A couple of the section headers are a bit long. For example, "Verdict: Lamb is found not guilty by reason of insanity" could be just "Verdict". "Lamb displays further improvement once released" is another one that could stand to be trimmed.
Time at Kingston Penitentiary, "Lamb's bizarre activities continued throughout his time at the penitentiary, and in fact became even stranger." The next source (Sutton) doesn't back up this sentence, so at this point I'm assuming that it's supposed to act as a summary of the information following. However, describing his activities as "bizarre" and strange doesn't really seem right to me. Psychotic and hypomanic, yes, bizarre, no. At this point, it reads to me as though these words (bizarre, strange) are the main editor's opinion as to his actions, rather than the opinion of the sources used in the article.
Time at Kingston Penitentiary, "found with a broomstick up his bottom". "Up his bottom" is a little unencyclopedic...sounds like we're trying to make this readable for little kids.
I totally missed the first link. Yeah, it looks good now.
Reactions to death, "They demanded a printed retraction and apology, which the Herald gave soon after." Why did the Herald retract and apologize if they had printed true information?
The Newsweek article doesn't say; it simply says that "the paper obliged". I could not find the edition of the Herald containing the apology. I presume they wanted to avoid embarrassing the army or further offending his friends, but I can't just put that in unsourced. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit19:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)reply
Yes, if you can't find a source for it, then don't put it in. It would be a great bit of information if you eventually find a source discussing it, though.
Reactions to death. Are there any sources on the reactions of the Canadian people? His relatives? His psychiatrists?
I think that your captions are a bit long, overall. For example, the photo in the Military career in Rhodesia gives information about Lamb's military career that is already described in both the lead and the text, leading this to be the third presentation of the information. The other two images in the body contain similar excessive information in their captions.
Overall a very nice article on a man that I had never heard of before. A few comments above; when these are resolved, I think the article should be good to go for GA status. Are you planning to take this to FAC?
Dana boomer (
talk)
19:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)reply
I think it has a good chance at FAC. My prose is not always the best, so I'm sure there are things that I missed, but I think that it's in very nice shape. A run at PR never hurts, especially if you can snag Finetooth or Brianboulton as your reviewer. I've left a few comments above, but everything has been resolved and so I'm passing the article to GA status.
Dana boomer (
talk)
01:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)reply
One other thing - I had a hard time deciding where to list this at
WP:GA. I eventually put it under "Military people", but that doesn't feel exactly right. "Psychology" seems to be more for psychologists and psychological theory than patients, but maybe I'm wrong. If you don't like where I put it, please feel free to move it wherever you would like :) Thanks,
Dana boomer (
talk)
01:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)reply