# Talk:Ipswich serial murders

I feel that this article is pretty good at the moment, but the thing that bugs me is the timeline.  I suggest that we edit the timeline to include more prose, or that we incorporate the timeline into the article.  My personal view is that the 'timeline' section lets the article down.  Is there any consensus on how to deal with this?  I'm not around for another few days, at least, to spend enough time on the subject.  I'm comfortable with adding prose and description to the timeline, but not with adjusting the rest of the article accordingly.  Is it possible that we make a group effort on the timeline?  Blammermouth (talk) 02:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I say intergrate into the rest of the article. Million_Moments (talk) 10:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Not many comments on this so I think I will go through the timeline and wright in the relavant information into the appropriate sections of the article. Million_Moments (talk) 18:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
OK I am now redebating the timeline section of the article as most of the information is contained in the article already. A Peer review suggested we place the information in a table. Perhaps with column headings of "date" and "Developments". With so many things happening over a short amount of time I do think the timeline may be important. Million_Moments (talk) 07:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Was bold, removed timeline. Million_Moments (talk) 16:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

In the info box Pamela Wright is listed as a spouse.  The two were never married, and the surname is a coincidence.  She was not involved in the case.  I do not think she should be listed as his spouse.  Granted they lived together and shared a surname, but I don't see the inclusion of her name as important, or relevant.  And by the way spouse redirects to marriage.  Blammermouth (talk) 02:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for finding the wrong link spouse should redirect to Work spouse not to marriage. We could clarify that this is a legal standing under english law and link to the marriage one, but spouse in england means what is listed under work spouse. Edmund Patrick ( confer  work) 13:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
sorry me again, could not find spouse link to marriage, in article could you change to Work spouse please. Ta Edmund Patrick ( confer  work) 13:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
what a can of worms, work spouse is not perfect, but neither is marriage. Spouse was merged with marriage at some point, thereby missing out the non wedded spouse.  Common law wife / husband might start to cover it. On the other note his spouse is mentioned twice, do you want both removed as I believe they should stay. as I said before he 'blamed' the behaviour of his partner (working shifts / lack of sex etc) as a part of the reason he did what he did. This mkes the person relevant to the case IMHO. If others disagree lets please discuss. Edmund Patrick ( confer  work) 15:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Pamela was his domestic partner, not spouse or work spouse. This article has a serial killer infobox, which does not have this line; hence it cannot be included. Jim Michael (talk) 21:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

There are several redirects such as Suffolk Strangler and Ipswich ripper that link to this page. Should they continue to link here, or should be perhaps re-direct them to the Steve Wright biography? I'm not sure really. Million_Moments (talk) 10:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd say leave them as redirecting to the main article.  Reason being is that if somebody is searching for any of these terms, which are generally media sensationalism, would likely be looking for the article anyway.  My 2p. Blammermouth (talk) 13:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Originally, I was going to place this GA on hold, but as I dug deeper into the issue with sourcing, I feel there are far too many issues than can be fixed within a reasonable time. As such, I feel no choice but to fail at this time. When the issues noted below have been addressed, including a copyedit, feel free to renominate.
Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 
Article is in need of copyediting. I spotted several grammatical errors in the opening paragraph alone. The writing feels stilted in some places, as well, and does not always flow well.
B. MoS compliance: 
Use of mixed date format, need to all be in international format due to region of focus (dd month yyyy), and article missing some basic wikification of those dates. Some refs misplaced (should always be behind punctuation), other issues with number formatting such as xx hours and xx-hours. No consistency. Some references also have formatting errors and too many inconsistencies.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 
There are places where multiple statements appear to be completely unsourced.
B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 
There are some questionable references used in the article. #21 simply says "Police autopsy." Did an editor actually go to the police station and look at the autopsy report? Is the autopsy online? Where is the back up for such a claim? #25 claims the source is a "Press Association photograph," but gives no link to this photograph? Also, photographs are rarely considered reliable sources. Several references, such as 39 and 40, claim to be from "Press Association: News Wire service" but gives no additional information. News wire items are either online or printed in other papers. They are not just floating around on their own.  Free Internet Press is not a reliable source. Ref 51 is missing details. News of the World is a tabloid paper and not a reliable source.
C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The only time News of the World is used a source is in reference the the reward they offered to catch the killer. Million_Moments (talk) 16:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I think as long as its just for that, it should be fine then. :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 17:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Are all tabloid newspapers counted as not a reliable source, if not why bring this one up, and if they are that is an amazing amount of work to do. As a GA reviewer to discover that I may have to make value judgments on a newspapers reliability would create too much extra work. I can judge some web sites by the language used and layout etc, but what is so different from the News of the World to The Sunday Times or Wall Street Journal, or La Stampa if I know nothing about them. Personal knowledge is fine, but a value judgment used as part of a review I am not so sure about. Edmund Patrick ( confer  work) 13:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, in general a tabloid is not considered a reliable source except in a case like this, where its citing something they themselves did. Beyond that, most do not have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, and instead for the opposite. And yes, part of being a GA (and especially an FA) reviewer is being willing to check the sources. Now, if it this were an FA, source checking would be even more detailed, including checking every last link rather than the cursory look to make sure there are no forums, tabloids, etc. Proper sourcing is part of the GA criteria. For those I don't know about, as in this case, some quick research is all that is needed to see if it meets the basics of WP:RS. Any GA review requires at least some value judgments in weighing the article against the criteria. AnmaFinotera (talk) 14:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
OK accepted, but checking the sources how? you look at the tone of the webpage from the paper etc but even that can lead one  up the garden path. The Daily Star is referenced here (the Sunday version did German bomber found on moon) and The Times sometimes does not present itself on the web as a paper of note. Edmund Patrick ( confer  work) 14:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Generally, start with its Wikipedia article, which will usually note the paper's classification. I'm not saying I did as thorough a check as I would for FA, the News of the World was one that stood out so I checked into it. You are correct, though, the Daily Star is also a tabloid so that reference needs to be replaced or the statement as well. AnmaFinotera (talk) 15:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Date format. I have changed the obvious date that was inconsistent with the rest but surely we do not need the year after every one, can someone advise? Also do we wikilink all the dates in the article as that would make it full of a lot of blue links IMHO making it harder to read. I have checked through the usual Wikipedia:Editor's index to Wikipedia but are none the wiser. Edmund Patrick ( confer  work) 20:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
found this for some clarification of wikilink dates. Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article Edmund Patrick ( confer  work) 20:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
All of of the full dates must be in the same format, and partial dates should also be consistent with the same format (so dd month).  Years don't have to be added, they just need to be consistently in the same format. Also, all full dates should be wikified to enable them to be auto formatted per user preferences (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Autoformatting and linking. Partial dates should not be wikfied. AnmaFinotera (talk) 22:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks will begin, hopefully soon. Edmund Patrick ( confer  work) 06:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Could someone fix the date refs in the appeal section? I can't seem to make it work no matter what I change it to...must be having a mental block. Million_Moments (talk) 21:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The archive box isn't working does anyone know how to fix it? Million_Moments (talk) 10:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixed it. The first two talk page archives had different names from the current article name so it was confused. AnmaFinotera (talk) 15:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks much better except for the overbleed into the next section and that the images start to move away from the information about the person. I originally did the "criss-cross" layout to crudely overcome both problems. This layout is better if the two can be solved. Edmund Patrick ( confer  work) 14:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to experiment, I just thought the bullet points looked a bit odd. If we could expand each section by a couple of lines we could probably avoid the overbleed. I was wondering if we should intergrate some of the lead for this section into the relavant sections, I actually think it needs a bit of work to avoid repetition. Million_Moments (talk) 10:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I am moving the lead of the victims section to head up the police investigation section, and putting the information about victims between that and the court case as I think that makes more sense. Million_Moments (talk) 21:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering if it would be better if we used this serial killer info box:
{{Infobox Serial Killer
| name=
| image=
| caption=
| birthname=
| alias=
| birth=
| location=
| death=
| cause=
| victims=
| country=
| states=
| beginyear=
| endyear=
| apprehended=
| penalty=
}}

rather than the current one in this article. Though you lose info like spouse and parents I feel that for this article this infobox would be better at summarizing it and the other infobox would remain on the actual Steve Wright biographical article. Sound like a plan? Million_Moments (talk) 12:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

try it and let everybody see. Edmund Patrick ( confer  work) 18:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I took this photo of the memorial garden near to where Paula & Annette were found.  It doesn't really fit under any of the current article headings.  Blammermouth (talk) 20:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
My vote says put it in the infobox. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
if it can I go for the info box as well, excellent idea in 1st instanced. Edmund Patrick ( confer  work) 21:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Do we mean replacing the image of Wright? Blammermouth (talk) 21:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I do. Put the Wright image elsewhere, ideally where he and his case are being described in the bulk of the article, and put this photo in the infobox. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
My only issue with that is that it doesn't seem to look that great or clear in thumbnail. Blammermouth (talk) 21:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- second to that, the infobox is specifically a serial killer one. Blammermouth (talk) 21:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it should replace the image of Wright, and it is a serial killer box so the new image would thinking about it look out of place. How about at the end of the timeline of events section as in essence it is part of a timeline and shows the continual aftermath of such a train of events. Edmund Patrick ( confer  work) 09:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I am with the vote on not putting it on the infobox. It would be best in the victims section if we can put it in without jucking up the layout. Million_Moments (talk) 16:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps it's worth bearing in mind that this article is not about Steve Wright, it's about the murders themselves.  Perhaps the infobox isn't correct in this article... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Well an infobox is expected in such an article, and the serial killer one is the most appropriate as it contains details of the killings as well Million_Moments (talk) 17:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Sure, infoboxes are expected everywhere, but it doesn't mean it's most appropriate one.  However, I'm preprared to concede that it's a pretty weak lead image since it's quite ambiguous.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I put it under 'verdict' in the end, it just seemed best to maintain aesthetic balance as well as being at least slightly relevant. Blammermouth (talk) 16:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we are only a couple of references away (where I have placed {{fact}} tags) from being able to re-nominate this article for GA but i am really struggling to find references for all this data concerning how many officers were involved and how much CCTV footage they went through. Anyone know of a reference? Or a way we could rewrite it to use a different reference perhaps? Million_Moments (talk) 17:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I think since this news story suggests that police are not really pursing a link between Lamplugh and Wright we should remove this section of the article and perhaps intergrate a line or two elsewhere, perhaps in the Wright biography section. Million_Moments (talk) 21:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I doesn't need to be a section any more IMO. But it should be still be briefly mentioned elsewhere in the article. Your suggestion is probably the best. --GracieLizzie (talk) 22:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to cut down the Steve Wright section a little as per Wikipedia:Summary style since he has his own article. It also will help prevent this article from getting to long. Somebody has proposed that Steve Wright (serial killer) be merged into this article but I disagree. However with most of that article repeated here you can see why they would propose it. Million_Moments (talk) 14:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree also. It is the length of the paragraph on him in this article that is wrong. Lradrama 18:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I would argue that the Steve Wright article should be merged in, on the grounds that his only notability is the events of these murders Bluewave (talk) 21:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
There are a large number of serial killer articles and articles on the actual murders themselves for example Soham Murders and Ian Huntly. Plus Wright is being investigated in conjuction with other murders, and these murders and wright are extremly notable having made international media Million_Moments (talk) 21:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
To avoid confusion, can we just discuss the matter on the relevant talkpage? And, for goodness sake, there are very few serial killers notable outside their killings. And many have their own articles, and no I'm not providing the list yet again; it's in the other discussion. Lradrama 15:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought this news was interesting and certainly relavent but feel there is no real place to put it. Should we perhaps create a new "aftermath" section, and is there anything else we could put in it? Million_Moments (talk) 17:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

This would be original research I suppose, but that's just not true.  The police would like to present it as such though. Blammermouth (talk) 18:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

A comment from a Craig Bradshaw is included, but nothing to say who he is. Since he called for the death penalty in this case perhaps some elucidation of this is needed. I found out elsewhere that he was the brother in law of Paula Clennell. Soarhead77 (talk) 16:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm worried this article is a little heavy on non-free images. Does anyone have an opinion on which ones we could remove? I like having the images in the victim section but I think that they might not actually meet the non-free criteria as they do not significantly increase the readers understanding. Million_Moments (talk) 17:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the other non free images. 82.28.16.166 (talk) 00:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I re-added them because I think the CCTV one maybe justifiable. I'm thinking about the Steve Wright one, which is already on his article, could we change the infobox? Million_Moments (talk) 07:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, while I'm not sure about the other ones, the CCTV one is useful for its depiction of the police use of the media while investigating the case. --Dweller (talk) 10:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, all, 
To quote the article: "Anneli Sarah Alderton...aged 24, a mother of one who was also in the early stages of pregnancy...."
However, there is no other mention of pregnancy in the article in its present form. Isn't an amendment to the article in order?
Georgejdorner (talk) 15:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted.
Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia.
This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link.
If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting.
If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page.
If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true.
Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/new-uk-law-criminalise-men-who-pay-sex-trafficked-women
Triggered by \bnowpublic\.com\b on the local blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 18:30, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done.  No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 18:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Ipswich serial murders. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080229050852/http://www.news.com.au:80/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,20913723-401,00.html to http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,20913723-401,00.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ipswich serial murders. 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/20061209055645/http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/paying_the_price.pdf?view=Binary to http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/paying_the_price.pdf?view=Binary
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) 02:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)