Talk:Lady in the Lake trial

Lady in the Lake trial was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 3, 2007	WikiProject peer review	Reviewed
June 28, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
October 2, 2007	Good article reassessment	Kept
January 27, 2009	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
March 30, 2022	Good article reassessment	Delisted
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on February 2, 2007. The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that the Strangeways Prison inmate Gordon Park* was convicted of murdering his first wife 28 years after the fact?*
Current status: Delisted good article

While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.

Lancashire and Cumbria Low‑importance

	North West England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lancashire and Cumbria 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.Lancashire and CumbriaWikipedia:WikiProject Lancashire and CumbriaTemplate:WikiProject Lancashire and CumbriaLancashire and Cumbria articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

British crime (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject British crime, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.British crimeWikipedia:WikiProject British crimeTemplate:WikiProject British crimeBritish crime articles

Death Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death 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.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women 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.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles

Rewrite[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Some editing comments[edit]

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)[reply]

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)

Bias[edit]

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)[reply]

Large revert[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

GA on hold[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Redlinks dealt with. J Milburn 20:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

GA review – kept[edit]

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)[reply]

Garth (HM Prison)[edit]

Garth Prison is in Lancashire, not Cumbria as stated. :)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Lady in the Lake trial. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Lady in the Lake trial. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080228183243/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_19980107/ai_n9650151 to http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_19980107/ai_n9650151
Corrected formatting/usage for http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=110122005
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080228183248/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_19980108/ai_n9650236 to http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_19980108/ai_n9650236
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nwemail.co.uk/news/1.250990

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:21, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lady in the Lake trial. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reassessment request[edit]

Hello! I have noticed that this good article has two cleanup tags ({{synthesis}}, {{refimprove}}) and a few ^{[citation needed]} templates (currently, 5) which made me question if this article should be reassessed. It has two cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid, and five statements without proper citations, which are mentioned in the immediate failures tab. I am not fully sure if the article's GA status is still valid, so I am leaving this up for discussion. Luxtaythe2nd (talk) 06:23, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lady in the Lake trial[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: delist. There is consensus the article lacks in referencing, specifically text-source integrity and original research. There are further concerns with neutrality Femke (talk) 19:47, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Active cleanup banners (original research, citation needed issues) on the article, also see Luxtaythe2nd comment on the talk page. (t · c) buidhe 10:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the existing cleanup banners and {{cn}} tags, I notice the article claims that many unusual knots were used to tie the body, and the same knots were said to be used in Gordon Park's house and boat. This was one of the key pieces of evidence used against Gordon in the trial. This is cited to this article, which doesn't describe the knots as unusual and doesn't say that they were a "key" piece of evidence.
More generally, I think there are significant concerns about neutrality; the controversy section seems to be just a long essay about how Park dint do nuffin, guv. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:23, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]