This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
In response to the request on my talk page, here are a few thoughts I have on the article. This is not a GA review, simply a list of things that need to be improved on the article for it to be of GA or FA status.
References still need to be improved. There are several areas that still need to be referenced, such as the first paragraph of the Early life section and the second paragraph of the Speculation of crime itself section. These are just examples. Because this is 1) a BLP and 2) an article about a sensational crime, it needs to be extra-well referenced.
The sources could be a bit more varied. This probably won't be a problem for GA status, but will probably be questioned at FAC. Currently, 27 out of 41 references (well more than half) are from the St. Petersburg Times.
Ref 16 is to About.com, which is generally not considered reliable. The author is a private detective who seems to work mainly in investigating insurance fraud, not murder cases.
Ref 36 is a self-published Geocities site, and is not reliable.
References should have authors listed where available.
There are quite a few one and two sentence paragraphs, which should be expanded or combined with other paragraphs. Occasionally one and two sentence paragraphs are OK, when deliberately used to make a point, but there are currently too many for this length of an article.
Overall, the prose and layout of the article appears to be much improved over my last GA review. My suggestion would be to do some more work on the references, and then nominate this article for GA status. The GA review can often highlight problems that would be grounds for immediate "opposes" during FAC. If you have more questions, please let me know! Dana boomer (talk) 21:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Rogers
In the subsection "Second suspect", a seemingly random change of focus takes place and needs to be clarified: "The second suspect theory is belied by Chandler's approach of two Canadian women; that he had the willingness to approach more than one potential target by himself.[28] John Rogers was released on parole in 2004, but is estranged from the rest of the Rogers family." The next paragraph then mentions initial suspicion against Rogers, and an incident of abuse against one of the victims (?), but other than the brief mention highlighted above, his name does not appear anywhere else in the article. Could some info be missing from a previous version? María(habla conmigo) 21:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have re-nominated the article for GA, after looking trough some old nominations by some users sutch as an GA and a Peer review i have found that all concerns has been taken care of also the concerns from Dana Boomer above has been taken care of by a number of editors. Thats why i believe this article is GA ready and among the better crime articles on Wikipedia.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 13:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good work so far on the article. I'm hoping to stop by later to formally review this article, but one suggestion in relation to #Early life is that some challengeable material in pg. 2 should probably be referenced. I fixed one tiny other thing in the article, but otherwise I see no problems. AGK23:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok sounds great. But by monday evening i will be leaving for a week to go to Cyprus for a holiday. So please try to review it before that. I hope that it will pass directly anyway as it is a great article. One tiny problem can be fixed after it passes to. Thank you so mutch.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 23:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I definitly support this article as GA instantly. Its a really comprehensive article on a criminal. Let see what you find:) cheers.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 23:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've reviewed this article's nomination for good article status, and I'm pleased to say that I promoted it today. Well done to all who contributed! AGK12:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think this article is soon going to be a Featured article. Its great and has very few flaws if any. Please feel free to nominate it when anyone feels its ready.--194.30.146.154 (talk) 14:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
