Wikipedia:Peer review/Matthew Cox/archive2

Matthew Cox

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is a little article I am getting ready for FAC. Its about a con man whose story I found interesting. Thanks in advance if you decide to comment. AaronY (talk) 18:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HOLD ON I am having a little bit of a problem here. AaronY (talk) 04:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cryptic C62

Resolved issues

Who is Jeff Testerman? I am very curious as to why 21 of the article's 37 sources are authored by him.
Cox has received a limited amount of media coverage. Since the story was big in the Tampa Bay area, a lot of the reliable sources that exist are from the St. Petersburg Times, and this one reporter in particular. Although the story was mentioned in other major national newspapers such as the Chicago Tribune, Fortune, and Atlanta Journal-Constitution it received only fleeting coverage there. AaronY (talk) 02:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Born in Florida," Is this really the most specific information that can be found about where he grew up?
Yeah basically although he received national coverage, this is the most specific info I can find. Maybe there is government database I can check.
"After being fired from the company when he was convicted of mortgage fraud and received probation in 2002," The inclusion of "and received probation" is awkward. If you can find a good way to rephrase it, go for it, though I think it would be fine to simply remove that bit altogether.
I removed it; I included it because when he leaves the state later he immediately becomes a fugitive for not checking in with his parole officers. But I don't think I need it.
"He recorded that sale for $233,000," I don't understand what this means. He sold something for 90k but then pretended to have sold it for 233k? What does that accomplish?
He arranged for financing in that amount, she says without her knowledge. Clarified.
"His ex-wife Keyla Burgos, who is mother to his son, was one of the two shareholders." I find it a bit odd that this marriage is not revealed to the reader until now.
I've only seen her and his son mentioned in the source used for this article and one other article, which just reiterates that they were married and later divorced. Tbh this might be it too; since he's in prison for a long time now, and seems to have ratted on everyone he bribed, I don't expect many more stories about him to come out.
"He was so brazen he took out one mortgage under the name of..." POV phrasing which glorifies Cox unnecessarily. A fun fact indeed, but it can be approached more neutrally.
You're right about this. I guess I just wanted to make it clear why he was doing it, but its self explanatory
"He was reported by the couple's 60 year old babysitter, Patsy Taylor." Who does "the couple" refer to? Brian and Shaniqua or Cox and Gardner?
Cox and Gardner. Fixed.
"Taylor was put in contact with the attorney of Rebecca Hauck by the St. Petersburg Times reporter." There's only one reporter for the St. Petersburg Times?
Duh. Fixed.
"He escaped capture due to a chance series of events." No he didn't. It says in the very next line that he was arrested upon return from the hotel. How does that qualify as escaping capture?
I guess I could say he temporarily escaped capture?
"Cox was arrested on November 16, 2006. Indicted on 42 counts." It is unencyclopedic to include sentence fragments like this. Also, it is not clear what those 42 counts were.
This was paragraph was copyedited by another user. I have reverted it to the old version, will clarify.
"While courting Arnold he took her to crime films such as The Italian Job and Catch Me if You Can—which he reportedly adored and watched several times—and began to detail his criminal plans to her." This definitely needs a citation.
Done.
Hmm? Perhaps the edit did not save correctly; the sentence in question still appears to be unsourced. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"After Arnold refused to get breast implants and abandon her son, Cox began courting another woman." Easily among the strangest sentences I've ever read on Wikipedia, and one which (unless I'm mistaken) is not covered by the nearest citation.
I've put the correct citation on it. I know its odd, but what can I say the guy liked fake breasts.
This also appears to have not been saved correctly. Perhaps you merely dreamt of adding a source here. :P --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I left a note above to hold on; I saw a few problems and needed some time to work on them, plus I had stuff irl to do on Mon and Tues. Taken care of now, but there are some things I'm still working on. AaronY (talk) 20:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"...with Gardner, and a new friend of his, Brian Williamson, and his friend's wife." A bit odd that Brian's name is included but his wife's isn't. Suggested rephrasing: "...with Gardner and his new friends Brian and Shaniqua Williamson"
Inserted.
Erm, I was kidding about the Shaniqua part. I have no idea what the wife's name is, so I just made one up. Me ≠ reliable source! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, duh. I see now that the name of the man's wife was never mentioned. Thats the only source where the Williamsons were interviewed or mentioned. I just put the previous phrasing back in, though it is somewhat clumsy. AaronY (talk) 20:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"When Cox was first arrested the FBI talked to him about White, who they were investigating" Assuming I'm reading this correctly, I would recommend inserting "also" before "investigating" for clarity.

Done, good catch. AaronY (talk) 20:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The lead does not make it clear when any of Cox's crimes happened, which is of particular importance when considering the modern-day value of the money he acquired.
"He was aided by several female accomplices, some of whom are in prison or have served time there." Awkward phrasing which does not make it clear why the ladies went to prison. Suggested rewrite: "He was aided by several female accomplices, some of whom were convicted of <INSERT NAME OF CRIME HERE>".
"The novel's protagonist, written obviously as a copy of himself," So the protagonist was cloned? I suggest replacing "himself" with "the author" or "Cox".
"Although as of 2010, the United States Attorney's office has not brought charges against any of his 13 Tampa area cohorts, even Assistant U.S. Attorney Robert A. Mosakowski informed a judge in 2005 that he planned to bring charges against up to 13 accomplices." It's a bit odd that this isn't written in chronological order. Suggestion: "Assistant U.S. Attorney Robert A. Mosakowski informed a judge in 2005 that he planned to bring charges against up to 13 of Cox's accomplices, though this has not yet happened as of 2010."
As an overall comment, this article seems to be overly focused on trivial details, such as the type of car that Cox drove and the size of his lovers' breasts. I suspect you will receive a lot of flak about this if you take to FAC, as details should serve to inform the reader, not amuse them.
The whole article is kind of trivial tbh. Subtrivial even. I was actually inspired to write it after watching Dateline and then noticing the sources existed to create an article. I've got much more "important" projects in the pipeline but this is just a different type of article I'm working on for variety's sake. Plus since this is short it should be less work at FAC, and won't kill me like the last serious article I nominated nearly did.

Anyways, the facts are that he wanted his girlfriends/accomplices to get breast implants or he would dump them. What can I say? He's not exactly Michael Corleone. Should I just change Infiniti to luxury car? I figured it was better to be specific. Also, he and his fictional protagonist shared certain specific details. The Audi car they drove is one detail, maybe say "the same exact car"? I guess I could go into the facts of specific cases more, but its just the same m.o. repeated over and over and over again. I think I've got the interesting specific details. The case history begs for summary style tbh.
I'm no expert on writing crime BLPs, so whatever you judge to be the best level of detail is fine by me. I just wanted to give my overall impression. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished reading through the article. I intend to watch this page to clarify and discuss issues as needed. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]