Talk:Death of Patrick Cronin
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Death of Patrick Cronin article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Death of Patrick Cronin has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 15, 2023. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Pat Cronin, a 19-year-old man, died after he was struck just once on his head during a pub fight? | |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This article is written in Australian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, program, labour (but Labor Party)) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Different dates of death
editThe Court Document, Whitefriars Newsletter, and Funeral Notice all provide different date of Cronin's death. I have decided it stick with the Court Document's date. If anyone else has a better idea of actual date feel free to implement it (with the appropriate citation of course). - GA Melbourne (talk) 02:06, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- FYI - I have now changed the date to the 18th of April 2016 after reading a Herald sun article which states that there was an incorrect statement issued by Victoria police that lead to the confusion (see here). ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 08:08, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Did you know nomination
edit- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Lightburst (talk) 22:43, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- ... that Pat Cronin, a 19-year-old man, died after he was struck just once on his head during a pub fight? Source: 2017 VSC 678 (paragraph 12)
- Reviewed:
- Comment: Hello, I am new to this process and thought I would try it out. Feel free to let me know if I've made a mistake.
Created by GA Melbourne (talk). Self-nominated at 14:10, 18 January 2023 (UTC).
- Not a review but just a minor comment: the hook should say "died" rather than "passed away", as "passed away" and other euphemisms are discouraged on Wikipedia per WP:EUPHEMISM. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:28, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed. I have amended the hook. - GA Melbourne (talk) 13:40, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- @GA Melbourne: Article is new enough, long enough, well-sourced and despite the nature of the crime, neutral and soberly written. No QPQ necessary, as one of the user's first five nominations. Found a long borrowed sentence fragment from the ABC sources ("his first senior football match for his local club alongside his older brother"), decided to paraphrase it myself. I detect a definition error in the first sentence of the lede, however: it implies that a coward punch necessarily involves striking the back of this head, when the nominal definition is merely any sudden surprise punch. Although none of the sources I read mention it, a blow to the back of the head is also known as a rabbit punch. Perhaps the lede can be revised slightly and the link to that article included in the See also section? DigitalIceAge (talk) 18:28, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5: Sources and media have described the incident as a cowards punch so I essentially alluded to that in the lead. None of the sources called the incident a rabbit punch but since the definition is apt, I have included it in the See also section.- GA Melbourne (talk) 08:41, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not sure as to why I'm still being pinged in this discussion as DigitalIceAge is the reviewer and not I. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:22, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
- I am so sorry, that was done in error. - GA Melbourne (talk) 12:52, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not sure as to why I'm still being pinged in this discussion as DigitalIceAge is the reviewer and not I. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:22, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5: Sources and media have described the incident as a cowards punch so I essentially alluded to that in the lead. None of the sources called the incident a rabbit punch but since the definition is apt, I have included it in the See also section.- GA Melbourne (talk) 08:41, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
- Changes look good. Fixed a minor spelling error in ALT0, which I will now tick. DigitalIceAge (talk) 02:30, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
- @DigitalIceAge and GA Melbourne: I am just learning prep building so bear with me. I think the sentence that supports the hook in the article needs work, "The first punch struck with the right side of Hopkins' head, the second punch struck Cronin near his ear with the force causing Cronin to stumbling sideways". Causing or caused? and stumbling or stumbled? There are some past and present tense words used in the article. Lightburst (talk) 19:12, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Lightburst: I have amended that to: 'the second punch struck Cronin near his ear with the force causing Cronin to stumble sideways'.- GA Melbourne (talk) 22:11, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- @DigitalIceAge and GA Melbourne: I am just learning prep building so bear with me. I think the sentence that supports the hook in the article needs work, "The first punch struck with the right side of Hopkins' head, the second punch struck Cronin near his ear with the force causing Cronin to stumbling sideways". Causing or caused? and stumbling or stumbled? There are some past and present tense words used in the article. Lightburst (talk) 19:12, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you. Lightburst (talk) 22:37, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- @DigitalIceAge and GA Melbourne: Might also consider that he was a man and not a boy, maybe we can say teen which demonstrates his age. I think everyone over 18 is considered an adult. Lightburst (talk) 22:41, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
GA Review
editGA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Death of Patrick Cronin/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 13:44, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:44, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
I'll start with a source review and spotchecks. Footnote numbers refer to this version.
- What is FN 3 sourcing? If it's Patrick Cronin's birthday, I think that's OK as per WP:ABOUTSELF, but in that case shouldn't it be attached to the date? And why are the other sources down at the bottom of the infobox?
- FN 13 cites "Police arrived at the hotel soon after with the brawl ceasing and patrons dispersing. Cronin explained to friends how he had been punched on the right of his head and could be seen rubbing the area on CCTV." Verified, but the source has "At around this time, the police arrived and the fighting ceased with the patrons then beginning to disperse" which is too closely paraphrased.
- FN 16 cites 'MICA paramedics stabilised Cronin's condition for the journey to the hospital which in order to do so required medical intervention to assist Cronin in breathing. Upon his arrival to the Royal Melbourne Hospital, doctors determined that Cronin "suffered a significant haemorrhage on the right side of his brain" and that the "injury was not survivable".' The source has "The MICA paramedics who staffed the ambulance determined that Patrick Cronin had suffered a traumatic brain injury. His condition was stabilised for the journey to the Royal Melbourne Hospital, including providing the medical intervention by then required for him to be able to breathe." This is too closely paraphrased.
- FN 24 cites "In sentencing Lee, Justice Lex Lasry concluded that while the gravity of Lee's actions were significant, his plea of guilty which avoided a trial and the associated trauma to the Cronin family, his remorse for his actions, previous good character, and good prospects for rehabilitation all had contributed as factors that mitigated the sentence that was to be imposed." The source has "The nature and gravity of your offending was significant", "your plea of guilty has avoided the need for a trial and the trauma connected with it, particularly for the members of the Cronin family". This is too closely paraphrased.
- FN 26 cites "Samuel Judd was charged in relation to the matter and was offered a diversion." I can't access this as it's paywalled.
- FN 20 cites "It is believed that up to thirty people were involved in the brawl that ultimately took Cronin's life; several people were charged for their involvement in the brawl." The source has "Police said that they believed up to 30 people could have been involved" and "police charged seven men over their involvement in the brawl". This is too closely paraphrased.
I'm going to fail this because of the spotcheck; I recommend going through and checking each cited sentence for close paraphrasing before renominating. One other comment from a read-through is that there are lots of very short paragraphs, which makes for a choppy reading experience. The "Andrew William Lee" section, for example, is rather WP:PROSELINE, and I think some copyediting is needed there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:49, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
GA Review
editThe 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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Death of Patrick Cronin/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 17:24, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi! I'll be reviewing this article, using the template below. If you have any questions, feel free to ask them here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:24, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- This article now meets the GA standard. Congrats to GMH Melbourne and anyone else who worked on it! —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
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: | ||
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. |
| |
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. |
| |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. |
| |
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. |
| |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. |
| |
7. Overall assessment. |