Talk:Murder of Patricia Jeschke

GA 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.

---

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

Nominator: Jon698 (talk · contribs) 01:09, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Grumpylawnchair (talk · contribs) 02:36, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi! I'll review this soon.

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.	Spotchecks passed.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No editorial bias found.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No signs of an edit war.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	N/A, since there's no pictures in this article
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	N/A, since there's no pictures in this article
	7. Overall assessment.

Concerns

• The "Murder" section reads really awkwardly, with a lot of short choppy sentences.
• An investigation led by Lloyd Pasley arrested How did the investigation arrest someone?
• Lede: What happened to Wabski?
• I'm a bit concerned about how more than half of the references are to sources from the 80s, per WP:OLDSOURCES. Is there any way you can replace some of them with more recent sources?

@Grumpylawnchair: I have made edits to address points 2 and 3, but for point 4 you must understand that it is fundamentally impossible to not have a majority of the sources be from the 80s as this event occurred then. Jon698 (talk) 07:36, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Also WP:OLDSOURCES is talking about academic and scientific articles. Jon698 (talk) 07:39, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm an idiot, sorry. Disregard that. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 16:27, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Conclusion

• With all my concerns addressed, I'm going to pass this article. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 23:31, 4 April 2025 (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.

Did you know nomination

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the murder of Patricia Jeschke resulted in the longest prison tenure for a wrongfully convicted American woman?

• Source: Rodriguez, Lisa (December 4, 2024). "Sandra Hemme, wrongfully imprisoned for 43 years, is finally — unconditionally — free". KCUR-FM. Archived from the original on December 6, 2024.

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Nahuel Carabaña

Improved to Good Article status by Jon698 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 89 past nominations.

Jon698 (talk) 00:44, 5 April 2025 (UTC).

• @Jon698: Per WP:QPQ, DYK noms by eligible editors need to have a QPQ provided at the time of the nomination. It has been three days since the nomination, but no QPQ has been provided. The nomination will be closed within 24 hours if a QPQ is not given. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:33, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

• @Narutolovehinata5: QPQ added. Jon698 (talk) 12:15, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

• Will review this. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:12, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Looks good. Nice work. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:55, 17 April 2025 (UTC)