Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/April 2012

April 2012

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 Ucucha 00:58, 4 April 2012 [1].

---

Wage reform in the Soviet Union, 1956–1962

Nominator(s): Coolug (talk) 13:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

This article is about a series of reforms that took place in the Soviet Union after the death of Stalin. Being a ridiculously under-researched area of Soviet history, there isn't a massive amount of information out there in the world about this reform, however, what little that has been written is of very high quality, and has all been used to source this article. The article had a pop at FAC over the christmas/new year period, the result being four supports and one oppose, the oppose being about prose concerns. I stuck the article on the no-mans-land that is the copyeditors request page, but decided to have a go at rewriting bits myself when interest at GOCE was shown to be non-existent and I had a couple of days at work with nothing to do but mess around on wikipedia. I'll be the first to admit that I found the failure to be promoted last time a bit demoralising, but my previous experience on wikipedia with other FACs has taught me that resilience always pays off in the end. I would ask that anyone with any concerns that they think might be a quick easy fix consider making the changes which may often be a great deal quicker than writing an essay on my failings as a writer. I look foward to any constructive comments. Cya! Coolug (talk) 13:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Seeing that I'm a GA and FL-man, and not a FA-man, I'm not the best of reviewers. Even so, here I go:

• I'm guessing that the Sovnarkhoz reform of 1957 and the monetary reform of 1961 did effect the implementation of this reform in some way or another....
• Shouldn't the Seven-Five Year Plan be mentioned? Considering that the Soviet economy was built on planning, the plan in which the reform was a part of should be mentioned.
• I'm not sure, but should it be mentioned that the 1986 wage reform was very similar to to the 1956 reform?
• The reform caused major disruptions in the machine-tool sector, for instance, the machine-tool sector reported a shortage of 600,000 in 1964 because of the reform. The Brezhnev–Kosygin leadership partially reversed the reform when they came to power. This is not mentioned...
• A new reform came during the 1970s; did it replace this one, or was it only minor?
• While the reform was planned to end in 1962, several features of the reform were delayed to 1964 and 1965; for instance, the reform was not introduced in the service sector before 1964/1965
• The article could do with more pictures of something - maybe pictures of workers? This one maybe?

Probably more to say, but I can't seem to come up with any.... --TIAYN (talk) 16:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

hello. Thanks for your comments. Unfortunately there isn't a huge amount of sources that specifically mention this wage reform, so to be perfectly honest I'm not massively knowledgable about a lot of the stuff you mention because I haven't read about it in the sources I've used. However, this machine-tool sector problem sounds very interesting, especially if the leadership specifically blamed the reform, could you point me in the direction of a reliable source I could use for this? I can access academic journals via a friend who works at a university. Anything you can suggest that cites this would be great. Thanks! Coolug (talk) 19:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response, here; Soviet Workers and De-Stalinization: The Consolidation of the Modern System of Soviet Production Relations 1953–1964 (this one contains much information which this article is missing) and The Dilemmas of de-Stalinization: Negotiating Cultural and Social Change in the Khrushchev Era mentions some of this... Do you need more? --TIAYN (talk) 07:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for my even later response :) I've got the "Soviet Workers..." book by Filtzer at home so I'll try and add some of this stuff, however, the index is not super comprehensive so it might take me a while to read through and find the things you suggest I add. Cya! Coolug (talk) 12:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I've thrown in a mention of the gorbachev thing, however, I really want to include this machine tool shortage thing but can't find the reference to this among the 300 pages of filtzers book, where is this? Have you got a page number? Coolug (talk) 19:47, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I have found this blasted machine-tool reference in the book! At last! Coolug (talk) 21:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support I supported this last time, and I've been through the edits since the previous nomination was archived. These include helpful copyedits from two other editors. The article prose is improved, and I can't see any new issues Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment:

• Shouldn't the headers "Positive results" and "Failures" be consistent? i.e., "Successes" and "Failures", or "Positive results" and "Negative results"? More of a query than a criticism. But "Conclusions" strikes me as somewhat wrongly worded; wouldn't "Legacy" be a better term? MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 18:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

hello. Thanks for this. I have made successes/failure more consistent. I'd rather keep 'conclusions' however, as the text is more about how the reforms told us something interesting about labour relations in the USSR than any lasting legacy of the reforms. That's not to say I'm against changing it, I just don't think legacy would be any more an accurate title. cya! Coolug (talk) 19:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment: The opening paragraph remains problematic, as indicated by Tony during the last FAC. I wonder why you have not adopted his suggested rewording, which in my opinion is much more fluent and authoratitive than the present tentative beginning. His suggestion was:-

"During the Khrushchev era, from 1956 through 1962, the Soviet Union attempted to implement wage reforms intended to move industrial workers away from the mindset of overfulfilling quotas, which had characterised the Soviet economy during the Stalinist period."

As Tony suggests, this could be tweaked in a few ways without losing any force. I strongly recommend you make this change. Brianboulton (talk) 15:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I did do just that during the first FAC. I'm not going to not follow some advice due to some fear of losing face. Here's the page last week [2]. I changed the opening again because short of anyone telling me otherwise I was under the impression the opening was still regarded as falling short (tbh I forgot that the article opened that way because someone else suggested I do it that way).... Anyway, I'll change it back.

Other helpful comments, I shall respond shortly...... Coolug (talk) 18:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I've just had another look at the first FAC and noted that I actually did make every change he suggested, except for the removing of the word 'incentive' as I felt (and other editors agreed) that it was an entirely appropriate word for an economics article and was also a the word used in the original source. I'm always happy to make a suggested change if it's a constructive one. Coolug (talk) 13:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Support on (1bcde; 2abc; 3 (limited); 4): I've read it again, and it still meets: Content depth, breadth and correctness; source & cite quality; structure; neutrality & stability; media (appropriateness and captions only) Fifelfoo (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comments: not as tasty as your last featured article candidate, but I'll try to read this over and review the prose as best I can. A couple quick comments to start:
• Try to be consistent with comma usage, for example, I see "In 1956..." (no comma) "In May 1955,..." (comma).
• "Academic Donald Filtzer wrote that wider issues in Soviet industry..." What kind of Academic was Dr. Filtzer? An economic, a historian? Mark Arsten (talk) 20:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for these comments, I have made a few changes. If there's anything I've missed please let me know. Cya! Coolug (talk) 12:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• Alright, I'm back again with more:
• Not a big deal, but I'm not sure wage reforms needs to be bold in the lead (WP:BOLDTITLE).
• You start the first two paragraphs with "During...", is there a good way to avoid that?
• In the image caption, I'd suggest "celebrates" rather than "is celebrating".
• In the second caption, I'd suggest "was offered as a role model for workers by Soviet authorities." instead of "was used by Soviet authorities as a role model for other workers."
• "This was usually because, due to supply problems, factories simply did not have the resources to complete production until the end of the month." This reads somewhat awkwardly to me. How about "This was usually due to supply problems that left factories without the resources to complete production until the end of the month."?
• "Alec Nove wrote in 1966... that the lack of transparency surrounding average wages was in fact to prevent Soviet workers..." I'm not sure "in fact" is the best choice there, I'd suggest something like "was intended to prevent Soviet workers..."
• I made a few copyedits, hopefully inoffensive ones. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
• I'd prefer 30em over 20em here, but that is purely a matter of preference.
• "Quotas had been lowered during the Second World War so that new inexperienced workers" Is "new inexperienced" redundant here? Mark Arsten (talk) 03:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. Thanks for your excellent edits. I have now made changes for everything you suggest. Thanks! Coolug (talk) 12:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• "First, basic wages were increased. This meant that there would be less pressure to overfulfill quotas, and therefore less pressure to manipulate or distort results." Maybe combine these two sentences?
• Maybe think about combining some of the short paragraphs in the Provisions subsection.
• "The number of different wage rates and wage scales was drastically reduced." Could we remove "different" here without changing the meaning?
• "This allowed managers to better distribute labour and helped to reduce the frequency of bottlenecks occurring in production, as formerly less attractive tasks would now be carried out by workers who had seen their financial incentive to focus on higher paying tasks disappear." Is there a good way to tighten this sentence up a bit?
• "with only 0.5 percent of workers continuing to receive them in 1962", "with piece-rate workers seeing", "with wages across the entire state (not only industrial wages) rising" Is there a good way to avoid the WP:PLUSING in some (or all) of these?
• "The wage reform was linked to a program that reduced the length of the overall working week in the Soviet Union. From 1958 the working week was reduced from 48 hours to 41." Maybe try to combine these two sentences?
• "Whilst the reform did remove some of the peculiarities of the Stalinist era, overall the reforms created more new problems for Soviet workers." See if you can avoid the repetition of "the reform... the reforms" here.
• "A further problem with the centrally directed bonus system was that it would encourage factories to continue producing old, more familiar products where it was therefore easier to overfulfill targets than to start work on new products." This feels a bit wordy to me, is there a good way to tighten it up?
• "in the same way that their counterparts in the west could" & "Some academics in the west believed" vs "the culture of consumerism that in the West" & "seen to such an extent in the West in industries" Not sure which version is correct here.
  • Looks like some of my comments may have been taken care of by subsequent copyediting by MathewTownsend. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
• Made some more copyedits, feel free to revert if you think I put too many commas in. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I've made changes to everything you suggest. Thanks for your edits, plus thanks for the help Mathew! Coolug (talk) 12:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Alright, fixes look good. I'm taking a second, and hopefully quicker, run through the article. I think the prose is in good shape at this point. Just a preference issue, but I'd suggest condensing the lead to two paragraphs. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
• You have "The subsequent sixth Five-Year Plan for 1956 to 1960" and then "The Sixth Five Year Plan made several key changes" in the next paragraph. I think the first one is right?
• Is there a good article to link to "corrective labour"?
• Feel free to push back against my last round of copyediting if you think I got too ambitious.
• Support -- Alright, I've gone over the article about as thoroughly as I can, and I am now more than willing to support its promotion to featured status. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for all your help with the article and your support. I piped 'corrective labour' to Gulag. But I've realised that the Gulag system was dissolved in 1960, so I've undone the edit. It would be good to have a link there though, I'll have a look around and see what I can find that might be suitable. cya! Coolug (talk) 16:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment:

• This page lacks a discussion, or even a mention, of Marxism, Marxism-Leninism or socialism. These theoretical ideas lay behind much of what the Soviet Union was about, and the fact that they are not even mentioned in this article is a great omission. A section discussing these theoretical currents and their influence on the Soviet wage system should really be included in the background section to ensure proper coverage of this area. I personally believe that this is a major issue, but maybe others would disagree with me.
• Another niggling point that is in the "Conclusions" section the term "West", referring to the western world, is referred to in both capitalised and de-capitalised forms; this should be standardised. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC))

The use of these theoretical constructs in the article is inappropriate, if only because the scholarly literature avoids these shibboleths. I don't think the first part of this comment is substantially actionable. In particular neither Marxism-Leninism, nor Marxism, nor Socialism actually lay behind PC policy decisions in the late 1950s and early 1960s. There was more Marxism in the PCI. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I'm afraid I tend to I agree with Fidelfoo about the first part, unfortunately the sources I've used are all super scholarly so they don't go into the fact that the Soviet Union was a marxist-leninist state, and in fact I don't think having a centrally dictated wage system is an especially marxist idea anyway.

Fixed the West bit, thanks! cya Coolug (talk) 13:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Communism is mentioned at the end of the "successes" section: "He had spoken previously of the reduction of working hours as a basic goal of a communist movement, and had hoped that communism would eventually achieve a working day of 3–4 hours." Not sure how much more you can fit in, but maybe a link in that section? Mark Arsten (talk) 14:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Support Comments from Noleander

• I supported this at prior FAC, and I'm prepared to support it again.
• The topic is very obscure, boring, and not heavily documented .. but that is no reason to refrain from FA consideration.
• One improvement I see as necessary: The article does not mention, let alone explain "De-Stalinization". Yet that is the title of the primary source book for the article. The "khrus era" is a close synonym, but "De-Stalinization" also needs to be mentioned and elaborated upon.
• Leaning towards support once the above is addressed.

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 23:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for making a very good point. I agree that this article could do with a brief explanation of what this whole de-Stalinisation thing is all about. I'm at work at the moment but when I get home I'll add something. Cya! Coolug (talk) 09:23, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I've thrown in a sentence about what de-Stalinization was with a wikilink to the appropriate article. I've kept it brief, so if you think it needs more let me know. Cya! Coolug (talk) 12:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Changing to Support based on recent change. Support based on prose & MOS only. I have not done spot checks or image checks. The topic of the article is very narrow and there is not a lot to say on it, so it does not leap out as one of WP's stellar articles. Yet, it does mee the FA criteria. --Noleander (talk) 22:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Note -- Doesn't look to me that a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing has been carried out on this article as yet. If Fifelfoo is able to take care of that, well and good, otherwise one can be requested at WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Note -- Source check carried out for nominator's last FA: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Human Centipede (First Sequence)/archive3. Does that count? MathewTownsend (talk) 23:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Spotchecks — I did spotchecks on online sources (no books) using this revision. I think the accuracy and paraphrasing was mostly good, with a few (possibly nitpicky) exceptions. Here are the ones I looked at:
    • reference 3 is accurately quoted -- but should there be a subscription note if you want to read the entire article?
    • ref 5 accurate for the sentence cited. The source also mentioned supplementary pay after above the norm, but it gave an example of 50 and 100% increases, not 10% tiers that was written in this article.
    • ref 9, accurate, assuming it is OK Moscow is used to summarize a synonym for various governmental ministries
    • refs 11, 14, 15, 16, and 26 are good
    • ref 18a,b,c,d accurate, though "by...1961...40 million workers... nearly two-thirds" resembles the sentence structure fairly closely. I also think there is something wrong with "working to a" around one of those #18 references. I think I fixed it.
    • ref 30, OK, but both use "old, familiar"
    • ref 31, no page 80 in that article, couldn’t find what was cited on page 70, which seemed to be the most probably typo
    • ref 7, accurate, but "conceal" used in both

Strafpeloton2 (talk) 00:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• ref 13 is good too. Strafpeloton2 (talk) 01:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for this spotcheck. Ref 31 was made in error on my part, I was supposed to cite page 80 on the Filtzer book, not the Grossman piece. It's lucky that you chose to pick that one out as it might have slipped through otherwise. Incidentally, I found a copy of the Filtzer book online here [3] in case anyone wants to have a look at it (I link goes straight to page 80 btw). cya! Coolug (talk) 07:42, 3 April 2012 (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 Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 16:20, 1 April 2012 [4].

---

Murder of Joanna Yeates

Nominator(s): Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC),BabbaQ (talk) 15:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm bringing this back for a second nomination because I believe all issues raised in the previous discussion have been addressed now, and two weeks have lapsed since it was closed. To recap on my reason for nomination, I feel the article is close to meeting the standard required for featured article content, is comprehensive, well referenced and neutral, and has been surprisingly stable given the topic's blanket media coverage throughout 2011. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Just a quick note. If you feel any graphical changes are necessary (e.g., maps, timelines, images, etc) I would appreciate some assistance with that as I use screen magnification which can make such things a tad difficult. Thanks in advance for your cooperation. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Paul McDermott that the article is close to meeting the standard required for featured article content. And it's not much that is needed to be done before being ready for FA.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments I know nothing at all about this case, and found the article to be highly detailed and generally well written: nice work. I think that this is close to FA level, but I've taken a pedantic approach to commenting on it. I'm an Australian, so have also pointed out some UK-specific terms that might be unfamiliar to people from other countries. The following comments shouldn't be as scary as they look at first glance!

• "She reportedly told friends" - why the 'reportedly'?
• "Grief counselling was offered to Yeates' co-workers to help them cope with her death." - what's the relevance of this?
• What position did Detective Chief Inspector Phil Jones hold?
  • Not sure what you're looking for here. Could you be a little more specific?
    • If possible (and it should be possible), could you specify what job he held? Was he the commander of the local police, a specialist investigator brought in to handle this case (for instance, from a homicide squad), or something else? Nick-D (talk) 22:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
• "especially potential witnesses who were in the vicinity of Longwood Lane in Failand during Yeates' disappearance" - this reads a bit awkwardly. Could people who'd been in this area at the time not have been 'potential witnesses'? (I imagine that people who'd passed along the lane but not seen anything out of the ordinary would have been of assistance to the police). "Yeates' disappearance" is also unclear - why not "in the period before Yeates' body was discovered there"
• "while The Sun offered £50,000" - happily, not everyone will know that The Sun is a newspaper, so this should be specified
• "Authorities advised residents to take precautions" - were visitors given different advice? (OK, I'm being very pedantic here)
  • Definitely pedantic. :) I couldn't find anything to suggest they would have received specific advice.
    • I'd suggest changing to wording to something like "Authorities advised people in the area to take precautions" Nick-D (talk) 22:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
      • I hope you don't mind I changed this. The source says the advice was given to "householders to secure their homes" i.e. not to visitors, and I found "precautions" a bit unnecessarily vague as there was only that one bit of specific advice. --Pontificalibus (talk) 22:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
• Avon and Somerset Constabulary is linked twice
  • Again can you be more specific, I couldn't find the second one.
    • It's linked in the first paragraph of the 'Investigation' section and the first para of the 'Post-mortem and initial enquiries' section. I should have been more specific. Nick-D (talk) 22:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
• "Detectives from the Avon and Somerset Constabulary immediately treated Yeates' death as "suspicious"," - the previous section describes the very large investigation they launched, so this is unnecessary
• "the unsolved cases of Glenis Carruthers, Melanie Hall and Claudia Lawrence." - when were these women killed?
• "Senior officers from the investigation asked for assistance from the National Policing Improvement Agency, which provides expertise for difficult cases" - do we know when was this request made? To be pedantic again, did multiple "senior officers" really contact this agency? - surely only one of them would have lodged the request.
  • No detail on an exact date is given.
• "Bristol East MP Kerry McCarthy offered to endorse the idea of a public DNA screening process if the police found it useful." - what's the relevance of this? Would she have needed to approve this process for it to take place? Did the police ever consider this option? The sentence is also a bit wordy.
  • Slightly modified this. She is offering her opinion, but has no authority over it.
• "On 30 December 2010, Yeates' landlord, Christopher Jefferies, who lived in the same building, was arrested shortly after 7.00 am on suspicion of Yeates' murder and was taken to a local police station for questioning while forensic investigators inspected his flat" - this is a bit wordy and repetitive.
• "Investigators were granted a 12-hour extension" - what was extended, and who granted this?
• "On release he retained the legal services of Stokoe Partnership to assist in clearing his name." - who are 'Stokoe Partnership' (a legal firm, I assume)? Also did he really engage lawyers only after being arrested and questioned at length? (which means that he didn't have lawyers present during the interviews). 'clearing his name' is also a bit tabloid - why not 'act on his behalf' or similar (or did he engage them with an eye to going after the media for their coverage of the case after defending him in relation to the arrest?).
• What's Crimewatch?
  • A programme that reconstructs crimes (usually murders or violent robberies) and appeals for witnesses to come forward. The UK press kind of assumes everybody knows what it is so I could find nothing offering an explanation of its role, so no reference to back up a description. Any thoughts on what to do here?
    • How about "The BBC TV programme Crimewatch" or similar? Nick-D (talk) 22:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
• "who was detained at an undisclosed location" - undisclosed to whom? I don't see how this is relevant well after the event.
• "The authorities declined to reveal additional details while the suspect was being interrogated due to concerns over controversial media coverage of Jefferies' arrest, which had breached the rules governing what can be reported when an individual is arrested." - this is the second time the controversy over this media coverage is mentioned in the article, and what it comprised still hasn't been explained. A brief summary in the section about his arrest would be very helpful.
• "The Takak arrest reportedly followed an anonymous tip from a female caller, hours after a televised appeal by Yeates' parents on Crimewatch" - why 'reportedly'? Was this not confirmed in the trial?
• The fact that Takak lived next door to Yeates should be noted the very first time that he's mentioned, as this is a key detail
• "the UK's largest supplier of outsourced forensic science services" - what's the relevance of this?
  • To leave this out could invite one to ask why the firm was involved in the investigation. At least some (though I don't know how much) forensic work is conducted by private firms under contract. Any thoughts on how to approach this?
    • How about "DNA tests were carried out by LGC Forensics, a private company which undertakes forensic analysis for criminal investigations?"
      • That works for me (and is the key detail here). Nick-D (talk) 22:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
• "Though Joanna Yeates and her partner moved into the neighbouring flat in Canynge Road in the autumn of 2010, she and Tabak did not meet until the night he killed her." - this is very jarring as the article has, up to this point, been trickling out details and not coming to conclusions about when the murder occurred and who committed it. I'd suggest changing this to "did not meet prior to 17 December".
• "Tabak had researched and contacted escort agencies" - did he just ring them up?
• I'm really uncomfortable with Tabak's girlfriend being named per WP:BLP: it seems entirely unnecessary as there's no suggestion that she had anything to do with the murder.
  • You are right, although saying "he met his girlfriend, the daughter of..." seems a bit awkward when the word appears again shortly afterwards. Any suggestions here would be welcome.
    • What's the relevance of her dad's job? How about something like "While living in Bath he established a relationship with a woman he first met through The Guardian's online dating website Soulmates. She was later described by the newspaper as his first serious girlfriend". Nick-D (talk) 22:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
• Did the prosecutors suggest a motive for the killing? (possibly not, as this would have been difficult to prove and perhaps unnecessary)
  • My impression is they wanted to cite his taste in pornography as a possible motive, but the presiding judge would not allow that information to be included in his trial.
    • OK, but did they come up with anything else? At the moment the article doesn't explain why Ms Yeates might have been killed. That said, given the strength of the forensic evidence and the fact that Tabak had admitted to the killing, they might not have put forward an explanation as doing so was unnecessary. Nick-D (talk) 22:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
      • They didn't offer a motive in the actual trial, but have found and added more useful information.
• What exactly did ITN do to be banned by the police? Was this over a series of reports, or just the one report?
• The party affiliations of Anna Soubry and the government at the time should be noted
• "Her boyfriend, Greg Reardon" - he was introduced much earlier in the article
• I don't understand the purpose of the 'Coordinates' section. I'd suggest linking to the police 'The death of Joanna Yeates' Google map as an external link as it provides much more detail in a more user-friendly format. If the geographic details are important (and I'm not sure that they are), add a map from Open Street Map with the locations marked. Nick-D (talk) 07:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm happy for it to go, but unfortunately would not be able to add a street map myself.
    • Disagree. Current setup allows the locations - which were a key part of the story - to be viewed in a range of common mapping services. How is replacing this with a link to a single map better? --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
      • ok, I've put it back because whatever I do somebody will object, and at the end of the day it does add a useful dimension to the article.

Most issues now dealt with. Have commented on those which need further clarification. Paul MacDermott (talk) 17:34, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• Everything now addressed. Have added a couple of other items I found, notably Tabak's confession to a prison chaplain while he was on remand, and a little more on the prosecution case. Paul MacDermott (talk) 21:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support My comments are now largely addressed. I still think that the coordinates section is not at all useful and should be removed (Ms Yeates was killed in her home by her neighbor and her body was dumped nearby, and the locations of the last places she visited aren't very relevant so the locations aren't terribly significant, and there's a perfectly good map provided by the police which can be linked to). However, I don't want this nomination to turn into drama like that which affected Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ontario Highway 401/archive2, so I'm going to support it as it stands. Nick-D (talk) 06:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether or not you provide locations for newspapers
• FN 88: publisher?
• Be consistent in whether website names are capitalized or not
• Would it be possible to cite Hansard directly rather than using theyworkforyou.com? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Ref 88 and locations fixed. Hansard also now cited, though not entirely sure how to ref columns. Re sources in caps, could you tell me which ones are in caps as it will be difficult for me to locate them. Also, let me know if there are any more without publishers. Paul MacDermott (talk) 15:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
    • 109 is uppercase, 123-125 are lowercase. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
      • I've got it, Parliament.uk was lower case and Journalism.co.uk had a capital J. All are uppercase now. Thanks for getting back to me. Paul MacDermott (talk) 19:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• I found one skynews ref with incorrect capitalisation (if correct = as source) and fixed it ... indeed, the title had changed. I've also changed the publisher and work attributes of all skynews refs, to be consistent with other refs.
• Oh, in checking refs, I discover that Ref 1 is kaput :( --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Cheers. Ref 1 only seems to be a source for her height so we can use one of the press reports for that. I know it was mentioned at the trial. Paul MacDermott (talk) 16:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Image review - File:Joanna_Yeates.jpg: licensing tag used requires that the image, as opposed to its subject, be the topic of significant commentary in the article. That doesn't seem to apply here. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Now you really have me snookered. Are you saying the rationale suggests the image should be part of an article discussing her graduation? If so what is the best solution? Paul MacDermott (talk) 11:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The solution - to the extent that it works - is to make the image itself the subject of commentary. That would suggest changing the caption to comment on the image, such as "Graduation photo of Joanna Yates released to the media by police investigating the disappearance of Yeates". Whether that's a sufficient comment on the image to qualify I leave for others to determine. The alternative, if we fail to make the image itself the subject, is that we must lose the image. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for making that a bit clearer. I've updated the caption in the article and on the image page so hopefully it is ok now. I also notice the Avon and Somerset ref for that image is gone. Should I de-link the source, but keep it as an offline reference? Paul MacDermott (talk) 13:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I guess so, yes. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks once again. I've changed it but please take a look to make sure it's ok, and adjust accordingly if necessary. Cheers Paul MacDermott (talk) 14:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

• Personally I can't see much more that is needed to be done before passing this article for FA status. I would support it being granted FA status now. Good work Paul McDermott!--BabbaQ (talk) 12:36, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
  • As the co-nominator, you support is already implied. There is no need to reiterate it here. Graham Colm (talk) 15:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Support My comments from the previous FAC have been addressed. Having spent the last hour or so re-reading it, I think prose is sufficient and likewise comprehensiveness. Good work. -- Lemonade51 (talk) 13:09, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support Comments from Jim A nice article, but the usual nitpicks before I support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• The case dominated news coverage around the Christmas period in the United Kingdom — is Christmas different elsewhere? Suggest The case dominated news coverage in the United Kingdom around the Christmas period
• memorials were planned in her memory — in her memory is redundant, a memorial is something that's... in memory
• Netherlands. — I don't think we link countries now, and certainly not twice
• internet or Internet — cap and lc both appear
• avant garde — I'd hyphenate and link
• homophobic — link
• Vicar — why cap? He's not the Pope

• Done Paul MacDermott (talk) 13:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• No other issues, happy to support now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Delegate's comment – I would like to see a spotcheck of the sources for verification and close paraphrasing. Graham Colm (talk) 14:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Note I've been mindful of pitfalls such as these while working on the article, but if a spotcheck does reveal any issues you'll need to be quite specific about where these are as it will assist me greatly in being able to locate and fix them. For example, information such as "paragraph 5 of Article X is similar to named sentence" or "Fact A is not mentioned in Article Y" would be very helpful. Cheers Paul MacDermott (talk) 14:58, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• Beyond your discussion here, I dont see any more issues that needs to be delt with before this article reaches FA status. Congrats Paul!.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Spotchecks I have taken the liberty of spotchecking the sources, and I found no issues:

• Source 6: In December 2008, Yeates met then-25-year-old fellow landscape architect Greg Reardon at the firm Hyland Edgar Driver in Winchester. The couple moved in together in 2009 and settled in Clifton, Bristol, when the company relocated to that area. (article)

The two met at Hyland Edgar Driver architects’ firm, where they both worked. They began living together last year and when the firm moved from Winchester to Bristol, they went with it. (source)

• • No problems. Graham Colm (talk)

• Source 16: On 21 December 2010, Yeates' parents and Reardon made a public appeal for her safe return at a police press conference. (article)

The parents of missing architect Jo Yeates issued a desperate plea to her abductor yesterday. (source)

• • No problems. Graham Colm (talk)

• Source 42: The footage was of poor quality, making it impossible to clearly distinguish individuals or car registration numbers. (article)

But it yesterday emerged pictures from Clifton Suspension Bridge’s CCTV – one of the best hopes of a breakthrough in Jo Yeates’ murder hunt – could be too dim to show her killer or their car registration. (source)

• • No problems. Graham Colm (talk)

• Source 81: Following Tabak's arrest, the BBC cancelled its plans to air the Yeates re-enactment on Crimewatch. (artcile)

The murder reconstruction of architect Jo Yeates has been pulled from BBC One show Crimewatch tomorrow, television bosses confirmed. (source)

• • No problems. Graham Colm (talk)

• Source 132: Prayers for her were also said at the church on 17 December 2011, the first anniversary of her death, while visitors left tributes and messages of condolence for her family. (article)

Prayers were said yesterday to remember tragic Joanna Yeates, a year after she was murdered by her neighbour Vincent Tabak. Visitors to her local church in Bristol also lit candles in her memory and left messages of condolence in a card for her family. (source)

• • No problems. Graham Colm (talk)

• All The Sun references, (10,11,8,73,134) are giving server errors at the moment (I think their server is down), but I happy to assume good faith on these based on my findings above. Graham Colm (talk) 15:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Cheers, looks like they've been moved to a different url as I entered ref 10 into their database and found this. I'll update as many as I can, although the date at the top of the page now appears to be different. Paul MacDermott (talk) 15:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• • Yes, that's what all The Sun ones are giving. There are 5 that need fixing. Graham Colm (talk) 15:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• • • I tried 8 and 11 from the database and both are unavailable. 10 was moved to a different URL, so I think I'll try to replace them all. I should be able to source it from other references. Paul MacDermott (talk) 16:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Paul, I still think there are problems with their server; all the articles are showing in their search pages [5], I would leave them for now. I am happy for these to be fixed post FAC is necessary.

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