A thorough survey of both Debora Green's life and the crime she was convicted of. This is a second FAC nomination for this article; the previous one was closed due to lack of comments. Most of the sources used for this article are offline; I am able to provide digital copies of all offline sources other than the Ann Rule book to any reviewer who'd like to spotcheck. The Ann Rule book should be spotcheckable here. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:18, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Support on prose and comprehensiveness as last time. Casliber (talk·contribs) 19:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
File:Ricinus communis 008.JPG - GFDL/CC-BY-SA 3.0.
File:Dennis Moore, official photo portrait, color.jpg - source link is dead but I don't think that's an issue. PD-USGov.
More images would be nice, but I'm assuming that there aren't any more available that are licensable. --Rschen7754 03:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, this set of images is about the best I've been able to come up with. No photos of Green or her family members are available under a license compatible with us, as far as I can tell, and while I could find images of, say, Peru, a courtroom, and a jail, they wouldn't really add any understanding-value to the article. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Support and comments Great stuff, a few comments, but nothing sufficient to stop me supporting. Jimfbleak -talk to me? 08:40, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
I fixed two apparent overlinks, please check
"Major" in a university course sense might be linked to help us Brits
Can we have a metric conversion for the gallons?
"Redbook" is italicised in its own article, not in yours, you can't both be right
Done the "major" link, the metric conversion, and the italicization. Your removal of overlinks looks good. I'm working on seeing if there are any more lying around that need to be removed... A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:09, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Support Read this during lunch break today and was gripped; found the writing and pace very engaging. Looks good wrt to quality of sources and is comprehensive. Small minor, not even quibbles with prose in a few limited places, working through, but am not married to my edits, feel free to revert. Ceoil (talk) 20:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
One thing, some of the refs are qualified by "Highbeam Research - sub required". Is that really necessary? I mean, who actually cares how you got the paricular article, and it smaks a bit of promoting the for profit highbeam. Ceoil (talk) 21:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
I was sort of stumbling along using Wikipedia:HighBeam/Citations as a guidepost for those refs ("Wikipedia's rules about bare URLs and link rot require editors not to add only an unlabeled link to HighBeam (or any other website)", etc) I'd be happy to change the styling on those refs if you think would be useful/more suited - I could change it to only say "subscription required", perhaps? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
No i'd not leave it out altogether, its nuts and bolts where the ref came from, a RS is a RS. I would imagine that Wikipedia:HighBeam/Citations is skeyed towards mentioning HighBeam. Ceoil (talk) 01:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Hm. So what would be your ideal ref content here? Mention Highbeam? Mention subscription required? One or both? Neither? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Nither imo, though I may be corrected. Other wise its a presented to you by....and thats irrevant. Ceoil (talk) 02:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
I'd say a "subscription required" note would be a good idea, though not absolutely necessary. The issue of Highbeam mentions as promotional has actually come up before - really that's neither here nor there, and they're not forbidden, but I'd say "subscription" would suffice. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Resonable to me too. \Thanks for weighing in Nikki. Ceoil (talk) 01:50, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Source review - spotchecks not done
Note 2: can you be a bit more specific on citations? Direct quotes usually need page numbers, and there are several Star articles cited. Also, "the The Kansas City Star"?
Fixed and fixed. I added the date for the particular news article, which makes it identifiable among the refs. Removed the double "the". A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:35, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Okay. Star needs italicizing, and we still need a page number for the quote from Rule. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Delegate note -- like to see a source spotcheck; I note the nominator has offered to assist with offline sources if need be. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
I just noticed (handnt spot checked tbh) that 34 of the 55 refs are from a single source. Whats the current thinking on this re balance, comprehensiveness etc? My own though is that while its not fatal in instances, it should be discorage, and looking Ann Rule isnt a particularly scholarly writer, she publishes sensationalist "true crime" pulp material. Im not familiar with the breath of lit out there, so just asking, I'm ok on being disputed on this. Ceoil (talk) 00:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Obviously I'm going to think my sources are just peachy, so take me with a grain of salt, but I want to point out that while Ann Rule isn't a scholarly author, I wouldn't call her "sensationalist" or "pulpy". She's considered quite authoritative as a crime reporter/author. As far as why the article relies heavily on that source...that is the only source that deals with Green's backstory and the fire/murder investigations extensively - news articles, being news articles, tend to be short and to the point, while books have more space to expand on background, detailed interviews, etc. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Accept this; Im finding that from my google news searches since, and maybe I was hasty with pulp etc. I need to look more, so withdrawing those eh, descriptions. Anyway, I'll do the spot checks if you want to send on some scans or whatever, I'll pick refs 8, 13 and 17 and will look myself at some of the onlines one. Will be gone ontil Friday but will pick it up then. Im about done with any minor c/eing, looks good there. Ceoil (talk) 01:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
My emial client, eircom, routinely, any habitually crashes at this time, for a hour or two. Sigh, you could sent your clock by it. If it doesnt come though, I'll be gone from the night, but will do the checks on Friday, not to drag the FAC out. Ceoil (talk) 01:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Ceoil, are you still planning to do the source spotcheck? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Ian, apologies for the delay. I checked souces 5,6,8,28 & 49, all back up the claims and no close paraphrasing. I fixed a pg number, but clean otherwise. Ceoil (talk) 19:17, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Comments restricted to the section "Farrar's account" - Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
The second sentence starts with the words "He told police ..." and after this, the rest of the section should be in the form of reported speech. This means that a pronoun should replace the numerous mentions of Farrar. I also think that some of the verbs in this section should be in the pluperfect rather than the perfect tense.
I'm fairly sure it's not necessary to remove all name mentions just because it's reported speech. It would be terribly repetitive to put the whole section in "he said...he said...he said..." as opposed to varying the phrasing. Tense-wise, past vs. past perfect here helps to differentiate events removed in time ("She was diagnosed with depression...") from those related to the day of the fire ("Farrar had dropped the children off at 9:30..."). I could re-write everything to obscure that differentiation, but I think it would detract from the quality of the prose. If you've found specific spots where it looks like I erred in tense, though, please let me know and I'll fix those. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Looking again, although I would accept that it's not necessarily the case that you need quote marks, I find it difficult in the long first para of this section to tell what is a summary of his testimony, and what is a statement of facts from other sources. Eg Doctors identified Streptococcus viridans, which had probably leaked through damaged digestive tissue as a result of Farrar's severe diarrhea, as the source of the sepsis; Fact or his claim? Jimfbleak -talk to me? 07:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Hmmm. The intention here was that it was clear from calling the section "Farrar's account" and saying "Farrar told the police about [the past six months]", and then describing the past six months, that this was all recounting what Farrar told the police. All the ways I can think of to make that clearer (Using "he said, he said, he said", ending the an opening paragraph with "Farrar's account was as follows:", etc) seem like they would interfere with the flow of the article. It's not direct quotes; it's a summary of what he told the police. If anyone has ideas for a way to make it clearer that this is his account, without making the prose painful, I'm open to suggestions. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
"The hospital identified Streptococcus viridans, which had probably leaked through damaged digestive tissue as a result of Farrar's severe diarrhea, as the source of the sepsis but were unable to pinpoint the root cause of the gastrointestinal illness itself." - The subject of this sentence is too far removed by the clause from the rest of the sentence. Also, the hospital is not a plural noun.
Yeah, that sentence got a bit out of hand, didn't it. Changed to "Doctors identified Streptococcus viridans, which had probably leaked through damaged digestive tissue as a result of Farrar's severe diarrhea, as the source of the sepsis; however, they were unable to pinpoint the root cause of the gastrointestinal illness itself.", which should address both issues. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
"The next day, he asked Green—who had no interest in gardening that he knew of—what she had intended to do with the seed packets." - This sentence could be better phrased.
I would say - "He did not believe that Green had any interest in gardening so he asked her next day what she had intended to do with the seed packets."
Stylistically, your version is much weaker. Unless there's something actually wrong with my version, I continue to prefer my phrasing. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
"Though she initially claimed that she was going to plant them, when pressed she said that she intended to use them to commit suicide." - The subject of this sentence is "seed packets".
Well most people, gardeners or non-gardeners, do not plant seed packets.
Ah, you didn't mean it was the subject of the sentence. You meant it was the antecedent of the pronoun I was using. Fixed. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
"Police who responded to the home ..." - Do you mean "Police who attended at the home ..."?
No, I mean "police who responded to the home". Judging by your username, I'm guessing you're Welsh - this may be a British English vs. American English difference, since American English would never say "who attended at the home". A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
I'd suggest a more location-neutral phrasing if possible. "went"? Jimfbleak -talk to me? 07:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
" ... police transported Green to a nearby emergency room." - At the hospital, presumably? This reads as if the room was in the house.
This one is a dialect difference. "Emergency room" is what Americans call the place the British call an A&E, and it's being properly used here. I can wikilink it if you'd like, but personally I think that's a bit overlinky, considering how common and well-understood the term is. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Its your choice, but any of the following alternatives is better than "emergency room" from a UK perspective -- "emergency department", "accident & emergency" or "casualty department".
None of these are in common usage in American English (you hear "emergency department" occasionally in AE, but not nearly as commonly as "emergency room", and the other two you pretty much never hear except from someone speaking a non-American dialect of English), so it would be inappropriate to use them in an article written in American English. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
"According to the doctor, Green "spit at him"," - "spat" would sound more natural and there is no need for this part of the sentence to be in inverted commas.
Well, it's a quote, thus the quotation marks. There's no real way to express this thought without either quoting/close-paraphrasing it or being needlessly complex ("she expectorated upon him"? "she flung spittle in his general direction"?), and my policy is that if I can't paraphrase it adequately, it goes in quotes. "Spit" is the past tense used in the quote. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Changed a bit, but considerning its medical openion, not much. Im ok with going back to quotes on this. Ceoil (talk) 03:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
"Throughout the evening on October 23, 1995, ..." - It seems strange to mention the date so specifically at this stage of the statement.
I'm not going to comment further and am unable to support this article's candidacy because I find the nominator unresponsive to the concerns I have raised. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Wha? It just seems like you disagree, I wouldn't say "unresponsive." --Rschen7754 06:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
In case you are wondering, I'm revisiting because Cwmhiraeth asked me to look at her comments and your responses here. For the benefit of delegates, this doesn't change my support above. Jimfbleak -talk to me? 07:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm really disappointed to see that Cwmhiraeth feels unable to support, and even more that she's questioned Jimfbleak's support and my good faith in the process. I have been as responsive to all concerns on this FAC as possible, but in my mind this is intended to be a process of improvement, not of taking all suggestions as articles of faith. I didn't expect this article to be opposed because a reviewer was offended I considered some of their suggestions to not be improvements, nor did I expect to be labeled "dismissive" and "unresponsive" for engaging in give-and-take about what is best for the article. So, to be clear: I am happy to entertain corrections, comments, and suggestions about how to improve the article. If I'm wrong when I say I think a change would be to the detriment of the article, I'm happy to hear from other commenters that they agree or disagree with my choice, and what their reasoning is. If it turns out I was wrong to refute a suggestion, that's fine; tell me that and I'll fix it. I've been wrong before and I'll be wrong again a bunch of times before I kick the bucket. But please don't assume bad faith of my manner or my intentions because I decline to make a change you suggest; it's is possible that other people can be wrong sometimes too. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Its ok to let an oppose stand if you disagree with what is being asked. Ceoil (talk) 18:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
In fairness to Cwmhiraeth, I think she was asking for a second opinion on her comments and your responses, rather than questioning my support or your integrity. I think that since she was reviewing just one section, any formal support or oppose she might have given would have had to be highly qualified anyway Jimfbleak -talk to me? 08:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
You seem to be making a big deal about my comments on the single section of the article I reviewed. I neither support this candidacy nor oppose it, I am neutral.
The main point I made about the first paragraph of "Farrar's account" has not been addressed. The other points mostly refer to differences between American English and British English. I acknowledge that an article on an American subject written presumably by an American should use American English. I just didn't care for the way the nominator dismissed my comments as not being worth bothering with. For example, what is the problem with rewording "According to the doctor, Green "spit at him"" as "The doctor stated that Green had spat at him"? Your response was dismissive. As a result I decided not to review other sections as had been my original intention. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Support Further comments from Cwmhiraeth
A lot of effort has been put into this article and in general it is of a high standard. I am concerned that it might fail to be promoted because of my earlier lack of support, so I have decided to look at it further and here are some more comments:
"Green attended the University of Illinois from the fall of 1969, where she took a major in chemistry Though she had intended to pursue chemical engineering as a career, she opted to attend medical school after graduating in 1972 with a degree in chemistry" - we don't need the second mention of the chemistry degree.
"As the Farrar children grew old enough, they were enrolled in the private The Pembroke Hill School in Kansas City." - I suggest you rearrange this as "As the Farrar children grew old enough, they were enrolled in The Pembroke Hill School, a private school in Kansas City."
"While Farrar worked long hours, Green always accompanied her children to their activities, ..." - I suggest you rephrase this perhaps starting with "During this time, Farrar worked long hours ..." as the previous sentence also uses "while".
"Medical professionals who worked with her during this time described her as "unfeeling to the patients" and "obsessive about [her husband]"." - I see no purpose for these awkward quotations from a newspaper article. Why not just have "Medical professionals who worked with her during this time described her as being unfeeling towards her patients and obsessive about her husband."?
I'm a little concerned about using very nearly the exact phrasing from the source here without quotes. Close paraphrasing is really not something any of us want to see floating around FAs. What's the perspective on this from those of you who are regulars at FAC? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
"... while the sale of the Prairie Village home was re-negotiated." - I am confused. Were they not still living in Missouri? Or did you mean the purchase of the house was re-negotiated?
Is your point here the use of "sale" vs "purchase"? It's fairly common in American English to use "sale" to mean the transfer of a house both from the perspective of the buyer and the seller. I'm assuming this isn't as clear from an outside-USA perspective, though, and "purchase" works just as well, so I've changed it. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
"Green responded "hysterical[ly]" and told the children that their father was leaving them." - I see no need for quoting one word in this way.
"Green's lawyer for the couple's divorce, Ellen Ryan, found her there later in the day, distraught." - I suggest "Ellen Ryan, Green's divorce lawyer, found her there later in the day in a distraught state."
"A clerk in Missouri recalled a woman who, that September, asked for an order of ten packets of the out-of-season seeds, which she claimed were needed for schoolwork." - I think this sentence could be rephrased.
"Register tapes in the store's records showed that a purchase corresponding to the amount the beans would have cost had been made on the afternoon of either September 20 or 22, though no records were found in any Earl May store of earlier such purchases, which would have been necessary based on Farrar first having become ill in the summer." - This sentence is too long and complex.
"Farrar underwent surgery in November 1995 as treatment for his ongoing health issues which were believed to a result of poisoning." - This sentence appears to have a word omitted and is awkwardly expressed.
"... could cause blunted affect which could be mistaken for a lack of emotion." - According to the wikilink, "blunted affect" is a lack of emotion.
Blunted affect is a failure to react emotionally enough, or to express the right emotion where it's appropriate. This is distinct from not having the emotion in the first place. To try to make that clearer, I changed the sentence to "...could cause blunted affect, which could have led police and fire personnel to erroneously report that Green had been unemotional." A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
"Detectives who had spoken to both Green and Farrar the night of the fire testified as to Green's unusual affect during their interview," - This sentence could be better expressed. Perhaps "Green's demeanour" would be an improvement.
"In a subsequent press conference, defense counsel Dennis Moore told reporters, "She is accepting responsibility for [the crimes]" but said that "I don't think she ever intended to kill her children." - I think that indirect speech would be better here. I don't think that close paraphrasing is an issue when you are reporting what someone said.
My reading of WP:PARAPHRASE is that the quotes are preferred here since there's limited ways in which this could be rephrased without quotes. It's perhaps debatable, but I'm still more comfortable with direct quotes than with having someone read the book a few years from now and realize I'd basically quoted him without quotes. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
"After her sentencing Green continued to maintain that she had little to no memory of events the night of the fire." - This sentence could be better phrased.
"After her sentencing Green continued to maintain that her recall of the night of the fire was limited." A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
"She later withdrew the request when told that prosecutors would again request for the death penalty." This sentence could be better phrased.
"She withdrew the request when prosecutors determined that they would seek the death penalty if a new trial was awarded." A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
"... a number of sources have attempted to classify her pathology, if any," - I don't think "pathology" is the right word here.
It's a category that encompasses "disease", "dysfunction", "maladaption", etc (cf Personality pathology). So it's appropriate here because I'm basically saying "...attempted to classify what went wrong in her brain, whatever type of wrongness that was". A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
"Evaluations showed Green to be minimally able to "cope with the world [she] lives in"" - Again, I think the awkward quote unnecessary.
Changed, but I remain uncomfortable about de-quoting close paraphrases, so I'd appreciate some other opinions on this. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
In the first paragraph of "Evaluations of psychology and motivation", Hutchinson seems to be first a "he" but later a "she", although this isn't entirely clear from the context.
Thank you for responding to these suggestions. I don't agree with your concerns about the indirect speech/close paraphrasing issue but I am happy to give my support to the article now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.