Talk:Disappearance of Maura Murray/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Drown Soda (talk · contribs) 20:32, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

@MagicatthemovieS: I will be reviewing this article.

@MagicatthemovieS: I have completed a review for the article in question. Refer to my preliminary notes and additional comments in the review section for suggestions. --Drown Soda (talk) 04:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Preliminary notes

• The lead section could do with some discussion of the cultural significance of this case (i.e. the mass speculation, its role as an internet sensation, coverage in media, etc.) as it does seem to be a unique missing persons case that the public (esp. the online community) has had a great deal of interest in—more than the average missing persons case. This information should be implemented into the "Significance" section as well.

• In terms of coverage here, I did notice a couple of things: Being familiar with the case myself, I found it unusual that Murray's enrollment at West Point was left out of the article. While the article itself is not a biography and is rather focused on her disappearance itself, I think it may be worth mentioning some detail of her life prior to her disappearance, even if it's brief (West Point would be one point of discussion, some details about her early life possibly another). Again, it doesn't need to be extensive as this is not a biography, but I feel for readers, some foundation might be interesting/useful, especially if they are not familiar with the case. I'm open to discussion on this though.

• In many missing persons articles, there are sections dedicated to theories surrounding said person's disappearance. The danger of this as I understand is it can err into original research, but if done cautiously, I think they are useful to include. The fact remains that there are numerous theories and speculation surrounding her disappearance, and acknowledging that is worthwhile IMO. The most obvious one is James Renner's, especially considering he published a major book about it. If done, the main thing to remember is to keep the section neutral (i.e. presenting prevailing theories and their basis without condoning their validity). For an example of a situation like this that I've juggled on Wikipedia myself, see the Black Dahlia page.

• Stylistically, I do notice upon skimming that the "Ongoing investigation" section has a lot of one- or two-sentence paragraphs. This generally should be avoided for readability, and information should be combined into more substantial, cohesive paragraphs. This is a slightly more benign issue in the "Preparations and departure" section, where there are line breaks according to time; this is somewhat useful given that it allows the information to appear along a timeline of sorts, but again, I feel cohesive paragraphs should be the aim.

I'll do more in-depth on this and work on the review below in the oncoming days, but these are just a few notes to think about. --Drown Soda (talk) 20:32, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Review

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

Manual of Style compliance:

Generally speaking, the article does have clean prose; however, as noted in my preliminary notes, there are a lot of choppy one-sentence paragraphs. The article overall needs to be combed through and information combined into cohesive paragraphs. There are other instances of vague information (i.e. On the anniversary of her disappearance, a service was held where the car was found, and her father met briefly with New Hampshire Governor John Lynch–which anniversary is this referring to?) that needs clarification.

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research:

This all registers as stable and accurate, and a "sticking to the facts," so to speak. This article specifically runs the risk of veering into fringe theories that are not factual or have no basis in fact. That said, as per my preliminary notes, it may be worth collecting the predominant theories/thoughts in circulation, though, again, this could be riskier than it's actually worth and may have no place here. Source no. 67 (Kimble) is a permanent dead link, so if archive.org doesn't have a snapshot of this, it may be necessary to find an alternate source. Also, the references do need to be combed through and given a uniform citation style (i.e. since this is a U.S. subject and the refs. are already generally this way, make sure each reference date and access date is uniformly Month, Day, Year).

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Focused:

Again, there is good coverage of the facts, but as I said before, I think the "Significance" section needs more detail regarding the cultural momentum of the case and the significant public interest it has garnered (specifically as a case from the post-millennium era that has received the brunt of "internet theorists"). It is a unique missing persons case for many reasons, and the public interest from online sleuths and the publicity/media it has incited is noteworthy.

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

Yes--as said before, the article does stick to the facts, and does not give undue credence to any theories or ideas, which is easy to do here. The details are presented in a factual manner that avoids insinuation or inference, so nice work on this.

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

The edit history appears relatively stable, and the article doesn't seem to be shifting significantly from day to day.

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Maps are the only "photos" used as illustrations so-to-speak, so this is a non-issue.

Overall: ✓ Pass Refer to my preliminary notes and points here for the areas where I think this could use some primping. It is near GA status, but there is some work that needs to be done in terms of making the article more "readable" (i.e. combining information into paragraphs). Sources also need uniform citation style, and the "Significance" section could benefit from a bit more information regarding the case's cultural significance, which is intertwined with the internet and internet culture (and honestly probably a large part of why it has received such a detailed Wikipedia entry in the first place). Let me know if there are any questions or clarification needed. Best --Drown Soda (talk) 04:36, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

@MagicatthemovieS: Do you intend to make further edits? I'd do some of the work myself but typically reviewers are not involved in working on articles during reviews. --Drown Soda (talk) 00:16, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I did intend to help out on this one. I have been very busy as of late; it might take me a bit.

@MagicatthemovieS: I have filled in some of the gaps here and it is more rounded out than before. --Drown Soda (talk) 07:31, 21 October 2017 (UTC)