done; uncovered replaced with discovered. Wcp07 (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• "Mr Justice Brabin stated" should lose the "Mr" and have a full name

Done. Wcp07 (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• Remove "nevertheless"

Done. Wcp07 (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• "enabled the then Home Secretary to" either should give a name or remove "then"; it's obvious that the then Secretary did it

Done. Wcp07 (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• "the age of eight" can be simply "age eight"

Done. Wcp07 (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• Is all of the first paragraph of Early life covered by the given reference, or just the sentence about his grandfather?

The reference in the first paragraph is only citing the sentence about Christie grandfather. The rest of the paragraph I felt didn't require citations; I can add some though if they're needed. Wcp07 (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• "was a Boy Scout; upon leaving school" should have a period instead of a semicolon.

Done. Wcp07 (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• "to talk much louder than a whisper, Kennedy argues" can just be "to talk loudly, Kennedy argues" because the detail is previously given.

Done. Wcp07 (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• "Ethel Simpson Waddington from Sheffield, on 10 May 1920" the comma is splicing

Done; comma removed. Wcp07 (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• "end his cycle of petty crime" isn't really a cycle, because one crme doesn't lead to another

Done; "cycle" replaced with "course". Wcp07 (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• "to Harrow Road police station" seems to need "the"

Done. Wcp07 (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• "she was on the beat or in a" I think "on the beat" is a bit jargonish

Done, reworded. Wcp07 (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• Link Ladbroke Grove?

Done. Wcp07 (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• "Christie impulsively strangled her during" why "impulsively"?

I used "impulsively" to convey the sense that it occurred without warning. I've replaced it with "without warning" to be clearer. Wcp07 (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• "the husband of the woman with whom he had been having the affair" is a bit wordy. How about "the woman's husband"?

Done. Wcp07 (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• The last sentence of the first paragraph of First murders needs clarification: which building is being referred to?

Done; specified the building is Christie's residence. Wcp07 (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• Reference 4 has a period at the end while the others don't (pedantic, I know).

It's put in automatically by the cite:book template I used for the reference. That probably means I'm going to have to add a period to all the manual references for consistency. How annoying. Wcp07 (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully more comments coming; I'm going to wait a while as I think this needs some more copy-editing, but I'm gonna wait for some other opinions. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 00:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to put the article through further copyediting. But as you suggest, I'll wait for further comments. Wcp07 (talk) 07:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, my lack of comments isn't a wait for more comments as much as lack of available time. Mm40 (talk) 12:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• Mild oppose. I'm not any too happy about the prose, which doesn't flow very well. Getting some fresh eyes in there would probably help. When you've read a text over and over, and tried to please everybody, your feeling for more intangible things in it, like "flow", may end up a little overtaxed. (A phenomenon known as "flow fatigue".) I've done a bit of copyediting (just now), but there remain some sentences in there that sound almost a note of unintentional comedy. At a minimum, please rephrase "Christie resigned as a Special Constable, likely due to emotional conflicts between being a murderer and a member of the police force", and "The tenants were black immigrants from the West Indies with whom the Christies despised living because of racial prejudices". This one, "He also admitted to killing Beryl Evans, with whom Timothy Evans had originally been charged", while it's by no means comical, is an illustration of the kind of syntax difficulties you're likely to find yourself in if you insist, as this text appears to do, on the nonsense "rule" that a sentence mustn't end with a preposition. (See Preposition stranding for the "overzealous avoidance" of prepositions at the end.) Bishonen | talk 20:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC).

I've rephrased some of the awkward passages in the text, but it's difficult to spot them when you've read the text over about a hundred times or so. I see what you mean about "overzealous avoidance" of having prepositions at the end, so I've rephrased the glaring ones to make the prose flow better. I'm not sure that it needs more copyediting, though - I actually had the article copyedited by User:Shirik last night before you made your comments, so I can't see what further copyediting it needs. Wcp07 (talk) 04:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Spaced en dash required in a full date range, since there's at least one space within the elements.

Done. Wcp07 (talk) 04:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Link for "pardon"? Rather common word. Same for "conviction", "probation", "petty crime"

I've delinked many of the common words, most of which were successively linked by anonymous IP users. I'm happy to also delink "pardon" but I've kept it linked so that those not familiar with UK law can find out why the Home Secretary doesn't issue pardons but must recommend them (to the monarch) instead. Wcp07 (talk) 04:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Lots of clean-ups required, such as "in spite of having an extensive criminal record" --> "in spite of his extensive criminal record".

Done. Wcp07 (talk) 04:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• The relationship between clauses is a real problem.

Not too sure what that means. Are there some specific examples you have in mind? Wcp07 (talk) 04:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Needs an independent copy-edit throughout. Tony (talk) 22:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

As I've mentioned above, I'm not sure that it needs further copyediting as it's now been copyedited twice since its peer review prior to the last nomination.Wcp07 (talk) 04:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - for now. The main problem is that the prose does not flow well; the sentences are often too detached from each other in style and content. This is often easier to spot than fix, but I have made some suggestions , but other problems remain.

• Here for example, there are two adjoining sentences both beginning with "after": After initially alleging that Christie had killed his wife in a botched abortion operation, Evans then confessed to murdering his wife and daughter. After he was charged with their deaths, Evans recanted his confession and again accused Christie of being the murderer, this time of both his wife and daughter. and there is "Evans...Evans.
• This sentence is trying to say too much and has to be read twice, This reaction, together with Christie's exaggeration of the effects of the attack, stemmed from underlying hysteria in Christie; such a condition encouraged him to exaggerate or feign illness as a ploy to get attention and sympathy.
• This sentence does not make sense, Christie, without warning, strangled her during sex at Rillington Place in August 1943, not long after his assault.
• Here, both of whom were found in an outside wash-house with Beryl's body additionally parcelled up the "additionally parcelled up" sounds very odd.

The Ladbroke Grove image adds nothing to the article, but the legend does. I suggest deleting the image and incorporating the legend into the body of the article. The plan of Pentonville in Victorian times added nothing at all and I have taken the liberty of deleting it. On reading this, I could not help compare it with Moors murders, an engaging FA that flows beautifully despite the evil it describes.

Lastly, the reader needs to be told that at the time of the murders, homes in the UK were supplied with town gas, which was mostly carbon monoxide, which is poisonous, and not the much less harmfulnatural gas (methane), which we burn now. Graham Colm 17:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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 Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:46, 2 January 2010 .

SMS Blücher

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 02:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I wrote this article back in June and took it through GAN and a MILHIST ACR in July. It's since sat on the back burner while I took the Derfflinger-class battlecruisers through to a complete FT. I feel it's pretty comprehensive, considering the fairly short life-span of the ship (she was in commission for barely more than 5 years). I look forward to any and all comments and suggestions to help me ensure this article is of Featured quality. Thanks in advance. Parsecboy (talk) 02:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Technical stuff

• No dab links or dead external links—cool.
• Now add alt text to the infobox ship image and the body images. If you think they are better described by the adjacent text, try placeholder alts. (Thumb images cannot be treated as purely decorative.)
• Dates are Day Month Year throughout—good.

--an odd name 18:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Alt text has been added, let me know if any of it needs work. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 23:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
  • The first image's alt can probably mention the ship's two cross-shaped masts, but alts look good otherwise. --an odd name 23:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• How was the torpedo bulkhead situated in relation to the main armor belt?
• Were the casemated guns washed out at high speeds or sea states?
• The Bombardment of Yarmouth section doesn't mention any armored cruisers until Yorck ran onto a minefield. You only mention Blücher, some battlecruisers and light cruisers, but no armored cruisers. Where did she come from?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I clarified where the bulkhead was. I haven't seen anything specifically state that Blucher's casemates were wet, but given that practically every warship with casemates had this problem, I'd say it's reasonable to assume that Blucher did too. That said, without having a source state as much, I'm not going to add it to the article. As for Yorck, I haven't been able to find out where the ship was specifically prior to her sinking. It certainly wasn't with Hipper and the BCs, so I'm assuming it was with the main fleet. Parsecboy (talk) 12:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose, 1a. The text contains too much jargon and vague language—I found it to be a very frustrating read and not at all accessible. Some back-knowledge can be assumed, but average readers should be able to make it through most sentences without clicking off to read definitions and context. Sample issues:
  • The opening line leaves me a bit cold, to be honest. What does "last" mean in this context? Last built? Last surviving?
  • "which were expected to simply be larger" The modifier "simply" seems misplaced or misused here. What are you modifying?
  • "Being only an upgrade of the traditional armored cruisers" In what way? I read on a considerable distance to discover no section detailing the contrast between Blücher and the "traditional armored cruisers". Unclear prose.
  • "One week after the final decision was made" Which decision? The armament decision, or are you speaking of overall design considerations?
  • "Blücher had a draft of 8.84 m forward, but only 8.56 m aft." The word "only" suggests that the contrast should mean something to me... but what?
  • "However, she suffered from severe roll, and at hard rudder, she heeled over up to 10 degrees." This sentence was impossible for me to digest as a non-specialist. "Roll" links to an article that describes "listing".

Good start but it definitely needs tightening up and improved accessibility. --Andy Walsh (talk) 06:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing the article. "Last" does indeed mean "last built;" I've specified that. As for "simply," I'm not quite sure what you mean. The following sentence should make clear what I meant by the assumption that the Invincibles would feature only minor improvements over the armored cruiser type. I added a note comparing Blücher and the preceding Scharnhorst class in terms of number of guns. The "only" was meant to highlight the fact that the ship displaced more water forward; I've reworded that slightly. For the "decision," yes, the latter. I've linked roll to a better article and perhaps clarified what the 10 degrees was referring to. Parsecboy (talk) 18:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Additional comments, through the Design section. I appreciate your looking at my concerns above. I urge you to get some help in here to tighten up the prose so we don't have to have laundry lists at the FAC—we're applying bandaids but it really needs a good run-through.
  • "information from the British Naval Attache about the armament of Invincible class was leaked" By whom? If possible, make active voice and specify who leaked.
  • "The three engines were separated in individual engine rooms." How do you feel about "segregated" instead? "Separated" gives me the impression of being taken apart.
  • "though fuel bunkers were expanded to allow up to 2,510 tons of coal" Unclear. Was this done at design time, or at build time as a last minute modification? Or was it done by the crew? As above, it could benefit from being made active voice to specify when and by whom.
  • Footnote 5 seems to go to the wrong URL, as it is the same as footnote 4. It's about the 21 cm SK L/45 and not the 15 cm. Therefore, I cannot verify the data about the 15 cm presented in the article.
  • How do we know the data presented on navweaps.com is accurate? I noted in the sourcing that the author says some of the data comes from "Tony DiGiulian's personal data files". Who is Tony DiGiulian, and how can we trust his personal data files? I would much prefer this type of technical data be sourced to a published work that's been fact-checked or peer reviewed.
  • "reduced to 80 mm in less important areas of the hull" Which are what?
  • "though this only ran the length of the hull between the forward and rear centerline gun turrets" Confusing. "ran the length of the hull" means the whole hull, but then you qualify the statement. Why not just "ran between the the forward and rear centerline gun turrets"?
  • "The forward conning tower had an armored roof that was 80 mm thick and 250 mm-thick sides." Missing parallel structure, rough to read.

--Andy Walsh (talk) 03:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

In regards to Navweaps.com, it's been discussed at WP:RS/N in the past (the old discussion has been preserved here). I've fixed everything else you pointed out, with the exception of the first. It's unlikely that the person who leaked the information is known; I haven't come across it in any of the reading I've done. I'll see what I can do as far as getting a read through of the prose. Parsecboy (talk) 17:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comments: What's wrong with this picture?
  • "approximately 30 mi (48 km) north of the Dogger Bank"

Gene Nygaard (talk) 06:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. Can you be more specific please? Parsecboy (talk) 14:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, but it really shouldn't be that hard to see for somebody familiar with the subject matter, once somebody has pointed out that potential problems exist:

1. Why would anybody be measuring this distance in English statute miles?
2. In particular, why would this be in English statute miles in a German-ship article?
3. Even if it really were in statute miles, those strange-to-the-context units would need to be specifically identified as such.
4. Even if it were statute miles, the precision of the conversion result would be inappropriate for the "approximately" introduction.

That is often the consequence of over-reliance on black boxes such as {{convert}} by people who don't know how to make them work properly. Gene Nygaard (talk) 16:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Tarrant, to whose book the claim is sourced, specifically uses miles: "...in a position about 30 miles north of the Dogger Bank..." I merely repeated the figure from the source. I could see your objection if the convert template resulted in something like "approximately 30 miles (48.280 km)", but 48 is a perfectly fine number with which to use a qualifier like "approximately." Parsecboy (talk) 17:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

How can you be so clueless as to still not get it, if you are trying to edit articles about ships? Try statute mile, maybe that will help. Then check out the next main section below it. Gene Nygaard (talk) 18:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.