Talk:Lady in the Lake trial

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Lady in the Lake trial 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. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on February 2, 2007.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Contents

[edit] Rewrite

If there is anyone who edits this article reguarly, then I am working on a complete rewrite. I am writing it in my sandbox, feel free to come along and give me a hand. It is coming on slowly and steadily. J Milburn 19:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. I feel I can get this up to good article status. Any suggestions or help would be welcomed. J Milburn 22:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] some editing comments

Hi - thanks so much for your help with Chafik Charobim's page today. I'm trying to reciprocate your kindness so here are some minor edits that I think might help in your article:

- 'agaisnt' is misspelled in "evidence agaisnt him can be ..."


- "For this reason," to replace "It was because of this reason, Gordon claimed, that he did not .. "

- "The body was found in " instead of "The body was found to be in"?

- "When the body was discovered" to replace "At the time of the discovery of the body, "

- "After the charges were dropped Gordon said" to replace "Gordon said after the charges were dropped" Cheers,

Liliboyd 05:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I have made all of the changes you suggested, apart from the second one. The reason the second one needs to stay is that that particular course of events is not the one agreed with by the courts, and so it is important to differentiate between the course of events that the courts deemed true, and what Gordon claims. J Milburn


24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bias

I think this has been written by a member of the family lots of the so called facts which supposedly point to innocence are conjecture or just downright incorrect for example it was proven at the triaL that Gordon did not sell the boat till July 1976 not June therefore he could have had the boat at the time of the murder. Wikpedia is supposed to be accurate, not the forum of a very sad family who cannot accept the truth. I sat through the whole trial, belive me he is guilty.

I would very much appreciate your input in the article then. If you can add information that is well referenced then PLEASE do so. I am the author of this version of the article, and I can assure you that I am not a family member, just a teenager with an interest in local history. Everything that is in the article is referenced to various websites that I have come across while searching for information- another editor already mentioned that there is a bias, when I voiced my concern that there may be at a peer review here. J Milburn 19:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Large revert

Ok, I just reverted a large amount of this article. That is because the new information seemed even more biased in Gordon's favour than the original article was, and some of the claims were unsourced. All of the edits I reverted can be seen here, but I kept the new spelling of Rachael. The areas that I had the most problems with was the unsourced rant about the rocks in the lake, and the unsourced mention of the vigils happening every year. Also, the unsourced point about the people being Rachael's friends- that stunk of bias. If that information is going to be added, then please source it, and let us strive to remain neutral here. I have had an idea for fixing the neutrality of the article involving the case controversy section- there was a Daily Mail article- if I edit the section to include only the items that are mentioned there, then that should remove some of the speculative fluff. J Milburn 16:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The rigor mortis explanation and the point about the witness being too far away were also unsourced. J Milburn 16:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA oh hold

Tempted to quick fail but you should be able to sort this out soon hopefully. You have several non-free images without any fair use, sort that out and I'll do a proper review. On a separate point, you might consider looking up primary sources, the judgements from courts and academic databases, to back it up a bit more. But the coverage is good. You also have two red links you might want to do something about. - J Logan t/c: 18:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, the images do have a fair use rationale? It was tagged as being for Gordon Park, but this article was called that until recently. I have changed the message, as well as updating the rationales a little. I wouldn't know where to get the primary sources from, to be honest, but I would be happy to do that if someone could point me in the right direction. I will look into the redlinks. J Milburn 20:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Redlinks dealt with. J Milburn 20:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh my bad on the fair use, I am used to seeing it in the formal table. That's fine, good on the red links. As for the academic source, seems the decent sources I can't get at now I'm not studying law an more, free sources seem to have no record of case. -on that btw, you might want to note down the name of the case, think it is "R v Park [2005]". So, happy to pass this though, it is written well, full citation, covers everything and I don't find it biased, has been stable of late and the images are fine. So yes, well done and keep up the good work. - J Logan t/c: 21:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA review — kept

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, Ruslik 08:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)