Talk:Death of Jeffrey Epstein/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Ovinus Real (talk · contribs) 23:54, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion requested

The article is quite good, but I just want to make sure that it treats alternative theories with the appropriate amount of weight. Unusually for an article like this, the alternative theories about Epstein's death are believed by a large majority of Americans and by many politicians, of both parties. Comments? Ovinus (talk) 02:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

I think the popular culture section is too short compared to the rest. Trillfendi (talk) 16:44, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded it a bit. ~ HAL333 21:24, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@HAL333: I made a small ce to your expansion; please review that, and once you're ready I'll pass the nomination. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 22:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great. ~ HAL333 22:25, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Immediate failure criteria

Approved Article seems to be in very good shape
Approved All images are licensed permissively and appropriately. I ran the copyvio detector, which produced dailyhawker.com/all-about/jeffery-epstein, but that's just a copy of this article.
Approved No such banners/templates
Approved No edit wars in recent times, despite the controversiality
Not applicable

Looks good! 01:42, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Criterion 1

I only have a few comments here.

Y"victims the FBI identified" → "victims identified by the FBI"
Y"Tartaglione in connection" → "Tartaglione of connection"
Y"to take his own life were" → "to kill himself were"
Y"Psychological staff dismissed Epstein from suicide watch after six days following a psychiatric examination." → "After six days, psychological staff..."
Y"SHU" (first instance) → "special housing unit (SHU)". You mentioned the acronym's expansion later, so you just need to move that earlier
YIn [note 3], "ball-point" → "ballpoint"
"A paper note by Epstein was ... clothes for an hour." I think this should be moved to "Discovery", as the time of the note's writing is not known.

I couldn't find a way to wedge it into the discovery section. I think it was only found after a deep sweep a few days later, if I'm correct. It's more pertinent to the "final weeks" section as it describes what his living conditions were like. ~ HAL333 15:30, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Epstein was reportedly depositing funds into other prisoners' accounts to gain their favor or buy protection." I don't know if this sentence is relevant, but if it is, it probably belongs earlier in the section.

I think it makes the most sense to keep the information regarding the note, the funds, and the will in the same paragraph. It's just what he was up to in jail besides the July 27 incident. ~ HAL333 16:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Y"which was initially reported as apparent suicide" I'm confused here; initially reported by whom and when? Also, "an" belongs after "as"

I'm confused here too. I just removed it - it was out of place anyway. ~ HAL333 15:34, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Y"If it was posted by" → "If this 4chan post was by" Just to make sure that it's not conflated with the ABC News report
Y"Later conflicting reports" → "Later, conflicting reports" to make sure that Sampson's report is not considered a conflicting report
Y'Adam's apple".' → 'Adam's apple."' I think MOS:LQ dictates this, though I may be wrong
Y"neck-bones" → "neck bones"
Y"According to Baden the neck wound" → "According to Baden, the neck wound" This one is just a matter of taste I guess. What Baden says contains a comma, and thus I think it should be set off with some punctuation
Y"Later on August 13" → "On August 13" Because it implies that the previous statement was made on Aug. 13
Y"Sen. Lindsey Graham has" → "Senator Lindsey Graham had"
Y'to light." "The elements' Consider moving the later phrase "a spokesperson for the office told ABC News" in between these two quotes to make reading easier.

I also expanded the French paragraph with some recent developments. ~ HAL333 16:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Y"use the footage to demonstrate his character while he allegedly saved Epstein" Confusing, probably rewrite
'his death by "apparent suicide"' → 'his "apparent suicide"'

I just changed it to death. ~ HAL333 15:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Y"Homicide suspicions and speculation" section should probably be "Homicide suspicions and conspiracy theories" or "Homicide suspicions, speculation and conspiracy theories". I think conspiracy theories are a bit more extreme than "speculation"
Y "ago - they" should use an em-dash, which I've fixed for you
YIn references: "USA TodaaODAY" is a (rather amusing) typo
YIn references: Otterson, Joe is cited as the author of a single source twice

Since most of these things are pretty simple fixes, you can just put a checkmark before/after them to indicate you have done them, or put a comment under them and quickly explain why you didn't want to make the change. Overall, the writing quality is pretty top-notch!

Criterion 2

Most challengeable claims in the lead have a corresponding (and cited) source in the body. Here are the ones which I believe require a citation somewhere:

Y"The guards on duty were later charged with conspiracy and record falsification." You mentioned with a citation they did falsify records, but not that they were charged correspondingly.

I'm kind of confused here... Is that what you wanted? ~ HAL333 16:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Y"Consequently, Barr removed the Bureau's director" I don't see anywhere in the article which explains that she was removed.

It's now covered in section 4.1 ~ HAL333 16:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I should note that "Many public figures accused the Federal Bureau of Prisons of negligence and inefficiency." is a clear conclusion from the section 4.1 Reaction, and doesn't need a source in the lead, in my opinion.

Other things that need a citation element:

Y "... forthcoming." Probably should reuse the next citation; it's not clear that the next citation applies to the preceding sentence also.

I have put in [citation needed] tags for these three items.

The sources are all of high-quality, which is a requisite for this kind of article.

Criterion 4

Overall, it is very well balanced for such a controversial topic. My only comment:

The last sentence of the first paragraph should be removed, or moved to the last paragraph of the lead. Including it in the first paragraph provides undue weight, in my opinion, and the sentence also quite detailed in comparison to the rest of the paragraph. The alternative theories are given an entire paragraph in the lead, which I think is a good amount (taking into account their unusually widespread popularity).

The alternative theories are given due weight, which is an unusual thing to desire for these kinds of articles, but given their widespread popularity including among people like politicians, it is definitely appropriate. Evidence for all major claims, including statements from experts in relevant fields, is provided and organized clearly. However, because this is a very unusual case, I am requesting comment from a more experienced editor as to whether my assessment here is accurate.

I removed the sentence, but still kept the mention of Baden. ~ HAL333 15:18, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion 5

As I noted earlier, the article is stable.

Criterion 6

The article is well-illustrated. My one recommendation would be to move the images of Epstein's neck injuries down to where it says "although there was blood on Epstein's neck..." That way the images feel more immediately relevant and further justifies the usage of mildly disturbing content (though I think they are 100% appropriate anyway).

That's about it; let me know if you have any questions. Awesome work! Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 02:50, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done I really appreciate this review. April 8 seems so long ago. ~ HAL333 16:10, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome! Since you responded adequately to all my comments I'll pass the nomination once someone else takes a look at the article's neutrality and makes a comment. Hopefully that won't take too long... if it's been two weeks I'll try find someone to do it. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 21:41, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]