A fact from Lum You appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 1 September 2013 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that condemned murderer Lum You enjoyed such sympathy from his captors that they left his cell door unlocked at night and encouraged him to escape?
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
I'm going to ask for a second opinion regarding the size/broadness of coverage as i've never reviewed an article anywhere near this small and don't wish to make an error. Feel free to address my other concerns in the meantime. Freikorp (talk) 12:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
The lead is too brief, even for an article this short. How about some information on the fact he was an immigrant, and/or that police has previously told him to take matters into his own hands?
iUniverse is a self published source. Is there any particular reason why you think this source should be acceptable? Is Archie Satterfield an expert in the relevant field that has been published by third parties?
Are you confident you have utilised all sources readily available to write this article? The mentor I contacted regarding this review suggested there might be more information on Lum in this book: [1]. This book i've found [2] gives him a brief mention, but more importantly, it cites an article that appeared in the Morning Oregonian on 31 January 1902. Here's some information on how to get a hold of a copy of that paper: [3]. Are you also sure a reliable online source that could be used for this article cannot be found? Freikorp (talk) 04:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the initial review. Here are my responses to the issues you've raised:
The Chinook Observer link does indeed appear to be dead. I can't find the article archived online anywhere (including the Wayback Machine) so I've simply replaced the url parameter with deadurl. Of course, the article remains available in print archives.
I've added links to the publishers and expanded the lead per your suggestion.
The lead states his jailers helped him escape as if this is an accepted fact, yet the main article uses the word "supposedly". Which is correct.? Freikorp (talk) 04:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
Regarding the book by Archie Satterfield, I'm aware that this particular edition of it is self-published. However, Satterfield was a famous author and journalist in his own right. He had a solid reputation for his history and travel books on the Pacific Northwest, which were published through traditional publishers. The Satterfield book I cite was originally published by Rand McNally in 1980 but went out of print; for whatever reason Satterfield chose to rerelease it through a print-on-demand publisher in 2003. If it's really necessary I can track down the 1980 edition to check that it contains all the information I cite from the 2003 edition. However, my reading of WP:SELFPUBLISH suggests this shouldn't be necessary: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." —Psychonaut (talk) 16:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for explaining that. Considering the fact it was previously published by a reputable source I think sticking to the iUniverse edition will be sufficient as well. Thanks for linking Archie Satterfield. Freikorp (talk) 01:46, 20 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
I think it will be in your best interest to cite the Rand McNally version, as this would prevent the source from being removed in the future. Freikorp (talk) 05:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for your further comments, Freikorp. Here are my responses:
Thanks for locating the reference to the Morning Oregonian. This turned out to be a brief news bulletin of just two sentences, though it did clear up an ambiguity regarding which of the two state governors in office during You's proceedings responded to the request for clemency. I've amended the article accordingly, with reference to this bulletin.
Regarding the complicity of You's captors in his escape, this is something which is related by at least two reliable sources (Archie Satterfield and Sydney Stevens). Stevens uses somewhat more cautious language, though, noting that the details of the escape have never been satisfactorily documented. I've updated the lead to use the same language as the main article.
Apart from the Morning Oregonian bulletin, I'm not aware of any reliable sources which are fully available online. The 2011 Chinook Observer article was available online (via subscription) at the time I wrote the article, but it seems it has since been taken down. I am in possession of an offline copy.
I'm confident I used all reliable sources readily available to me at the time the article was written. Unfortunately I don't have access to Outlaw Tales of Washington, even via interlibrary loan, and don't have any basis on which to form an opinion of its reliability. However, Satterfield, Espy, and Stevens are unimpeachably reliable; each of them has a deservedly solid reputation as a local historian. Espy's book was a national bestseller, and Stevens (Espy's niece) is an exceptionally thorough researcher, with academic press credits to her name. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:54, 24 November 2014 (UTC)Reply