# Talk:Death of Charlotte Shaw

This review is transcluded from Talk:Death of Charlotte Shaw/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Sarastro1 (talk) 20:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
This is an excellent article which summarises a tragic event very well. Just a few points to clear up, but no huge problems with passing this.

"However, it was abandoned halfway through, in part influenced by Shaw's death, due to severe weather.": I know what this means, but it is a little clumsy. What about: "However, it was abandoned halfway through due to severe weather, as the organisers were mindful of Shaw's death."
Copy-edited.
Rather than have five refs after the second paragraph of Background, why not spread them throughout the text. Five refs in a row always seems excessive, and if the paragraph is distilled from so many sources, it would be better to ref more of it.
Distributed a bit, Five ina  row is a bit much.
"the group believed they had to cross because the alternative route would add at least four miles to the trek.": Cross the brook at this point, or just cross the brook (i.e. the alternative avoided the brook)?
I have no idea. It doesn't seem to be in any of the sources. It could be that there was a bridge a few miles upstream or that the source was a few miles upstream and they could avoid going over or thorugh the water altogether. I don't know.
"Believing that the weather conditions, described as "atrocious"…": The quote about atrocious weather conditions has already been used in the previous section.
Removed
"Weather conditions" used twice in close proximity in "Death" section.
Copy-edited
"developed a capability to handle swift-water rescues": I'm not quite sure what this means. How did the team develop the capability, and what was the capability?
Clarified
"The possibility was also raised that the group was under-prepared for the conditions they faced." Raised by who? And it may be better to say "It was suggested by X that…" or even better: "X suggested that …"
I added something but it's not perfect. See what you think.
It is a little odd to read "the group member whose bag Shaw had been attempting to throw…" or "the member in difficulties". Can we name this person? If so, I would suggest using her name.
I'd really rather not, since the person is still very young, is a private individual, the name doesn't enhance the reader's understanding of the circumstances of Charlotte Shaw's death and it risks giving it undue weight. Essentially, I'm erring on the side of caution (with BLP in mind) and deliberately ommitting it.
Fair enough, I understand your reasoning. My main issue was that it sounds clumsy; not so much of an issue for GAN but if it ever went to FAC it would need tidying I think. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
It could probably be worded better. The difficulty with names is that it implicitly blames the named people (the same reason I deliberately omit the teacher's name).
Probably an oversight, but ref 4 does not support the claim that the group was under the supervision of a teacher from Edgehill. Other spotchecks reveal no problems, although the grouping of references is not ideal (see above).
Will look at this when I can. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?   21:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Fixed. 12:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Images: Two free images are fine; non-free image rationale looks fine to me.
My only other point (not an issue for this review) would be that the opening paragraph of the inquest section could be cut back as there is a little redundancy and repetition of words.
I gave it a quick copy-edit. I think it's a little better now. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?   12:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
No other problems, and a good read. I'll place the article on hold for now, but this shouldn't take long. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the review. It wasn't an easy subject to write about, but I'm glad there's a decent article on it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?   12:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
All the changes work for me and I'm passing now. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

May I ask why this article (tragic as it is) is deemed to be suitable for an Encyclopaedia, Surely it’s a news article and is on the wrong website. I feel sorry for the family, but in what way is it noteworthy; never mind a candidate for excellent article etc…BeckenhamBear (talk) 10:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Because the event has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and, as a bonus, meets the subject-specific criteria. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?   22:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
This is where we must differ. That it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject is not enough jusification in itself for inclusuion. That it meets the subject-specific criteria. It doesn't. This article beautifully put together as it is, is just not notable, and of little or no long term interest.BeckenhamBear (talk) 07:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Well it is, otherwise the GNG would say something different. As for WP:EVENT, would you care to point out which of those criteria it fails? And "little or no long-term interest" is clealry nothing more than a personal opinion, and one with which 3,700 people disagree, even four years after the event. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?   13:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, with the greatest respect to you. The article does not meet the criteria of "the rule of thumb for creating a Wikipedia article is whether the event is of lasting, historical significance, and the scope of reporting (national or global reporting is preferred)". No part of this event has changed English law; as another example. As for 3700 people disagreeing; alas not! Those people only accessed the page for the simple reason it was promoted onto the front page as a featured article and curiosity was temporarily aroused. Why was it nominated? While I am VERY impressed at your technical expertise and the articles symmetry; this is still a news article.BeckenhamBear (talk) 17:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
If it's of no historical significance, why was The Daily Telegraph, a highbrow national newspaper, writing about it three-and-a-half years after the tragedy? If you have a reason other than a personal opinion unsupported by policy or guideline to believe that the subject is not notable, then I invite you to nominate it for deletion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?   23:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I have made no personal opinion on this; It's clear in black and white, this is a news article. My view is fully supported by the very citeria you reference in your defence of the article. Some articles do not belong on Wikipedia, but fit one of the Wikimedia sister projects. Wikinews in this case. When I get the time, I'll read up the procedure to do this; unless of course you already have it on there? In which case it would be a delete from this place. BeckenhamBear (talk) 21:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The final main paragraph of the article appears to have been vandalised.   Would someone knowledgeable please repair it ? Darkman101 (talk) 13:12, 17 May 2019 (UTC)