# Talk:An Unbelievable Story of Rape

This review is transcluded from Talk:An Unbelievable Story of Rape/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) 20:58, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I'll review this. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:58, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Vanamonde93, thanks for taking this. Just a note that I'll be quite busy in the upcoming month, but I should be able to respond to any comments made over the next week promptly, and I will try to answer any comments made later than that but may need a bit of leeway on time. — Bilorv (talk) 13:59, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
@Bilorv: Apologies for taking a while. I'm mostly done, though I'll try to do some spotchecks tomorrow; I would expect to pass this after the few comments have been addressed. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)


### Checklist
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 
All comments addressed
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 

Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 
Spotchecks reveal no issues
B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: 
No issues, so far as I can see.
C. It contains no original research: 
Spotchecks are clear
D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 
Earwig's tool highlights quotes; spotchecks are clear
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 
No issues
B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 
Given the topic, I don't think I'm going to hold this up over images, but see comment below
B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 
N/A
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Passing shortly.


### Comments
Apologies for taking a while to get to this...feel free to revert and discuss any copy edits I make. 

I can see why you don't want to repeat "States" in the first sentence of the article, but I don't think an abbreviation is good style in the first sentence either; can you rephrase?
American rather than U.S. works, right?
I would find the section title "summary" somewhat more intuitive than "article content"; somehow with the latter I expect analysis, rather than summary, but maybe that's just me...
Link "foster care"
"Galbraith talked to her husband" her husband is, presumably, also a policeman, but this isn't made clear.
Yep, fair enough. talked to her husband, also a police officer, ...
Link Westminster.
I think it would be helpful to state what police forces the various policepeople belonged to, if that information is available.
Only forces mentioned by name are the Lynnwood Police Department and Westminster Police Department—not quite sure how the U.S. works but there's no precinct numbers or other names described for them. I can put these in if you want but I thought they were a bit redundant to the mention of the locations.
You're not consistent in whether a comma is used after "City, State". I find using a comma more natural, but if it's a stylistic thing, should it not be consistent? Or is the variation deliberate?
The variation is a mistake. They should now consistently have a comma afterwards.
"whose description matched the attacker" I presume we are now back in Colorado, but this isn't obvious.
Now registered to army veteran Marc Patrick O'Leary, who lived in Lakewood, Colorado, and whose description matched the attacker
"An external report" is very vague. By whom?
A very good point. An external report by Sergeant Gregg Rinta, who worked for the Snohomish County Sheriff's Office as a sex crimes supervisor, condemned ...
I would strongly prefer the background section be moved to before "article contents". It does a lot with respect to establishing context that helps understand the contents.
Yeah, okay. I was thinking it would be the other way around, that knowing the situation would then establish more meaning to e.g. the parts about interviewing Marie, but looking again I think it's fine either way. I've switched the order because my preference on this wasn't strong; if there's anything in "Background" which you think now needs to be introduced better then let me know.
"team ensured that they consulted women's input" "consulted...input" seems redundant; also, can you clarify if that was Dannis's role, or whether other women were involved?
Other women, including Danis and a copy editor and various others with unspecified credentials: we solicited the input of women, those who were familiar with the story and those without any inkling of it. With only one exception, the women voted for the more detailed account. Our brilliant copy editor, a woman who had edited other stories about rape, cinched it for us ... Text is now: the team ensured that they consulted various women, some with knowledge of the case and some without, particularly in regards to. Let me know if this sounds natural, because I've now stared at the sentence too long to be a good judge of that.
"Serial rapist Marc O'Leary was also interviewed" if you don't move this section, then O'Leary's already been introduced, and the full name is unnecessary. Also, I have no issues with calling him a rapist, but this particular phrasing almost suggests he's a random serial rapist.
Now moved, but I think you're right that it sort of implies a lack of connection to the case: changed to The perpetrator of the serial rapes, Marc O'Leary, was also interviewed.
I'd switch paragraphs three and four of "research and writing"; that seems both chronologically and thematically smoother.
" alternative Wisconsin newspaper Isthmus" I think "alternative" needs a link, or an explanation.
The abbreviation "FBI" is linked and defined much after it's first used.
Now Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) on first mention and FBI subsequently.
The surname "Adler" is only used in the very last section; why?
Ah, because it's a mistake. The article and sources about it use "Marie" only as the pseudonym. "Adler" was the invention of the TV program, which needed a surname for its main character. Changed to: are based on Marie (Kaitlyn Dever), known in the series as Marie Adler but let me know if you think that implies Marie is a real name rather than a pseudonym.
Might I offer "related media" as a section title in place of "subsequent media"?
Happy to go with that, yep.
I'm not sure I like the use of the Fast Company source, given that it's a single-sentence review
Removed: I think I found this early when looking for secondary response to the article, but later found better stuff.
I think it's not an unreasonable guess that some conservative media were less keen on this article than the ones you've cited. I admittedly could not find any, but you know the source material better than I do; are there no bad reviews worth giving weight to?
No, the way conservative media respond to cases like this are by ignoring their existence. I checked Breitbart for a laugh and even its coverage of the Netflix show is one brief unopinionated description. I have a lot of my own opinions about the indignity of how liberal and conservative media alike neglected almost all mention of this story prior to the Netflix series, when aspersions cast on A Rape on Campus made national news for weeks, but the fact remains that I've done a lot of searches in lots of date ranges, and there just aren't any negative comments about the article that I can find. Even the Netflix show received as close to universal acclaim as TV shows ever get, and it would be cherry-picking to mention one of the very, very few overall negative reviews.
That makes sense.
Alright, I've replied to some of these points and quietly addressed the rest of them. Thanks for the comments so far. — Bilorv (talk) 08:17, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Bilorv: Everything looks good, passing this shortly. One suggestion, which I'm not going to hold this up over; if the book based on this article is not independently notable, then a decent case could be made for a NFUR for its cover as an illustration here, I think. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:54, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Ah, interesting point. I think the book might be independently notable and suitably distinct to warrant a standalone article, but I'll bear this in mind if it turns out that it isn't. Thanks for the review—the comments were very useful! — Bilorv (talk) 18:22, 27 May 2020 (UTC)