Talk:Geneviève Lhermitte

Court documents

These appear to be the court documents officially charging Lhermitte with the murders: http://www.standaard.be/extra/pdf/lhermitte.pdf --Katerwaul (talk) 04:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Photos

We're having trouble finding pictures of any kind that aren't copyrighted that we can put on this page. Anyone know of any possible pictures we could use? (of anything related to the page, as we have no media added yet) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kslinker5493 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Possible picture? http://static2.7sur7.be/static/FOTO/pe/4/5/3/large_392943.jpg --MartellRedViper (talk) 12:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

What's the copyright status of that photo? --Geniac (talk) 02:21, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

This is just a minor thing, but you might want to have the photo closer to the top of the page. It looks kind of awkward down at the bottom and a photo is supposed to be used at least partly as an attention getter. --Mdcoope3 (talk) 13:28, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I've contacted Getty images and Reuters images about possibly using their photos. All the pictures I found on different news sites came from those two companies, so hopefully we will be granted permission soon. Kslinker5493 (talk) 13:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I was going through the upload wizard for that family picture, and I don't think we have a legitimate claim to fair use for it. If we do, that would mean hunting down more information than just the author of the picture, and I'm not certain we have time for that. --Katerwaul (talk) 16:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Sources for film section

• Moqadem and Schaar wanting to see a copy of the script: [1] --Katerwaul (talk) 16:06, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Peer Review

Words to watch: As per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CLAIM#WP:CLAIM be careful when using words like "claim" because it calls their credibility of their statement into question --MangoDango (talk) 15:56, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

You might want to expand on the section covering the trials and whatnot. Your current priority visibly appears to be about her personal life and influence on popular culture. The section recounting the crime itself could use some polishing. --Seannator (talk) 16:04, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I was a little unclear about the relationship between Genevieve and the doctor. It just kind of popped up that she blamed him or something? I'm still not quite sure. More references are needed and I think a little more delving into her psyche would be beneficial. --Tinaface86 (talk) 16:08, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

:::To represent both sides of that issue, I would suggest adding (if you can find any) his response to her claim.--Tabbboooo (talk) 18:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Delving into what psychologists have said or what witnesses or psychologists in the case have said would be a great thing to add to help clear it all up.The writing needs to be a little more cohesive in some sections, because it feels more like a list than a paragraph. I think the formatting of the sentences contributes to this as well (sort of resembling a list). Some of the writing is written in confusing ways (ex:"Prosecutor Pierre Rans began opening statements with a nightmarish picture of the scene that met emergency services on February 28, 2007 at the former teacher's home in Nivelles, central Belgium."). I feel like some sentences could be rewritten in a more clear, concise fashion. I say this because I had to re-read some sections and sentences. You might want to add her sentence to the trial section. Also, just my thoughts, but I was left wanting to know what the husband's thoughts were? Maybe you have already pursued that, idk. It feels like there is no conclusion to the article (like, where the family thats left stands). In most US trials covered by the media, this info is usually a big part of reporting. I also think it could give the article some balance. You also use the word nightmarish in the section on events. This word could mean different things to different people. It seems sort of an opinion, even though I understand what you mean. I would suggest using a word like gruesome that has a more solid connotation behind it to communicate the testimony more effectively. I see you have a section on Photos...I'm guessing they are hard to find for this. If you could find any photo of her or her home or anything of that sort, it could really help. I'm sorry I have so much to say, I was just trying to give it as thorough of a check as possible, in an attempt to help the article become even better. You have a great topic and a lot of solid information. You have divided the article info up very well, and have organized the sections in a helpful way. Keep up the good work!--Tabbboooo (talk) 18:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Style

It think that the information provided in this article is clear and that the sentences are well-written, but I think the style of prose and paragraph structure could be worked on. Even though there are no bulleted lists, the paragraph structure for almost the entire article has line breaks for one or two sentences. In the "paragraphs" section of the Manual of Style for good criteria, it talks about paragraph structure and running prose.--Eng395jy (talk) 14:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Genevieve Lhermitte/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 11:26, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I propose to take on this review. I see that this article has been a class project and that you have been working on improving it together since it failed its first GA nomination. I will review it in detail soon. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:26, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

First reading

• You could do with more wikilinks. These should include - first degree murder, life imprisonment, post-partum depression, life insurance, mortgage, spa, psychiatrist, dermatology, goddaughter, jury, honeymoon, stepfather, sound mind, platonic, screenwriter, claustrophobia and protagonist. Added all of the Wikilinks suggested.
• "was followed by two more daughters" - "had two younger sisters" would be better. I see you changed this.
• "While Moqadem worked at a night-shop" - What is a night-shop? Changed to "convenience store."
• "Lhermitte did not protest cohabiting with Schaar," - I'm not sure about the US, but "cohabiting" usually has sexual connotations in the UK, and it might be better to say "Lhermitte did not object to living with Schaar in his apartment as she thought it would be on a temporary basis." You're right. The word "cohabitating" does tend to infer a sexual relationship. I see you changed this, too.
• "Between the births of her first two daughters, on June 17, 1994, one of Lhermitte's students flashed a gun at her that he had hidden inside his jacket." - this seems irrelevant unless the event contributed to her depression, in which case you should mention this fact. Yes, definitely irrelevant.
• The Personal Life section has too many short paragraphs. 3 or 4 paragraphs should suffice. [See two points below.]
• In the section "Crime", I think you should include the words "According to her account, ..." or "Lhermitte told investigators that ..." I've added two of these statements to clarify for legal purposes. I understand the Associated Press often requires these statements in crime reporting, but I wasn't sure if Wikipedia did, too. Nonetheless, they're added now.
• The Crime section, and in fact all the sections, have too many short paragraphs. See the Manual of Style. All of the sections are shorter now. At first we were trying to make paragraphs short for the purpose of not overwhelming readers, but everything is changed to meet Wikipedia' style preference. The only exception is in the "Post-trial lawsuit" subsection, which needs two shorter paragraphs or else there's an awkward line break due to the picture.
• "... so the trial focused on what drove Lhermitte to do so." - "... so the trial focused on what drove Lhermitte to kill her children" would be better. Changed to "...the trial focused on what drove Lhermitte to commit the crime."
• I think you should replace the whole of the second paragraph of the Trial section with "Xavier Magnee told the jury, "Your task is to discover why a woman who had hitherto been a perfect mother suddenly exploded." Much more concise. Changed.
• If "Investigators found the five children tucked in their beds, some with stuffed toys in their arms.", how come Nora's body was in the bathroom? Nice catch. Simple copywriting error. Changed to "Investigators found the four children tucked..."
• The subheadings should be in lower case. Changed.

Response to first reading

Thanks for the comments. These were actually helpful. I changed everything you suggested. My specific changes are marked in bold next to each point. Sections have fewer short paragraphs, more Wikilinks are included, etc. Please let us know if there is anything else we can change for the "Good Article" listing. --Information-01152001 (talk) 02:39, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually the changes you mentioned above were made by Kslinker5493 who did them in the short time between my saving the first few comments and when I saved the rest.

The article is looking better but I don't believe the film poster image should be used. It would be OK in an article looking critically at the film but to use it as an illustration in this article is a breach of its copyright status. The copyright of images is a complex matter but you can see some examples of what is and what isn't allowed here. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. The movie poster is taken out now. We had a lot of trouble finding a fair use image from Lhermitte's life, trial, etc., even after contacting a few news agencies to whom the copyrights belong. But if the poster's copyright doesn't allow for its use here, the article will just have to go without any photographs. --Information-01152001 (talk) 15:22, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

GA Criteria

• 1a The article is generally well written with good quality prose
• 1b The article conforms with the MOS guidelines.
• 2a&b The article is well referenced and has inline citations for all contentious statements.
• 2c There is no original research as far as I can see.
• 3a&b The article covers the personal life of the accused and the main aspects of the case without including irrelevant content.
• 4 The article is neutral
• 5 The article was created on 8th February 2013 and has been edited by a number of people since then as a class project.
• 6&7 There are no images. This is understandable because of the nature of the subject.
  • Overall assessment - Pass.

Merge Lhermitte case to here

I'm proposing to merge Lhermitte case into this article because this has much more detail, plus English-language sources. Only the ECHR claim discussed on Lhermitte case is missing from here. Mortee (talk) 17:45, 17 March 2017 (UTC)