Talk:Washington and Colorado serial rape cases

Wordings of September 14, 2019 version

Really appreciate @Sangdeboeuf:'s edits, especially on my styles and wordings. Here are some minor follow-up concerns:

1. "in the Seattle and Denver suburbs" – Should it be either "Seattle suburbs" or "the Seattle suburbs of Lynnwood and Kirkland"? I chose the former one for a shorter beginning.
2. "initially" – Lynnwood PD had not believed Marie until the whole serial rape case was solved three years later. The vague "initially" palliates their unprofessionally handling of her case. (Although this might be more personal than factual.)
3. "O'Leary went on to rape five other women" – "Go on to do" means to do something else in the future while "go on doing" means to continue doing something, i.e. raping women in a similar manner.
4. "The Netflix web series Unbelievable" – Should we remove the article since it is the first and only time mentioned here? I am wondering whether we should change it to "Netflix web series Unbelievable, based on the same reporting, was released…".

Skywayer (talk) 15:42, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention to the article. Touching on grammatical issues, in Seattle and Denver suburbs would be awkward because the sentence is really referring to some of the suburbs around Seattle and Denver. The definite article the is retained in the shortened form. Seattle suburb(s) is not a specific place name, but the the kind of brisk shorthand you'd find in news headlines. We have to be more precise.

O'Leary wasn't continually committing rapes; they were spread out over months and years, each separately planned and committed. O'Leary went on raping makes it sound like he was briefly interrupted in the midst of a spree. The phrase in a similar manner establishes that the acts were related to the initial one somehow.

Like Seattle suburb(s), Netflix web series isn't a specific named thing. Flipping the sentence arrangement, it would read, Unbelievable, the Netflix web series, was released... The definite article remains whichever order we use. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:50, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Regarding "initially did not believe", I guess I could go either way. Smith (2018) simply says police "did not believe" Marie's account. While the ProPublica story mentions (briefly) her settlement with the city and her record being expunged, our article doesn't. So it would be fine to remove the "initially". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:39, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf: No matter how cheap it sounds, really thank you for the detailed explanations and further improvements. Hope or probably should wish I did not waste you too much time on this. Skywayer (talk) 02:56, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Recent edits

Sangdeboeuf, I started working on this article because there was a flag for an Infobox... I kept trying to find one that was centered on the crime and not the criminal and hit a dead end. I am cool, though, with no Infobox.

I do think the sections are helpful. Seeing a chunk of information that weaves back and forth re: Marie makes it a bit confusing. Sections make it like an outline. I will try it again without so many sections.

Did you just remove the section headings and the infobox? I don't know that I added much content, but I did some editing.–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:31, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Before the addition of section headings, the article was only four paragraphs long, which is the recommended limit for a self-contained summary of a longer article. So I don't think separate sections are helpful; the article is brief enough that creating a separate lead section would result in significant duplication. Nor is it reasonable to have a separate section about "Crimes", since the whole article is about a series of crimes and their impact. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:47, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I hoped you would be happier just having two sections. Pre-brain injury, I would have been right there with you. But breaking things up a bit to help form context aids tremendously with comprehension for a lot of people.

There is a difference between what's in the crimes section vs. the arrest and sentencing section. But if you have a better title, that would be great!–CaroleHenson (talk) 11:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I disagree that section headings add context. They are simply labels that may or may not match the article contents. For instance, the paragraph on Miller and Armstrong's reporting is now under "Sexual assaults", but could just as well go under "Arrest and sentencing" (shouldn't "trial" be in there as well?). Nor does the material on detectives' coercing of Marie or the later outside review of the department fit logically under either heading. And reducing the number of sections doesn't address the question of the lead section. I still think that a comprehensible lead that covers all the important points would need to be virtually as long as the article itself. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:24, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

So basically you are saying that you cannot envision a solution to have headings that do work? I find that headings help a lot and I am sure that I am not the only person that has a problem with "wall of text" type of articles. But, it seems you feel strongly about this.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:00, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

If the article were twice as long, then breaking up the text into sections would probably make sense. But if a 379-word article is too much to read in one go, I'm wondering how you deal with articles that have individual sections (including lead sections) that long or longer. For instance, Wikipedia has a 373-word lead, almost exactly as long as this entire article (actually longer if we remove the repeated statement about O'Leary's arrest, plea, and sentencing). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:57, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I have a problem with long ledes. I usually skip them initially, take a look at the table of contents which I see as a good outline for the article, and read the lede last.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:50, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I am not going to lose sleep over this. It is a personal preference that I think aids children, older people, and people who have foggy brains. You're right, this isn't an especially long wall of text.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

In that case it seems like something to raise at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Accessibility rather than changing articles piecemeal to suit. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:42, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

This is the first time this has come up as an issue. Like I said, it would be nice to have the sections here, but I am not going to lose any sleep over it (i.e., I am not going to remove the sections, but if you do I will not revert your change).–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:18, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Infobox

Just to comment on the addition and then removal of the infobox:

• Someone added a "y" parameter that an infobox was needed for this article
• I couldn't find one specific to a set of crimes vs. a criminal, so I used one for a criminal
• A user reverted an edit that included the addition of the infobox, stating that the focus should not be on the criminal
• I agree and don't think that this article needs an infobox that would focus on the criminal... so there is no longer a request to add an infobox.–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:46, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Please see

Please see Talk:Lakewood, Colorado#Police scandal. A new editor has removed information about the police department's role in these cases from the article about the city. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:54, 9 March 2020 (UTC)