Talk:Judge jails 'monstrous' London serial killer Stephen Port

Aiding with review

I recognise this is a daunting review. I'll try my best to help.

• The article follows a plan with some introduction, followed by mostly physical evidence about the deaths, then witnesses who spoke of offences against them, and finishing with background and reaction.
• A lot of sources can be readily tied back to the parts of the article they source. After removing the easy bits to verify (quotes, bits with names, basically things you can Ctrl+F) I'd recommend the next job should be to tie back each source to the paragraphs it obviously refers to.
• That'll leave only the hardest stuff, which will be relatively small compared to the overall piece.
• A small amount of intro and background is of course from the most recent related piece.
• Miss Impey's for some reason not properly introduced in the source which deals with her evidence. She's conmfirmed to be a friend of the deceased here and imo it's a judgement call if that should be listed as a source.
• Sample counts are explained here, which crams a remarkable quantity of jargon into a very short section. Again, it's a bit of a judgement call on if that should be added to the sources listed.

Another issue is sexual assault. That's an offence with iirc a maximum of ten years imprisonment. One of the LGBT sources however calls the additional charges assault by penetration. In England and Wales rape involves non-consensual penetration of mouth, anus, or vagina with a penis; assault by penetration involves sexually motivated penetration of any of the same orifices by anything except a penis. It's unclear which is correct because media can be a bit icky about graphic details for this kind of crime. I'm sticking with sexual assault for now since all but one of the sources say that and it's also common parlance for any sexually motivated attack. I'm hoping sentencing remarks will make it clear one way or the other if, as I assume, they are released in full as often happens for big cases. BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:08, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

The Metropolitan Police statement confirms assault by penetration. The more serious offence carries a life sentence. It also reveals the poisoning charges were changed to "administering a substance with intent to stupefy / overpower to enable sexual activity". BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 12:16, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

• I'm reminded of Strike ballot to go ahead despite British Telecom's belated new pay offer. The prosecution have led a great deal more evidence than the defence. The article, I would submit, is not biased as a result of this; it fairly summarises what each party produced. Like BT, Port & his defence had the opportunity to produce much more and it is not our concern they did not. (I'd add that quite effective defences can be run without any defence evidence at all; it can be sufficient for the defence to pick holes and then sit back smugly and say "that's not really good enough, is it?") BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 00:49, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

• See also: Amgines outline

Review of revision 4265798 [Passed]

Revision 4265798 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 22:36, 27 November 2016 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: In this were a smaller article, I might put a deal of thought into whether the sample counts source should be listed on the article or simply left in the reporter's notes. Under these circumstances, it seems a rather small point. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 4265798 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 22:36, 27 November 2016 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: In this were a smaller article, I might put a deal of thought into whether the sample counts source should be listed on the article or simply left in the reporter's notes. Under these circumstances, it seems a rather small point. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.