Talk:Murder of Huang Na/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Nikkimaria (talk) 19:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello! I'll be conducting a review of this article to ensure it meets the GA criteria. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 19:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm placing the article on hold to allow contributors to address the below concerns. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 20:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Nikkimaria! Thanks for the review! Unfortunately, you could not have chosen a worse time to review this; I have exams this coming week! I will do what I can in between study sessions, but please be patient! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Writing and formatting

• What is "bai jin"? Since it's a redlink, a short explanation would probably be appropriate, unless it has a Wiktionary article you could link to

  I added a brief defintion taken from two sources. If I have time, I may create a stub, as there is more to bai jin than the definition suggests. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• The article might benefit from an infobox; I notice that several of the "Murder of..." articles have one

  Is an infobox necessary? I know some editors make a stylistic choice not to include infoboxes in their articles. To me, infoboxes are more useful in longer articles. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

  It's not an absolute requirement, just something to consider. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

  Alright, so I think the article is better off without one. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• While according to guidelines the lead is long enough as-is, I feel it doesn't encompass the entire article, and as such should be slightly expanded
• Given that Category:People murdered in Singapore is a subcategory of Category:Murder in Singapore, it's probably not necessary to have both

  I removed the former category and a duplicate of the latter. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

• While your prose is mostly grammatically correct, it could use some editing for flow and clarity (would I be correct in assuming that English is not your first language?)

  You are correct. If you feel like doing a little copyediting, please do. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

• "Disappearance, search and community reaction" - seems a bit inaccurate and lengthy. While the section does discuss her disappearance, the search and the community reaction, it also talks about the arrest, interrogation and escape of Took, and the discovery of Huang Na's body. Obviously you can't include all of that in a section title; is there a more concise title that still encompasses all of the section's topics?

  How about just "Disappearance and reaction", since "reaction" would emcompass the search for her (both by the police and the community), the arrest of Took and the community reaction after her death. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

  Sounds good. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

  Section title changed. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Accuracy and verifiability

• Do none of those newspaper articles have page numbers and authors?

  I found the newspaper articles through Factiva, which does not attach such information. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

  Is Factiva an online database? If so, a convenience link would be helpful given the lack of sourcing information. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

  No, you need to pay to access it. I am not rich, so I had to rely on a friend who had paid for access. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• "TODAY" is a rather ambiguous publication name, as is "The New Paper"; while I appreciate the wikilinks, it would also be helpful to list publisher and possibly location

  All the newspapers which are used as sources in this article are Singaporean newspapers published by Singapore Press Holdings. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

• Sentences that include a direct quote should be cited immediately

  I believe you are referring to the sentence where Justice Lai explained his judgment, which I have cited (same cite as the one for the following sentence). --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• Are there any non-news sources available?

  Even the equivalent Infopedia article only cites newspaper sources, so I doubt there are reliable non-news sources out there. Singapore is a small country after all. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Broad

• Given that there is no separate article on Huang Na or Took, it's good to have some detail on each. You've got a bit, but are missing some - for example, when was Huang Na born? What was Took's execution date?
• More detail in general would probably be helpful; this appears to be a high-profile case in Singapore, surely more details are available?

Singapore is a little red dot with a population of less than five million people. There are only a few major Singaporean newspapers, all of which are by Singapore Press Holdings. Hence information is scarce, even for "a high-profile case". Some information was omitted due to BLP concerns (I know Huang Na and Took are both dead, but their family members are still alive, so I opted to err on the side of caution). --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality

No issues noted

Stability

• No recent major edits to the article; however, I note a history of rolling back good-faith edits. Please keep in mind that such behaviour is discouraged. However, that was far enough in the past to be ignored in consideration of the article's current stability.

  Noted. That will not happen again. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Images

• Are pictures of the wholesale centre, Huang Na's grave, the trial or her funeral available?

  Not to my knowledge. The severe restrictions on fair-use images do not help. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Other opinions

Hi, i think personally that the article is almost GA ready. With the few exceptions pointed out by the reviewer. But i would say that it is GA ready when those fixes had been made.--Bödeln (talk) 14:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I posted an initial reply and was waiting for the reviewer to respond to it, but she did not, so I forgot about the review as I was busy with school. Now I am back and will continue addressing the issues she raised, but I hope she will be back too. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

As this article is now GA standard, is it possible to push it towards FA status? --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 05:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I doubt so, considering how short the article is and that most Singaporeans are not native speakers of English (the key difference between the GA criteria and FA criteria is the prose standards). --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)