Wikipedia:Peer review/Murder of Huang Na/archive1

Murder of Huang Na

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is about a high-profile murder case that occured in Singapore five years ago. My goal is for this article to attain GA status. Please look through the article and point out any and all issues that would prevent the article from attaining GA status. I am particularly concerned about the lead, prose issues, cultural issues and BLP issues. Note that due to systemic bias, referenced information on Singapore-related topics is scarce.

Thanks, J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 07:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article and seems pretty close to GA to me. As requested, here are some suggestions for improvement.

• I think a model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - Toa Payoh ritual murders is about a similar case (murder of child in Singapore) and may be a useful model (imagine you already have seen that article).

  Noted Yes, I have already seen that article, but thanks for pointing it out. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Is there any chance for a fair use image or two - I think it would be OK to include images of the victim (or perhaps one of the posters when she was missing?) and murderer. I would imagine it should be possible to get a free image of the Pasir Panjang Wholesale Centre?

  Doing There is an ongoing talk page discussion about adding images of Huang Na and Took. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Per WP:LEAD the lead should be longer - probably two or three paragraphs. I would also make sure each section is represented in the lead - is the Background really in there?

  Clarification needed That guideline says that the lead for an article with less than 15k characters should be "one or two paragraphs" long. This article is less than 10 kB and has less than 7k characters. In fact, I would rather tighten the lead than lengthen it. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• It was not clear to me where and when Huang Na was born - probably in China in 1995 or 1996? It was also not clear to me how Huang Na got a spot in the school in Singapore.

  Not done I, too, wish I knew! But my sources say nothing about these. The wonders and woes of working on Singapore-related articles... --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• I think that the average reader will not necessarily know that Fujian is a province in China or that Johor Bahru and Kuala Lumpur are Maylaysian cities, so perhaps make this clearer. For example, She later remarried to Zheng Wenhai,[2] a Fujian businessman whom she had lived with for four years, and became pregnant with his child in early 2003.[3] could be something like She later married Zheng Wenhai,[2] a businessman from the Chinese province of Fujian whom she had lived with for four years, and became pregnant with his child in early 2003.[3] (remarried seems to me to imply she was already married to him once before and married him again) or ..with volunteers putting up posters in Johor Bahru and Kuala Lumpur.[11] could be something like ...with volunteers putting up posters in the nearby cities of Johor Bahru and Kuala Lumpur.[11]

  Done Good catches! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• I would briefly explain what bai jin is (now a red link) or write a stub for it. Seems like some sort of offering or gift?

  Doing I found a Chinese Wikipedia article about bai jin and will create a translated stub over the weekend. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• I don't understand this sentence However, many Singaporeans tried to make money from the girl's death by buying 4D numbers associated with her and others spread nasty rumours that Shuying had affairs and was greedy for donations.[17][16] How does one make money spreading nasty runours? Also refs should be in numerical order.

  Done Citation order changed. Spreading nasty rumours and buying 4D numbers associated with her death are both examples of unacceptable behaviour by some Singaporeans. I changed the first "and" to a full stop - does that clarify things? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

  Yes, clearer. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• Is the exact date of Took's execution known? I would give it, if it is known

  Noted If I remember correctly, one of my references states the month but not an exact date - I need to check my reference collection again. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• I would give the date / year when her mother moved back to China and she was buried. Also is the location of her tomb known any more exactly? - China is a big country

  Done Specified that they returned to, and buried Huang Na in, Putian. The date is not clearly stated by my sources. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• For people not used to the Chinese name system (Family name first) it might not be clear that Huang Na wanted to change her family name to match that of her stepfather (change from Huang to Zheng). I would also identify her birth father Quinrong as he has not been referred to in several sections.

  Done Excellent suggestion! I want the article to be understandable by readers unfamiliar with Singaporean culture and Chinese culture. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• In the refs, I owuld link the names of the newspapers. Also newspaper refs should have the page number and author's name, if known.

  Linking done, rest not done as the Factiva archives does not include such information. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review - it was very helpful! I wish I had more time to spend on Wikipedia, so I could help with the backlog, but for now, all I can do is write GAs and more GAs about Singapore-related topics. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments by J Milburn

• The lack of images/infoboxes makes the article look a little dull. I wrote a similar one and managed to use Template:Infobox criminal. Alternatively, a timeline of events?

  Doing As noted above, Jacklee and I are discussing the addition of images of Huang Na and Took. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• Possible cats- Category:Murder in Singapore, Category:2004 crimes, Category:2004 in Singapore?

  Done Added Category:2004 in Singapore. Also added Category:Crime in Singapore. Singapore may have a low crime rate, but low crime doesv not mean no crime. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• Refs are formatted pretty badly- remember that newspapers should be in italics, and the publishers should be linked to our article whereever possible. Also, are none of the articles available online? Can I reccomend the news citation template?

  Partly done The first instance of the name of each publisher (newspaper) has been linked. Italicising done too, though I have no idea why reviewers keep asking for that. The news citation template drives me nuts, though; thankfully the GA criteria do not require its use. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles)#Italics is why we italicise. It's fairly standard in typed texts. J Milburn (talk) 14:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• "bai jin"- If there's no article, could you explain what this is?

  Doing As noted above, I will translate the Chinese Wikipedia article over the weekend. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• "at the wholesale centre" What wholesale centre?

  Clarification The Pasir Panjang Wholesale Centre - is this inadequately explained? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

  Well, yeah. The first mention just refers to it as "the wholesale centre"- remember that people read the lead before the rest of the article. J Milburn (talk) 14:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

  Huh? The lead starts with "Huang Na was an eight-year-old Chinese national living at the Pasir Panjang Wholesale Centre in Singapore". --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 04:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

  Yeah, it does. My mistake. I'd change the lead sentence from "Huang Na, an 8-year-old Chinese national living at the Pasir Panjang Wholesale Centre in Singapore, disappeared on 10 October 2004." to "Huang Na was an 8-year-old Chinese national living at the Pasir Panjang Wholesale Centre in Singapore who disappeared on 10 October 2004." Rather than just stating a fact, that one effectively gives a one line introduction to the article, saying exactly who she is. J Milburn (talk) 11:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• "When Shuying found out that he had affairs in Singapore" I think "had had affairs" would be more accurate, but it doesn't sound great. Could this be rephrased?

  Clarification needed To be honest, I am not a native speaker of English, and I do not understand the use of "had had". An explanation would be most appreciated. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

  I don't really know how to explain this (and I should...) but it's about looking into the past from the past. "John had an affair with Sally, meaning he had had 3 affairs during his time with Kate". I'm sure it has a name, and I'm sure I should know it. I may be wrong. By the way, it's not obvious English isn't your first language at all, that's really quite impressive. J Milburn (talk) 14:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

  Done Thanks for the compliment. I feel honoured. Thanks for the explanation too. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 04:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• "whom she had lived with for four years" change to "with whome she had lived"

  Done I suppose "whome" is a typo? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

  Yeah, sorry. J Milburn (talk) 14:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delink the primary school; few primary schools are notable.

  Done If she was studying in a top school, that would have been a different story. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• "spread nasty rumours"? Nasty?

  Clarification needed Huang Shuying is still alive, so giving the rumours any more credibility than they deserve may land me in BLP trouble, hence the use of the word "nasty". What do you suggest - replacing "nasty" with unfounded? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

  Possibly, if a source describes them as "unfounded". I'd just call them "rumours". J Milburn (talk) 14:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

  Done Removed "nasty". I hope doing so does not affect the article's BLP-compliance. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 04:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• "Shuying had affairs" Again, had had? Something that sounds better?

  Clarification needed, see above. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

  Done, see above. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 04:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• "a video where Took re-enacted" in which Took...

  Done Thanks for spotting that! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• "on her head" specify whose.

  Done Huang Na's head, of course, but it is better to make things clear. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• "Subhas Anandan"- is he definitely notable?

  Done Unlinked, since his notability is unclear. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

  Oops! I had indicated "done" but forgot to actually unlink. Really done this time. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 04:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• "murder and whether" or, not and

  Clarification needed My copyeditor told me that "and" should be used. Perhaps you could explain why "or" is preferable? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

  You would use "and" if the judge ruled whether it was unimportant to determine both, not either. Using "and" implies that it may be important to determine the motive, but not to determine the motive and whether there was sexual assault. As I understand it, the judge means that neither is important. See the difference? J Milburn (talk) 14:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

  Done Took (pardon the pun) me a few minutes and several rereadings, but I get it. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 04:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• "With Shuying pregnant again in October 2005, the couple had to raise their two remaining children." Strange sentence- the fact she was pregnant doesn't mean she had to raise the other two.

  Clarification needed In my original draft, the sentence was: "With Shuying pregnant again in October 2005, the couple decided to focus on their two remaining children." My copyeditor changed "decided to focus on" to "had to". How could the sentence be improved? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

  The original was far better; I'd change it back. J Milburn (talk) 14:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

  Done Changed back to "decided to focus on". --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 04:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Hope that helps. J Milburn (talk) 12:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)