Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Murder of Dwayne Jones/archive3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23:20, 30 December 2015 [1].

Murder of Dwayne Jones[edit]

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a Jamaican teenager who was murdered in an act of anti-LGBT violence as a result of his gender non-conformity in July 2013. The event attracted press attention both domestically and in a number of foreign countries, bringing about international scrutiny and condemnation of the state of LGBT rights in Jamaica. Having achieved GA status in December 2013, further improvements have been made to this article, and it now meets the FA criteria. It has previously undergone FAC twice; on the first occassion, in December 2014, it was barely looked at, while on the second in July 2015 it received one statement of support (from User:Johanna) and no oppositions, but unfortunately that wasn't enough for it to pass. Third time lucky? Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as nominator (if that may be permitted? If not, feel free to strike this out.) Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. As mentioned by User:Midnightblueowl, I supported on the second FAC, and all my comments (mostly prose) were dealt with, so I will support again. To other reviewers—don't be fooled by its short length--it's a very nicely done article. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 17:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage[edit]

Outside my usual editing categories by a longshot, but no one should see a nomination die repeatedly for lack of attention:

Referencing

  • There's really no need for things like "J-FLAG editor" as an author. Some sources, especially some web sources, simply do not have an author byline. There's no need to disguise that.
  • I'm not convinced that Web Pro News is a reliable source. I believe it's an advertising-driven news aggregator with no listed editorial policy. On the other hand, I think this article may have been published elsewhere for the same reason; a version from a reliable source may be available.
    • I've had a look through Google and cannot find any other instance of this particular text. Thus, I do believe that it was originally written for Web Pro News and that that is the only site where this particular article may be found. This being the case, I would suggest that this website does provide original content and thus does constitute an RS. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source of the Dan Littauer article appears to be styled as "LGBTQ Nation", rather than just "LGBT Nation" as currently referenced.
  • I have some misgivings about the Quality of Citizenship Jamaica press release. First, if it is retained, it does have an authorship byline. But second, I'm not sure that this is a statement whose inclusion respects WP:UNDUE; according to the organization's website, it's almost entirely operated by two individuals. Its website is a (heavily skinned) Wordpress blog. I don't want to belittle their efforts, but I'm not convinced that QCJ represents a significant viewpoint. On the other hand, the Lonely Planet guidebook to Jamaica lists both J-FLAG and QCP as relevant organizations, so perhaps this isn't problematic after all...?
    • As you say, QCJ have been mentioned in the Lonely Planet guidebook, but they have also been mentioned in press sources, including international press, as with this example or this one. Furthermore, while they do use a Wordpress blog they do also have an independent website that (as far as I can tell) has nothing to do with Wordpress here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not entirely convinced this is a comprehensive review of the literature:
  • I've taken a look at the article and incorporated it into the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it worth including the passing mention given to Jones in a briefing by US Department of State Acting Assistant Secretary Uzra Zeya here, in the context of "International reaction", a topic otherwise addressed in the article only by LGBT rights groups?
  • That's a good reference, I have incorporated the information within it into the article at the appropriate juncture. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This German-language book appears to place the murder of Jones into a wider context of events. Perhaps there's some background here worth mining?
  • There's nothing here post-May 2014:
  • I've added a quotebox to the article which contains a quote taken from this particular source. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reporting on the August 2015 gay pride celebration in Jamaica indicates some of the legacy of this murder, and provides a more recent "as of" date.

Other

  • I think the "Early life" section is inappropriately titled; not everything in this section applies to Jones's "early" life.
    • I've gone with "Jones' biography" but am of course open to any other suggestions. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Following up on that, the information buried in the footnote about terminology and choice of gender pronouns is not something that should be buried in a footnote.
    • I felt that the note was the best place for this particular information, given that it reflects a division in the way that Jones' gender identity has been perceived, and thus I didn't want to bring too much confusion into the lede itself. However, I am happy to discuss this issue further. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You call J-FLAG "the country's only LGBT rights organization", but I don't think that's true. Despite my misgivings about the weight offered to Quality of Citizenship Jamaica, it also offers itself forward as a LGBT rights organization.

In general, I'm neutral regarding promotion here. This article's really light on background, for one thing. Sure, the context behind the "batty boy" insult is there for readers who follow the link, but there's no context given here. No indication that this event was one that actually got media attention, amidst an environment that Time in 2006 considered potentially "the most homophobic place on Earth" (and then the 2015 [follow-up article] that mentions Jones in passing via link). There are other media sources that place the event in a wider context of violence, too (I'm not 100% sold on the RS-status of that link, but, then again, Time linked to it, so...). And it's not original research to provide a contextual background; even sources you're already citing, like Palesh Ghosh, explicitly draw links between the murder and cultural elements like Buju Banton's "Boom Bye Bye". But all of that is at least a link away from the reader. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments Squeamish Ossifrage; thus far, I have acted upon a number of them and believe that the article is definitely better as a result. A lot of your comments focus on the idea of expanding this article to offer a broader coverage of the problems faced by LGBT people in Jamaica. This was something that I was cautious about doing. On the one hand I tried to set the killing within its wider societal context, while at the other I didn't want to be accused of engaging in Original Research and Synthesis. I'm happy to add in a few further mentions of things like Buju Banton's song, but at the same time I am wary about overloading this article with too much background context. Best for now, Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Squeamish Ossifrage: I have added a new sub-section on "Anti-LGBT sentiment in Jamaica" in which I have covered much of the background information that you believed to be deserving of inclusion. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

  • Check for BrEng vs. AmEng spelling; for instance, search for ise/ize and or/our.
    • I'm standardised the spelling in Jamaican English (which is closer to BrEng spelling). Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 05:54, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the last section, Reactions, there are too many quotations, and a potential issue of tone. I wouldn't go so far as to say there's an NPOV issue ... it's not like there are pro-murder and anti-murder RSs. FAC loves sedate history articles. You can't write an article about a recent murder of a teen and expect that the tone is going to be sedate ... but something could probably be done to take it down a couple of notches. I'm not going to make the call on this though, I don't see that as my job here. - Dank (push to talk) 16:43, 7 November 2015 (UTC) P.S. Added: in the last section only. - Dank (push to talk) 14:32, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Switching to Oppose for now. Sorry to do this to you MBO ... because I love the article ... and I'm even more sorry because we're always looking for new and interesting articles at TFA, and this one qualifies. After reading Wug's comments, your reactions, and the article again, I think my initial assessment was wrong. I think the only reasonable interpretation of the writer's intent in the long Reaction section is to editorialize, not to inform the reader about the aftermath of the murder. It's too long and too loud, and talks about too many things unrelated to the murder, to support any other interpretation. (Knowing that Jamaicans are "typically guilty of many other Biblical sins" doesn't inform us, it merely insults Jamaicans.) As an editorial, it's great, and I applaud your work. But currently, the tone is wrong for a Feature Article. I'll defer to other reviewers on the question of what needs cutting, the only thing I feel sure of is that it's too much. - Dank (push to talk) 16:54, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dank What do you think some good steps to remedy it would be? After reading through your comment and giving a closer read to the section, I'm inclined to agree with you about the neutrality. I do agree that it would be an interesting FA, so how do you think the neutrality should be addressed so MBO can get the article up to quality soon? I'm personally inclined to reducing the length of the section and more paraphrasing; I don't think every organization that spoke out needs their statement quoted. I'm not a fan of the pull quote but I address that further down. Other ideas? Wugapodes (talk) 17:58, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer a light touch at FAC since I wear a hat at TFA ... that is, I don't want people to think they have to please me at FAC to earn a fair hearing at TFA. I agree with everything you just said, and I don't like "typically guilty of many other Biblical sins". I'd talk less about how unsympathetic and wrong-headed Jamaicans are, do more paraphrasing, take the tone down a couple of notches, and aim for a summary of the reactions to the murder. - Dank (push to talk) 18:23, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Switching back to Support, after MBO's great editing job, but the "typically guilty of many other Biblical sins" line really isn't the level of discourse I like to see in any Wikipedia article, much less a FA. When confronting religious intolerance, Wikipedia doesn't generally insult people and offer an argument that their religious beliefs must be wrong, we merely note that other sources reflect a prevalence of different beliefs. - Dank (push to talk) 14:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So that's two votes for support and one of neutrality; can we get any other opinions or will this article have to go in for a fourth round of FAC? Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've added it to the FAC Urgents list. - Dank (push to talk) 21:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Earwig's showing up some false positives due to (correctly attributed) quotes.

Overall, I feel mixed. I think the prose is fine in that there are no deal-breakers or clangers left and it is an engaging read. I too worry about the lack of personal life, however I note that some discussion (and I presume search) has taken place with no success, and that I have seen other homicide cases recently in popular press where the personal/family details are lacking. Hence, do I think there are any specific improvements to be made? Probably not, so its a tentative support from me Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- this has been open a while but given one "tentative" support and one on prose only, I think this needs more eyes before we can consider promotion, so I've re-added to the FAC Urgents list; also you might want to request image and source reviews. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:19, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Ian Rose:; thanks Ian - is there a place where I can post a request for the image and source reviews or should I approach specific editors in particular? Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:29, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wugapodes[edit]

Support In general a very well done article. There are two problems that I think should be fixed but they're minor and honestly I would probably still support if not changed. I'm very glad to see our coverage of LGBTQ+ topics improving and hope this does better than the last two times around. Anyway, my main issues are the subsection headings under the "Background" section and the pull-quote towards the end.

  • Each paragraph gets its own subsection heading which isn't really considered good practice per MOS:Paragraphs.
  • A fair point, but the two paragraphs in question are devoted to quite different subjects. In my opinion, merging them into a single section would present a new problem potentially more serious than that which currently faces us. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second one is I tend to find pull-quotes rather non-neutral. They give a place of prominence to a particular view and since this quote isn't particularly material to the murder itself (it's not something the victim said, it's not something a party to the crime said, not something the police said) I feel like it maybe shouldn't be included. The metric I guess would be why would you choose a pro-LGBTQ+ organization's quote over an anti-LGBTQ+ organization's quote? Not to say you should include the latter, but both sides have particular biases and this pull quote gives one particular view a prominent place in the them in this article.
  • The pull quote used features a statement provided by Human Rights Watch, who are a fairly prominent international organisation and whose analysis of the situation carries some weight and importance. For that reason I do support the quote box's continued inclusion in the article. Were we to have comparable quotes from anti-LGBT voices included in the reliable sources then I would definitely have included them within the article, to ensure a balanced and fair representation of those sources. As it is, however, I was unable to find any such quotes within the reliable sources themselves. In those instances where reliable sources did make reference to anti-LGBT commentary on the murder – for instance through social media – then I did make mention of them in the article body, but these were not quoted sufficiently to warrant their placement in a special quotebox. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:07, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Best of luck, and if you want to discuss either point, let me know. Wugapodes (talk) 01:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your comments and your support, Wugapodes. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:07, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm changing to neutral. Sorry that this seems like a pile-on, but I do think Dan is right to say the response section is too editorialized for FA. It's compelling prose which is great, but it feels WP:UNDUE perhaps. There's just a lot of quotes from one side of the spectrum that take up half the article length. I suggested above that perhaps if the length of the response section were cut down it would help. And paraphrase the quotes rather than outright quoting them. I also still think the pull-quote should be removed or changed. If you want to talk about how the murder fits into the broader history of LGBTQ+ persons in Jamaica, I think that should be done in the prose not in a pull quote. I don't oppose promotion as I don't think these problems are that large, but I don't think I fully took into account the neutrality of the section before supporting (I'm also willing to say personal bias probably caused me to not notice some issues the first time around). I look forward to these issues being addressed and me being able to support again. Wugapodes (talk) 18:11, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Wugapodes: I've substantially cut down the use of quotation in the "Reaction" section (by about two-thirds to three-quarters, I reckon), and tried to paraphrase those where possible. However, I have left that quotebox in as I do believe that it definitely adds to the aesthetic appearance and structure of the article. Have a look and see if you would be willing to revert your position to one of support. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:10, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support I don't like the quotebox, but at this point I think it's more an issue of personal taste than an FA problem. I'll support. You did a very good job with the prose and in a rather short time, so kudos to you on that. Hope to see this on the front page one day! Wugapodes (talk) 01:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mm40[edit]

Support: comments addressed Mm40 (talk) 16:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NB: It's been a few years since I've been involved in the FA review process, so fellow editors should feel free to jump in on any of my comments! Also, here are some copy-edits I made.

Lead

  • No RS has info on Dwayne's date or place of birth, I take it?
  • "a Jamaican 16 year old": I'm thinking there should be hyphens here (e.g., "a Jamaican 16-year-old"), not certain of exactly where
    • Does anyone know if we have any MOS recommendations here? I would be inclined to leave it un-hyphenated, but am open to guidance. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure dance party needs to be linked

Background

  • "that Jones desired to become a teacher or to work in the tourist industry": something like "that Jones wanted to be a teacher or work in the tourism industry" would sound more natural, but I realized that this language is very close to the source, so either version is fine by me
    • The issue with the suggested wording is that the following sentence also contained the wording "Jones wanted..." and would therefore come across as a little repetitive. As it is, I think that the original prose should remain in place. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Murder

  • Should the image of Montego Bay be moved up to "Jones' biography"?
  • The WebProNews source says the three roommates arrived at the party around 2 a.m. The article mentions police finding Jones at 5 a.m., and Jones being attacked twice, two hours apart, so the time of arrival should be included to complete the timeline. Perhaps the first sentence of the section?
  • "One of the men used a lighter to examine Jones' feet": the WebProNews source says a lantern was used; for me, I associate "lighter" with a cigarette lighter. Is this just a difference in usage?

Reaction

  • I'm quite satisfied with the content selection and tone of the section. The twin goals of neutrality and comprehensiveness are tricky to achieve here, but IMO, the article does a good job.
  • "also published an article on the subject in The Gleaner, noting his initial reaction was to question...": I think there should be a sentence break here instead of a comma. As it reads now, it might read as if Nelson's article supported "victim blaming," rather than ultimately criticizing it
    • I've divided the sentence in question and made a few tweaks to the prose. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you want to take out the last sentence of the third paragraph, on the Gleaner piece by Sheila Veléz Martínez? The second paragraph and the rest of the third all deal with a single article, and the conclusion drawn by Martínez, as summarized in our article, is similar to theirs.
    • Personally I'd rather leave that in, lest another editor comes along and asks why a reliable source has been ignored. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence "Another LGBT rights organisation, Quality of Citizenship Jamaica..." is a bit of a run-on, or at least clunky. Perhaps remove the phrases "in dialogue," "in order," and maybe "which could be undergirded by the principle of "true respect for all" which is found in" → "which could be undergirded by the principle of "true respect for all," found in..."

**I've made the suggested alterations here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Are you OK removing the links to queerness and children's literature in quoting the Robinson article? Per MOS:QUOTE, we should avoid linking quotes, and I think both of those phrases are common enough.

I'll be happy to support once these comments are addressed. Thanks for your work on the article, Midnightblueowl – as noted above, not a usual FAC topic, but one we need more of. Mm40 (talk) 06:27, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mm40: many thanks for your comments! Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:28, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Great work! I've left a few things open, in case there are other comments, but I think the article is ready. I will add that, if an investigation is done, or if we learn more about Dwayne's background, etc., then of course the article should be updated to reflect that. For such a recent and hard-to-cover subject, this is very good. Best, Mm40 (talk) 16:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - OK[edit]

  • File:Dwayne Jones, Jamaican murder victim.jpg - could you clarify please, who added the "(c)AP" to the photo? Searching Internet Archive, the photo on this archived page doesn't include this copyright notice. And as AP got the photo from "Dwayne Jones' friend Jay", it seems unlikely that they own the copyright. Note, that photos from press agencies are generally not allowed (see WP:NFC#UUI #7) - but this one may be a special case. That's why it would be helpful to know as many details about the image's origin as possible.
  • My assumption would be that Associated Press added the "(C)AP" to the photo, but in truth I don't know for sure who is responsible for the addition. I have uploaded a new version of the image, one which is slightly larger and lacks the "(C)AP" tag. Hopefully this deals with the problem, GermanJoe
  • It doesn't - if your assumption is correct, this weighs strongly against our ability to use the image, at least under the current tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, this archived version of the AP article on the subject has the following to say about the image: "This undated photo provided by Dwayne Jones' friend Jay via the Jamaica Forum for Lesbians All-Sexuals and Gays (J-FLAG) advocacy group, shows Dwayne Jones in an unknown location in Jamaica... (AP Photo/Jay, J-FLAG)". Does this mean that the image is copyrighted to AP, Jay, or J-FLAG? Is it that the copyright was owned by the latter but that it was licensed to the former? This really isn't an area of speciality for me so any advice would be much appreciated, GermanJoe. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:15, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a credit, not a copyright statement - it means Jay of J-FLAG provided the photo to AP, but doesn't specify whether Jay transferred over the copyright or not. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:54, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is, that the current copyright status isn't entirely clear, and we can't know the specifics of "Jay's" photo provision. If AP marked that image with "(C)AP" in the past, it's clear that they did claim copyright of the photo. And as a press agency photo it can't be used on en-Wiki (see WP:NFC#UUI #7). I recommend to remove the image (at least for now, until the situation can be clarified) - but you can use an External link or Template:External media to provide a link to it in the article. GermanJoe (talk) 07:00, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I doubt that the article will pass FAC with an External Media template, because having a picture of the victim in question is pretty crucial. Accordingly, I've replaced the lede image with an alternative which, while perhaps not as clear an image of Jones' face, is not owned by any press agencies (here). Does this work, GermanJoe? Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:36, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This one is better, a quick search didn't find any press agency usage. However, please always add a link to the image's source page, when you upload images from the internet (this one is apparently available from several sites, so I am not sure which source you used). Such links help other editors to research and verify the image's origin, and it's copyright status (see also WP:NFCCP #10). Pending that final nitpick, everything is OK image-wise. Thank you. GermanJoe (talk) 17:49, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The other 2 images are CC-licensed, and have sufficient source and author information - OK. GermanJoe (talk) 15:11, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review and spot check[edit]

Ok, in progress....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:40, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Refs formatted consistently
  • Earwig's copyvio tool clear.
  • FN 15 used three times - faithful to source.
  • FN 11 used twice - faithful to source.
  • FN 20 used twice - faithful to source.

Brief scan of other news sources suggests all-round faithfulness to sources. good to go. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:01, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: So at present we have four expressions of support, one weak support, and one neutral, as well as a completed image review, source review, and spot check. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:19, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Murder_of_Dwayne_Jones/archive3&oldid=1061536041"