Talk:Murder of Dwayne Jones

This review is

transcluded from Talk:Murder of Dwayne Jones/GA1

. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Georgejdorner (talk · contribs) 03:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I ran the software for checking disambiguation links, copyright violation, and for link rot. Only item noted was that cite (1) is a dead link.Georgejdorner (talk) 03:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • I've replaced that particular link with a functioning alternative. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Excellent.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on text:

• What is "cisgendered"? It is not in my Webster's Unabridged Dictionary.
  • Cisgender refers to an individual whose gender identity matches that which they were assigned at birth as a result of their biological sex. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no way to deduce this from the article. "Cisgender" needs to be defined and/or replaced in the text. This mystery word led to my query immediately below.Georgejdorner (talk) 16:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just noticed link for "cisgender". That does improve the situation, though some reviewers would grouch about needing to click a link to find the definition. I am satisfied, though.Georgejdorner (talk) 16:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Why is the pronoun "he" being used for a self-proclaimed female?
  • The difficulty here is whether Jones was a transgender "she" or whether they were instead a male cross dresser. Some sources refer to Jones as transgender, but others are more cautious, and use "non-gender conforming". It's probably worth noting that Khloe referred to him as a "he" and used the male name of "Dwayne" when referring to Jones, thereby strongly implying that Jones was a male cross-dresser rather than a transwoman. That being the case, I think that "he" is appropriate terminology to use here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then you ought to make the reasons for usage of the male pronoun clear early on. Otherwise, I would not have commented on a "self-proclaimed female".Georgejdorner (talk) 16:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've added a note in explaining the use of terminology here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keke seems to drop out of the account. Is any more known of her?
  • I couldn't find anything, but if any information does crop up, I will add it to the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough. A graceful exit for Keke would be a nice addition, though scarcely necessary.Georgejdorner (talk) 16:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Was the body found at 5 AM or dumped at 5 AM? Ambiguous sentence that should be rephrased.
  • 5am is when the body was found; I shall ensure that the text is clearer on this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Translate the patois: "BC, Di bwoy good! Im ketch mi fi true!". It is unintelligible to a non-Jamaican.
  • Good point, I've added a translation. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • And "fi" means?Georgejdorner (talk) 16:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • "For"! I've added it in, Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Toward the end of 'In Jamaica', the text becomes a bit "alphabet soupy". A bit of rewriting to stretch wordage between abbreviations, and/or spelling out one or two of them would help.
  • I've given the last two paragraphs there a copy edit, and united them into one. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The 'Internationally' section is wordy and loosely written, needs copy editing. A judicious trim can much improve it without any loss of info.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point; done! Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments: Despite the carping above, this is an impressive bit of work on recent events. I would love to see it improved into a Good Article, if only for its timeliness.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your review George, much appreciated ! Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Second reading:

• What was the setting for the attack(s) on Jones? Outside somewhere, obviously, so a car could run over him, but can you supply more details?Georgejdorner (talk) 17:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Clarification that the house burned was the squat Jones was living in would be useful.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I note that the reactors in Jamaica seem confused as to whether or not Jones was homosexual or not. I believe you should probably point out this confusion as examples of Jamaican ignorance about gender roles.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the problem is that none of the sources available actually provide any firm evidence that Dwayne Jones was homosexual. Maybe he was, but equally be could have been bisexual, or even heterosexual. All that we really know is that he was non-gender conforming. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I am concerned about the caption below the Prime Minister's photo. As a pretty damning comment concerning a living individual, you want to have bullet-proof source(s) for that accusation, and a cite to demonstrate it.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point: I've changed the caption and added citations. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• You may want to "round off" the article with a comment that the murder investigation continues, is stalled, whatever.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that that's a good suggestion, but the problem is that I am reliant on the information that has appeared in published sources, and I'm not sure that that information has been published yet. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SUPPORT as Good Article. Nominator has shown talent in making speedy and meaningful changes to improve the article. Nominator has also shown laudable sensitivity in reporting this murder of an abused and muddled child.Georgejdorner (talk) 01:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for overseeing this GAR Georgejdorner, you did a really good job of reviewing the article with an applaudible thoroughness. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Georgejdorner, I'm just wondering if you have gotten a little confused between the GA and FA systems here. Offering "support" for an article is something that goes on at FA; at GA there is a different procedure, which you can familiarise yourself with here. The article won't actually pass as a GA until you actively mark it out as such. All the best, and thank you once again! Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:24, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I never before passed an article for GA. Here you go.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:00, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]