Talk:Murder of Leigh Leigh

Speedy Deletion (January 2010)

This event was covered extensively by the media, it was mentioned extensively in the Australian parliament. It inspired a major play and an international film. How is this un-notable? Freikorp (talk) 23:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

In any case please just give me one day and I will find additional sources and expand this page considerably. Freikorp (talk) 23:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I think there's been adequate coverage of this event; I'll remove the speedy and if the community still wishes deletion it can be discussed at AfD. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 00:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The article deserves keeping. I too !vote to keep. --Stroppolo^talk 00:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Well done on the article. I would add details but it would be hard to keep a NPV giving knowing all persons involved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.200.241.192 (talk) 10:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Rape

look just a thought as I knew all the people involved in this including Leigh. 1 the rape. The "unnamed" 15 year old; who I will not name was charged with carneal knowlege (at the time reports were cause the cops could not pin rape) but by all reports Fat Matt sexually assaulted Leigh (finger) but did not rape???? The evidence however also reports sexual assult with a beer bottle or similar. Mat was charged with sexual assault and murder not rape. Please not I am not defending this prick who I always found to be a bully. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.148.117.85 (talk) 10:51, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying and I think you are right however the threshold for inclusion on wikipedia as per WP:Verifiability is verifiability, not truth. The reference says she was raped so that is what it will say in the article unless a more reliable source is found that contradicts that. Freikorp (talk) 09:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Found a more reliable source that contradicts that. As I suspected, you were correct. I've changed it in the article accordingly. Freikorp (talk) 15:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Murder of Leigh Leigh/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Reviewer: Ohconfucius (talk · contribs) 04:57, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Further to a request on my talk page, I have decided to review this article as my maiden effort in GAC. I shall be posting my initial comments in the next few days. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 04:57, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Initial review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   LEAD

   Why is "bouncer" in quotes? I suggest simply saying "who acted as bouncer"

   Suggest that you replace the rather archaic "gaol" with "prison" without the unnecessary glossing link.

   "Two other persons at the party were charged;" – use of the word "persons" is unusual and sounds a bit legalistic. Suggest simplifying to "Two others at the party were charged"; needs colon instead of semicolon because what follows is an elaboration of the first part of the phrase.

   There is a problem with "as several people who admitting"

   • All issues addressed. Freikorp (talk) 06:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

   First section:

   "On 3 November 1989, a boy celebrated his 16th birthday at the North Stockton Surf club" sounds a bit awkward. The birthday boy was never identified in the article I think it would be better merely stating "At a 16th birthday party held at the North Stockton Surf Club on 3 November 1989"

   "admitted to smoking around fifteen cones..." seems redundant and off topic. We know all these things were going on at the party already. Suggest deleting, or moving it further down the article where his personal intoxication may have greater relevance.

   "find out what had happened to her, however, nobody went" – needs a full stop after "her".

   "Nineteen-year-old Guy Wilson, the other bouncer, and the only other person besides Webster aged over 18 at the party" – this fact can be introduced in the same breath as for Webster earlier in the article.

   "about 92 metres north of the surf club" – 92m seems rather precise for the construction. Suggest rounding to 90m.

   "when her body was found the next morning" seems redundant and can be taken as read.

   "Leigh was found naked, except for her socks and shoes, and her panties and shorts around her right ankle." – the first comma is unnecessary; the second part needs tweaking (substitute "with" for "and", or insert "were" after "shorts").

   "Saltbush" needs disambiguating to the most relevant target

   "also found that Leigh had crushing skull injuries" – remove as repetition.

   "upper right kidney" is too precise and implies there may be a lower right kidney.

   "chocked" I'm unfamiliar with this past participle used several times in the article. Perhaps you mean "choked"

   "blood stained rock" needs a hyphen

   • All issues addressed. And yes, I did mean "choked" :) Freikorp (talk) 06:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

   • Perhaps I wasn't clear, but the introductions to Webster and Wilson should be in the lead but also in the body. Suggest inserting somewhere before "According to a police report": "Matthew Grant Webster and Guy Wilson, both of whom acted as bouncers, were the only people aged over 18 at the party" -- Ohc ^¡digame! 04:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

   • No I should have figured that out :). Issue addressed. Thanks again. Freikorp (talk) 05:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

   • I've just noticed that "This was witnessed by other people at the party; no one came to help her" seems too closely worded compared to its citation. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 01:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

   • Reworded. Freikorp (talk) 11:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

   • some factoids that probably ought to be in the article or reconciled with the sources:

   • "Between 80 and 100 other young people attended the party that night" [1] and [2]

   • Added. Freikorp (talk) 11:58, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

   • the clubhouse where the party was held had been "abandoned"

   • Not sure about this one. According to the Carrington reference, it was rented for the night from the Stockton Lions Club. Carrington describes the building as a "weather-worn" "old surf shed", but makes no mention to it being abandoned. I've added the information on where it was rented from, and have described the building as 'disused'. Comments on this are welcomed. Freikorp (talk) 11:49, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

   • Noted. I have no further issue with this. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 01:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

   • she was hit repeatedly on the head and killed with "a six-kilogram lump of concrete"[3] and [4]

   • The media often stated she was hit with a 6 kilogram lump of concrete. The police reports, however, describe the item that killed Leigh as a 5.6 kilogram "rock". Despite the incompetence of the police involved, I trust their judgement more than that of the media. I've added referenced information about Leigh being struck several times to the post-mortem sub-section. When asked by police regarding how many times he hit Leigh with the rock, Webster replied: "I can't remember, I just freaked. I was spinning out - all these things were going through my head and I bolted". Freikorp (talk) 12:25, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

   • Noted. In this case, I would suggest explicitly mentioning that "5.6 kg rock" was taken from the police report (see next item). -- Ohc ^¡digame! 16:10, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

   • Done. Freikorp (talk) 12:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

   • "blood spattered on to the grassy bush four metres away"[5]

   • I noticed this one myself when writing the article. The article contradicts the police reports, which state blood was found 2.8 metres one way from her body and 1.3 metres the other way. Freikorp (talk) 11:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

   • Noted. In this case, I would suggest merging this sentence with the preceding, explicitly mentioning that both were taken from the police report. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 01:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

   • Done. Freikorp (talk) 12:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

   • "There was no semen found in the body"[6] -- Ohc ^¡digame! 07:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

   • Added. Freikorp (talk) 12:07, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

   Investigation section:

   "Twenty detectives were assigned to the case...Detective Sergeant Lance Chaffey headed the investigation.[8]" – suggest merge these two by saying "Twenty detectives, led by Detective Sergeant Lance Chaffey, were assigned to the case...

   "the squad was reduced to less than 10" – should use "fewer" with countable nouns

   "Webster originally gave an alibi of going to a pub" – "alibi" implies corroborating witness, but only the act of going is mentioned

   "In a subsequent interview eight days later" – "subsequent" is redundant

   "admitted that he not gone to the pub", aside from being poor grammar, is redundant

   "As the hunt for the killer commenced, numerous rumours circulated regarding the crime.[23]" is redundant and can be replaced simply by moving forward "The investigation was described as being "fuelled by mutual suspicion and by rumour and counter-rumour."[30]"

   "On 28 January 1990 ... fined $250 for offensive behaviour." – this is a confusing interlude. Suggest simplifying to "On 28 January 1990, upon being taunted by four boys regarding the murder, Webster assaulted one of them, and he was fined $250 for offensive behaviour."

   "police approached Webster and interviewed him a third time, during which he" – clunky prose. suggest "during a third interview with the police, Webster"

   "walked to the saltbushes together, and he pulled..." – suggest rewording to remove awkward "and": "walked together to the saltbushes, where he pulled..."

   "When Leigh said 'don't' and started pushing him away" – suggest simplifying to "When Leigh rebuffed him"

   • Issues addressed. Is the 'fined $250' sentence still confusing? I mean, is it a bit off topic or superfluous or anything? Or does it work how it is now? Do let me know if I haven't done a good enough job addressing any issue. Freikorp (talk) 05:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

   • It looks fine now. One additional point on that section: suggest relocating "Webster stated he lost his temper" to the beginning of that sentence. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 07:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

   • Carrington's credentials should be presented (In her book, Professor Kerry Carrington, the Head School of Justice at the QUT...).

   Convictions section

   "receiving 6 months custody", "6 months imprisonment" and similarly "100 hours community service" needs an apostrophe after "months" and "hours" respectively

   Cause-and-effect: I don't see the connection between "Webster was the first ... truth in sentencing legislation" and the following sentence beginning "Accordingly", so I would suggest removing "Accordingly". If I am correctly understanding the storyline, the former sentence would fit better just before "Justice James Roland Wood sentenced"

   Suggest merging sentence beginning "Justice James Roland Wood sentenced..." with "Justice Wood found" to read "Finding that Webster's motivation... upon her, Justice James Roland Wood sentenced him..."

   There is a strong factual connection between the next two sentences ("Webster appealed the length of his prison term" and "Justices Gleeson, Lee and Allen stated") which is not reflected by their functional separation. Suggest merging into something beginning "In dismissing Webster's appeal to the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal against the length..."

   Similarly, the causal relationship between sentences beginning "The release of Matthew Webster on parole was discussed..." and "There were initial concerns" could be made stronger by merging; split out the parole board's stipulations.

   I think the sentence starting "Following his release..." should be relocated to the end of the section for more logical follow

   I'm not a huge fan of block quotes, and I don't think the minister's comment in full is all that necessary. Suggest that this be replaced with a mention of the "choice" or "balance" between a release subject to parole and an unconditional release upon having served full sentence.

   • Issues addressed. Well spotted that there is currently no connection between "Webster was the first ... truth in sentencing legislation" and the following sentence. The reference used that currently states he was the first to be sentenced under "truth in sentencing" legislation (Morrow, p. 477.) does not link the two. Page 86 of the Carrington reference (not currently used in article), states "As the fortunes of history would have it, [Webster] was the first person in NSW to be sentenced after the introduction of the 1989 Sentencing Act, and he chose to appeal the length of his prison term. Justices Gleeson, Lee and Allen..." I don't fully understand what the '1989 Sentencing Act' or 'truth-in-sentecing' act as it was called actual changed. The wikilink to Truth in sentencing does not have a sub-section for what it actually means in Australia. Nevertheless, I chose to go with the 'Morrow' reference as the wikilink at least gives the reader some indication of what the legislation might mean. I decided against using the term '1989 Sentencing Act' in the article as there is no wikipedia article on it, so it is not particularly helpful to the reader, but in choosing the Morrow reference, I did not note it does not link these two facts. Whilst it appears that these two facts are linked, I have removed the word 'Accordingly' until such time as I can figure out exactly what the link is. Freikorp (talk) 10:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

   • Thanks for the clarification. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 11:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

   Media section:

   Per Morrow, and quite similar to the opening sentence "The Newcastle and Sydney mass media, perhaps intrigued by the victim's exotically homographic first name and surname, reported Leigh Leigh's death widely, and with greater than usual persistence"

   "Attention instead shifted to the lack of parental supervision at the party" it seems (from Morrow) that the Judge was somewhat responsible for lending this focus which resulted in victim-blaming than on sexual assault.

   Both the media exposure and the play/film contribute to the "celebrity" of the case (and Morrow makes the connection), and I think there can be a one-sentence mention of the play/film in this section.

   • The Morrow reference does seem to imply a connection between the judges comments and the media coverage, but the Carrington reference specifically makes one. "The judge's comments [criticising parents] during the sentencing of Matthew Webster made ready copy for the press who in swooping on it repeated its portrayal of the events that night ad nauseum." I have used the Carringotn reference to make a connection. I have also added a line regarding the film and play. Is the first issue that the paraphrasing is too close? I have reworded it to be less similar. Freikorp (talk) 11:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

   • Thanks, now fine. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 15:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

   Criticism section:

   "Criticism was also raised regarding the lack of convictions" – could be worded differently as "lack of" implies none. Webster and two others were convicted.

   "Chaffey is reported to have stated ..." a bit weasely – a stronger and more direct link to the preceding sentence needed: "Chaffey is quoted as replying"

   "Clothing samples were taken from several suspects,..." – unwieldy sentence. Suggest deleting the rest and simply replacing with "including Guy Wilson"

   "Whilst Scotland Yard would not give any details regarding specific results..." – redundant bureaucratese. Replace simply with "but"

   • Most issues addressed (I think, please check I have understood you correctly). Guy Wilson's admitting that his T-shirt had a blood stain on it (incidentally he stated it was his own blood, but his story of how it got there was described by Professor Carrington as dubious (and with good reason in my opinion), i'll tell you why if you're interested) is of importance due to information in the next (Aftermath) section regarding the specific refusal to clarify on whether his blood-stained shirt was tested. Considering the information in the Aftermath section, do you think the information in the criticism section should still be shortened to just 'including Guy Wilson'? Freikorp (talk) 10:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

   • Thanks, "Clothing samples were taken from several suspects,..." is more a grammatical issue than the pertinence of the blood stain assertion. Suggest revising to "Clothing samples from several suspects were taken,..." -- Ohc ^¡digame! 15:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

   • Done. Freikorp (talk) 20:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

   Aftermath section

   " as her reasons for letting go" – remove as redundant

   "She abandoned her efforts in 1997..." suggest placing more chronologically, i.e. immediately before "In March 1998" as "In the meantime, Leigh's mother abandoned her campaign in 1997..."

   "rejected the unnamed 15-year-olds sexual advances" – "olds" need apostrophe

   "but dismissed the reviews findings" – "reviews" need apostrophe

   • Above 4 issues have been addressed. Freikorp (talk) 10:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

   "He also commented negatively on the lack of convictions" – did he really? (passim)

   • Page 116: "On the second act of violence, Justice Moore said, a number of young males had Leigh on the ground outside the club-house. They poured beer over her, they spat on her and kicked her and verbally abused her. The Judge named six boys involved in these criminal assaults. He then remarked that One of the assailants, and only one, had been detected and charged with assault and sentenced to six months imprisonment. The series of assaults that occurred after Leigh walked back into the club-house were considered by Justice Moore as a continuation of the assaults that began outside. He named a number of boys involved in these, too, most of whom escaped prosecution." Hmm, after actually reading all of that again I get the impression his comments criticise the lack of convictions ("and only one") but I suppose it would be more accurate to say he acknowledged the lack of convictions. Reworded. Freikorp (talk) 10:42, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

   • Noted. no further issues here. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 04:15, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

   "and disciplinary action against the other investigative officers" – please confirm that all of them?

   • No it wasn't all of them, thanks for noticing that. Reworded. Freikorp (talk) 10:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

   Theatrical and film adaptations section

   "film-makers denial" – "makers" need apostrophe

   The quote from Enright is redundant as the film-maker's denial is already noted in the previous sentence.

   • Done. Freikorp (talk) 10:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   LEAD

   The article is about an event and the lead should reflect this; the use of a biographical infobox seems a bit incongruous to me. I suggest you switch to {{Infobox event}}.

   The opening sentence also reads too much like a biography; the exact birth date is not relevant. The death is not mentioned until the third sentence, and needs to be in the first.

   "The media coverage of the murder has been cited", "it is speculated that he was not alone" and "reactions to both the plays and the film were said to be as complex" – re WP:WEASEL and need attribution and/or direct cites.

   • I've mentioned her death in the first sentence, and removed the date of birth. The sentences you requested citations for are all backed up later in the article, but I have now added citations to the lead anyway for good measure. I modelled the article off the featured article Murder of Joanna Yeates, which is one of only two featured articles that begin with 'Murder of' (the other is a murder victim from the 19th century). Whilst I agree with you that Leigh's date of birth isn't needed in the lead, have a look at the Yeates article and let me know which template (person or event) you think would be most appropriate, I think 'person' can work here. Freikorp (talk) 06:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

   • I looked at the Yeates FAC, and it appears nobody paid any particular attention to the infobox used, or asked any questions of the appropriateness of parts that resembled a biography. I still consider that the {{Infobox event}} to be the most appropriate one to be used for this article; I also think that an image of Leigh could be justified (in the infobox?) under FUR as she is deceased. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 15:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

   • Hmm, good point about the FAC for Yeates. I'll convert this article to use infobox event tomorrow. I'm not too familiar with non-free images. The image of Leigh seen in this article is the one that was repeatedly circulated in the media [7], that would probably be the best non-free option. Alternatively, Stockton isn't too far from me. I could easily enough take my own photo of Leigh's grave (I wouldn't be the first person to do that: [8]) which has a photo of her on it. I was considering going to Stockton to take a photo of the building where the party was held (which looks considerably different now, but I have reliable source I could use as an inline citation regarding when it was modified) and replacing the generic photo of Stockton Beach currently in the article with one taken where her body was found, according to the police report. What do you think about that idea for photo's of her and the area? Freikorp (talk) 15:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

   • Good idea, if you have the time. Yes, I'd be happier with a pic of her tombstone than a FUR image as this is closer to the actual subject of this article. But I wouldn't spend any time/money going to Stockton if I wasn't going there for some other reason. The proposed images will not affect the promotion of the article to GA, so you can take your time acquiring them. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 16:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

   • I had the day off work today, so I made the trip. A bit of a drive, and not something i'd normally be willing to do, but whilst I have created a few articles that could reach GA status, this is the only one so far that I believe has a chance of reaching featured status (and I intend to nominate it there eventually), so i'm happy to put the extra effort in. Changed to info box event as well. Have a look at the available fields for info box event and let me know if there are any fields you think need filling out. Freikorp (talk) 11:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

   • Well done. These are really good to the article. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 04:15, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
   • Note that the images all need alts for FAC (not an issue for GA). -- Ohc ^¡digame! 04:19, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

   • Thanks. When I first got to the building that is now a childcare centre, there were kids playing out the front (it was lunch time) so I went and got some lunch myself before coming back and taking photo's once all the kids were indoors. I didn't want anybody calling the police about the strange man taking photos of the children haha, I felt weird enough as it was taking photos of it; one person gave me an odd look lol. Need alts? I'm sorry i'm not familiar with what that means, can you explain? :). Freikorp (talk) 07:05, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

   • You did good. It's alternate text that loads first and appears when an image is loading. Thing about Wikipedia is, if there's a piece of jargon, you're likely to find out what it means by typing it in the search box with "WP:" in front of it. ;-) I think this article is not too far off FA. It now just needs to face the gauntlet. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 07:27, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

   • Thanks, yes I should have checked that first lol. I submitted my first article for FAC 3 weeks ago (FAC/The Fifth Element), one person is supporting it, though i'm not entirely sure how many people have to support it or how long it will take to be accepted. As you're only allowed to nominate one article at a time, i'll have to wait until that nomination is approved or closed before nominating this one. Once this is approve for GA, I intend to nominate it for DYK. There won't be any hard feelings if you've had enough of this article and don't want to, but would you be willing to review the DYK? I only ask as it will take a new reviewer a considerable amount of time to check for paraphrasing and what-not, whereas you already know very well the article has no issues, so I would assume it would only take you a couple minutes to approve it. Also I feel like you got the raw deal in our quid pro quo, as your article was considerably shorter and had significantly less prose errors my review took far less time than yours, so if you'd like me to review something else for you, just let me know. Freikorp (talk) 08:00, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

   • They consider DYK stricter than GA in some respects so I'd prefer to let somebody else look at it. Anyway I don't think I'm supposed to conduct both GA and DYK review of the same – I'd be considered too close to the article. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 15:33, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

   • Fair enough. I didn't consider that it might be frowned upon for you to do both. Well at this stage i'll just wait for your mentor to look at your review. Might work on some of your suggestions in the major aspects section as time permits. :) Freikorp (talk) 07:22, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

   • Whilst we're on the subject, would a picture of a specific area that was used for filming and clearly seen in the film, like under the Stockton bridge for example, be appropriate for the 'adaptations' section in your opinion? Or would the connection there not be strong enough to warrant a picture? I could add a caption regarding both the use of the area in filming and the objections from Stocktonians towards filming in the area. Freikorp (talk) 13:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

   • One image there would be fine. I'd resist the temptation to have any more images there because it's not the primary subject. Consider putting these in the film article. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 04:15, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

   Other than statements of fact, I would mention instances where observations were from Carrington (and maybe group them together where they are within the same section because the article cites her book extensively, and many instances are currently unattributed (or violate WP:WEASEL). -- Ohc ^¡digame! 01:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

   • Found a second source regarding media coverage being described as victim blaming, so no need to attribute that to Carrington anymore. The only thing in the lead that is attributed to her now is the comments regarding reactions to the play, and those comments are hardly controversial or dubious. Do you think this particular statement needs to be attributed to her? I'm thinking it doesn't. I'll look at the other sections shortly. Freikorp (talk) 13:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
   • Other sections have been done now. Freikorp (talk) 07:00, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   compliant

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   pls confirm whether "x" is a valid number for ref 54

   • Yes, this information is in the foreword. Foreword pages start at 'vi' and end at 'xviii'. Chapter One starts on page 3 (after a page that just says 'Part One' and a blank page). Freikorp (talk) 10:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

   C. No original research:

   "Webster's parole was debated in the Parliament" – there is nothing to support this assertion. The source is a Hansard report of a ministerial Q&A, where there did not seem to be any debate. There is also no indication in cited sources of there being any opposition to Webster's parole. Kindly supply relevant citation or revise. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 09:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

   • In retrospect 'debated' is not the right word. I have reworded this information, and I hope it now addresses the issue of original research. Freikorp (talk) 10:58, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

   • Thanks, now fine. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 15:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   The Media section touches on the sociological discourse of the circumstances surrounding the case, and I think Morrow is incisive and pertinent. However, Morrow is used to cite fact only, which seems to be an underutilisation of the source. Among other things, Morrow discusses and attempts to understand Carrington's positioning. Through this, Carrington is shown to be much more of an activist, and her criticisms can be seen in the light of that activism.

   On the whole, I think The Age article is quite a sober and balanced retrospective of the case, and strongly hints at the conspiracy of silence and the various motivations for keeping quiet. I would suggest trying to incorporate more elements to tie up the disparate and conflicting elements in the reporting timeline and events

   It seems that the case has a claim to fame that it resulted in "one of the longest ever investigations into police conduct in New South Wales" up to 2000 (ref 3). It's notable enough to warrant an explicit mention.

   The 'Aftermath' section is thin as the PIC condemnation and disciplinary actions seem a bit sudden – specific reasons for the reprimands ought to be in the article in the relevant place. "also criticised police for breaching instructions regarding the custody and interviewing of children by not contacting the parents of a child questioned about the murder"(ref 3) – did this criticism surface early as is suggested in the Criticisms section, or did it only come to light with the Integrity Commission report? If the latter, suggest moving to bolster the findings.

   • Second thoughts, this isn't really an issue for GA, but the article will benefit greater clarity from the sociological aspects when submitted for FA. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 04:15, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

   B. Focused:

   Overall, I think the 'Theatrical and film adaptations' section is given too much weight, as it goes into too much detail about the play, which has its own article. The second half of the first paragraph, from "and the rape and murder victim is named Tracy..." could be removed with no detriment to the Murder article. While the family's objection to some elements should certainly be noted, as should the lack of change to the revised production, it could be done in a single sentence. I feel that there are too many gritty details of the family's objection and the inner workings of the play

   Similarly, the first half of the paragraph from "Nevertheless, both the play and the film..." to "inspiration for a work of fiction." can be deleted and ejected to the article about the film.

   • Shortened accordingly. Freikorp (talk) 13:27, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   I see no issues

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Obvious from the article history.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   No issue here. Commons image is GFDL compliant.

   The newly added images are created by the nominator of this article and are all properly licensed.

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   The images used are entirely suitable and relevant to the topic.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:I'm satisfied that this article satisfies the GAC, but as I just asked someone to comment on it, but who seems not to have edited since my request, I'll hold of passing this pending their comments. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 04:15, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

   I'm fairly satisfied with the article being GA quality. I'd take a look at the infobox, which seems to have some strange parameters (e.g. 'participants' and 'outcomes') for this specific event. However that's a triflingly minor comment. :) Protonk (talk) 14:41, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

   @Ohconfucius, sorry to seem impatient but i'm rather excited about this article being promoted, is there anything you'd like me to do before you promote the article? :) Freikorp (talk) 00:12, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

• I am most pleased with this effort, and am closing this candidature as successful. Well done! -- Ohc ^¡digame! 01:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Additional sources

Information that could be added to the article: Freikorp (talk) 13:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

• [9]: Leigh's death prompted the introduction of 'Leigh Leigh's law'. Can't find any evidence of this anywhere else though.
• Tucker, Scott (15 December 1998). "Leigh '1 of 3 in sex'". The Newcastle Herald. p. 7.: un-named 15-year-old had sex with 2 other girls at the party, was a heroin addict for four years before serving 3-months in prison for stealing 20 cars, speculation he received a light sentence in exchange for testifying at the PIC.
• Tucker, Scott (19 November 1998). "Leigh: no murder quizzing". Central Coast Herald. p. 3.: un-named 15-year-old was never asked any questions about the actual murder, was detained illegally without his mother's consent.
• Tucker, Scott (3 December 1998). "Police said I could go; Inquiry: Matthew Webster confessed he killed Leigh Leigh because . . ". The Newcastle Herald. p. 5.: Webster states he only confessed because police stated they would charge him with manslaughter and allow him to return home to his parents. Webster, however, only made this allegation at the PIC inquiry. Cross-examiner: "So that's just slipped your mind for nine years until today, is that what you are saying?" Webster: Yes.
• Riley, Mark (6 November 1989). "Police quiz two over Stockton murder". The Newcastle Herald. p. 1.: About 40 partygoers were called to the police station to be interviews; they were asked to bring the clothes they wore on the night. Chaffey believed another 20 were present at the party: "We believe there were about 60 youths at the party, ages between 13 and 17 years." "Ten detectives teams teamed with uniformed police from Stockton yesterday to record the statements of the partygoers and begin the exhaustive process of cross-checking their recollections of the night." Leigh was a year 8 student at Newcastle High School. Leigh's body was found on the 6th birthday of her only sister, Jessie. Brad Shearman gave up searching for leigh around 3am.
• Riley, Mark (7 November 1989). "DNA tests for Stockton beach murder suspects". The Newcastle Herald. p. 1.: Blood testes from two youths sent to the division of Forensic Medicine at Glebe Morgue in Sydney. "It is believed this is the first time DNA testing has been used in a Hunter Valley murder case." Several home-made bongs were found outside the club-house the following morning. A rock band, Cardinal Sin, comprised of four of Jason Robertson's Newcastle High Year 10 school mates played at the event. (According to Carrington 1994 p. 6, the band stopped playing when Leigh came into the club to watch her assault, and one member of the band joined in, pouring his beer on Leigh)
• "Murder leaves a legacy of fear as Stockton residents close ranks": A petition to bring back the death penalty had been on the counter of Pablo's Liquor Mart on the main street of Stockton (Mitchell St) for 3 weeks prior to the murder. It only had a couple signatures on it. By November 8, it was full, and they had to get a second petition. Number of detective on the case doubled to 20. The three other boys pictured with Webster were Jason Robertson, Sean Higgison and Justin Anglin, along with Jan Ball, the owner of Roberto's Pizza bar.
• Riley, Mark (9 November 1989). "Girl 'sought help' before murder". The Newcastle Herald. p. 1.: "Partygoers said that Leigh had asserted that she had been raped and had asked for help".
• Riley, Mark (10 November 1989). "Father of murdered schoolgirl calls for death penalty". The Newcastle Herald. p. 1.: Leigh's funeral service was held on November 8 at the Uniting Church on Mitchell St, Stockton. Approximately half of the 300 people who attended were students from Newcastle High. Leigh's father, Robert Mears, had been divorced for about 7 years. Mears and Shearman acted as lead pallbearers. Mears also criticised the lack of parental supervision at the party.
• Riley, Mark (11 November 1989). "Police narrow down Leigh Leigh suspects". The Newcastle Herald. p. 1.: Leigh arrived at the party at about 7:30pm, after having been dropped at Roberto's Pizza Bar about half an hour earlier. Leigh returned to the party saying she had been raped and asked for help.
• About 50 posters appeared around Stockton following Leigh's murder, featuring three male figures (one clutching a rock) standing over a female body. Posters caption read "Shame Stockton Shame: Dob the gutless bastards in". Posters attracted national media attention (Brien) though only last a couple days. Leigh's family responded negatively to the posters. (Carrington 1998). Local resident Graham Parsons claimed responsibility. (Sticks and Stones)

How did she come to be known as Leigh Leigh?

I know the talk page isn't supposed to be used as a forum for discussion of the subject of the article. Shouldn't this question be addressed in the article, though? Dyspeptic skeptic (talk) 01:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

It is addressed in the 'Media coverage' section. "Leigh was born with the surname Mears though this was changed when she was eight after her mother was in a relationship with a man whose last name was Leigh." I would have preferred to address the issue in the intro paragraph or earlier in the article, where it would be more obvious to the reader, but I couldn't find a good excuse to bring it up until the media section since it's a bit complicated to explain. Freikorp (talk) 01:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I've since specified the names of her parents in the intro paragraph, after her birth name. Freikorp (talk) 04:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Arguable BLP violation

I'm not saying that the text is necessarily a BLP violation, because various sources support various versions of the same thing. But we can't say (especially in the lead of a Featured Article) "there is speculation that he was not alone when he murdered Leigh", sourced only to a TV reporter saying "there's been ongoing speculation about whether others were involved". That statement, coming from a TV reporter, is meaningless. In a Wikipedia article, it would be better not to use the word "speculation", but if we do use it, then it means that there's serious support of some kind for that conclusion ... and given the particulars of this case, that directly fingers certain individuals for complicity in a murder. Either different sources or different language is needed, or ... probably best ... don't try to argue this point in the lead before the complicated context later in the text has been established. Bottom line: I deleted this because I had to per BLP, but I'm not taking a position what the text should say. - Dank (push to talk) 14:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Considering the number of scholarly sources in the 'Possibility of accomplices' sub-section I think we could use a combination of these to easily cite 'speculation' in the lead. Nevertheless I can see an argument for not complicating the lead with this information; 'Webster's confession did not match the forensic evidence' kind of implies others may have been involved anyway. If someone else wants to attempt to reword Webster potentially having accomplices in the lead that's fine with me but i'm also fine with omitting this from the lead for the time being. Freikorp (talk) 09:21, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. - Dank (push to talk) 16:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Lead picture

The building would be preferable as the lead picture (the infobox could be dispensed with). The picture of Leigh "as used in the mainstream media" can move to "Media coverage". "Homographic" is wrong (but I can't remember the right word). zzz (talk) 08:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I've always suspected that 'Homographic' was wrong, but the source in the article specifically uses that word, and I couldn't think of a better one. I'll like to hear more opinions on the lead picture/infobox. Freikorp (talk) 09:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I vote to leave Leigh's picture as the lead picture. The article is called "Murder of Leigh Leigh" and she's really the main subject of the article, not some building that most of us reading this (especially outside Australia) have never seen and aren't going to recognize. If the building was some iconic spot like a well-known monument, campus building or government building, then it would make sense perhaps to have it as the lead picture, but it isn't. If I pulled up an article on a murder I'd never heard of before, as I did today (led here by the featured article of the day containing a link) and saw some building as the lead picture I would be very confused. If Leigh Leigh was still living I'd think perhaps there was a privacy concern even if her picture was already widely used in the media, but she's deceased. TheBlinkster (talk) 01:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Reduplication. See list of people with reduplicated names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.236.222 (talk) 10:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Ethnicity

Of course it is a thorny issue, ... would editor of this article specify clearly the ethnicity of the victims and of the suspects/convicts? Cheers--Connection (talk) 15:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure why? There's no evidence I can see from the sources that ethnicity played any part in this. Kindzmarauli (talk) 15:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Having spent weeks searching through microfilm to write this article, and being extremely familiar with all the online sources used as well, I can assure you the only reason I know the ethnicity of the two identified perpetrators is from seeing their photographs in the newspaper. No source specifically mentions race. Ethnicity did not play any factor in this. For those of you unfamiliar with Newcastle Australia, as a person who lived there for several years I can assure you it is a very white working-class suburban area; in 1989 it probably would have been extremely difficult to find a person there who wasn't white. Freikorp (talk) 21:58, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks and appreciations for the input. Would it be reflected in any remote way in the article? For any future reader. Cheers.Connection (talk) 07:11, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. I don't see any relevant way to mention that all the teenagers at the party were white, and I don't see how that would be of any help to the reader either. Freikorp (talk) 03:58, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Victim blaming in the media?

I personally do not remember much about Leigh Leigh herself being blamed by the Australian media, but perhaps the coverage was not as broad or biased in Victoria (where I lived at the time). I've gone through various articles about the case and it largely seemed the "victim blaming" really just came from the ignorant and ill informed residents of the town who wanted to project their anger onto the female, rather than from any journalistic publication? Surely even in 1989, Australian press would know better than to blame the raped and murdered, yet the introduction states "[The] media coverage of the murder has been cited as an example of blaming the victim"... how appalling if this is true. I thought this country would know better than to vilify someone subjected to such a graphic death, let alone a 14 year old girl. Ashton 29 (talk) 01:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Victim blaming is, unfortunately, not uncommon even today. Just off the top of my head, read Gavin King's comments from 2011. People should clearly know better, but they don't. Just so it's clear, I don't think any journalist directly said it was all her fault, like Gavin King, they just tried to shift some of the blame away from the attackers and on to the victim, by saying something like the victim's appearance or behaviour encouraged the attack. As the article states, academics considered the coverage to be a form of victim blaming, citing the articles from one journalist in particular, though also noting that other journalists came to Leigh's defence. If you go through the sources and think you can add a sentence regarding how the community of Stockton also blamed her, that should be fine, but make sure you back up the new statement with correctly placed inline citations. Freikorp (talk) 03:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Now a FA in Chinese Wikipedia

I have translated this article to Chinese Wikipedia here and promoted to FA status, and I want to thank User:Freikorp for his effort to write this amazing article. --Jarodalien (talk) 16:10, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Speculation on prior sexual activity

The article contains the line "and the evidence indicated that prior to the night of her murder she had been a virgin". I deleted this because it is in my opinion irrelevant to the case - a person being raped, after all, has nothing to do with wether or not they had had sex before, and it is bizarre that her victimization should give anyone reason to discuss her sexual habits. In addition, the specious term "virgin" asserts wrongly that intercourse may take only one form and that its incidence thus can be deduced medically. My deletion was reverted. Is there any wiki rule that may provide guidance here? I will remove the claim for the time being. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.78.208.132 (talk) 11:31, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

In the future please place new sections at the bottom of talk pages rather than the top, otherwise they may not be noticed. I have now moved your new section.

There actually is a guideline which you have just violated. When previously accepted information is contested, it does not get removed for "the time being". Consensus much be reached PRIOR to removing the information. You do not have consensus to remove the referenced information.

I understand you are trying to protect Leigh, but if anything I think you are actually harming her memory. As the article indicates, Leigh was unfortunately the victim of many speculations in the media that she was sexually promiscuous and that due to this she somehow "asked" to be sexually assaulted. I too think this is a horrible thing to say; whether she was sexually active or not has no bearing on what happened to her. She did not deserve anything that happened to her that night. I added the information in question as a neutral fact obtained from her autopsy, but I think it actually helps defend Leigh's honour as it counters the media claims that she was sexually active.

This article went through a successful good article assessment, then a successfully featured article assessment, and then went through a further assessment to be accepted as Wikipedia's article of the day. At no point did any of the experienced reviewers comment that this information was inappropriate.

Furthermore I would like to state that after creating this article I spent several months working to get it to the point where it could be Wikipedia's article of the day. I did this because I was moved by the case and believed Leigh deserved to have her story told. I was deeply hurt to have to read a fly-by IP editor accuse me of adding "tasteless speculation" regarding her sexuality. [10]. I have tried very hard to present Leigh's case in a neutral manner. Please read Wikipedia:Assume good faith, and consider asking why information is in an article before making such bold accusations in the future. Freikorp (talk) 23:41, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

In order to partially address your concern, I have replaced the "specious" term 'virgin' with the more specific term 'sexual intercourse'. Freikorp (talk) 01:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Murder of Leigh Leigh. 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/20140728032804/http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/PARLMENT/hansArt.nsf/V3Key/LA19961015004 to http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/PARLMENT/hansArt.nsf/V3Key/LA19961015004
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714113508/http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/Parlment/HansArt.nsf/V3Key/LC20040603029 to http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/Parlment/HansArt.nsf/V3Key/LC20040603029

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 00:21, 24 September 2017 (UTC)