Wikipedia:Peer review/Jack the Ripper: The Final Solution/archive1

Jack the Ripper: The Final Solution

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for September 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's derived from a failed Featured Article candidate and I'm interested in further feedback.

Thanks, DrKiernan (talk) 08:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a connection with the video of the same name? OCLC 33599622. maclean 23:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea! I must check that out. Thanks. DrKiernan (talk) 07:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Having reviewed the article this is derived from, I like this version much better. Here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

Article needs more references, for example Media organisations and the police received many letters and postcards purportedly written by the killer, who was dubbed "Jack the Ripper" after one of the signatories. Despite an extensive police investigation, the killer was never conclusively identified. Both at the time and subsequently, many amateur and professional investigators have proposed solutions to the mystery. OR In the original television series, the story is depicted as the belief of Gorman but not of the detectives. One of the researchers employed on the show was Stephen Knight. Captivated by Gorman's story, Knight decided to investigate his claims further, and eventually published his research as the book Jack the Ripper: The Final Solution in 1976. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
Per WP:MOS#Images, images should look into the text, so I think both images should be on the left hand side, looking into the text, not on the right looking off-screen.
There are several one or two sentence paragraphs that break up the flow of the article - could these either be combined with others or expanded?
Since the article is now about the book, are there any reviews of it as a book that could be cited here?

Otherwise looks good, and I hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]