Talk:Disappearance of Samantha Murphy/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Nominator: MaxnaCarta (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: Tamzin (talk · contribs) 22:48, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

General discussion

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

• @MaxnaCarta: Hi there! I'll be taking a look at this presently. I've (co)written one disappearance article myself, and I'm familiar with your work of course, so this seems like a good pick. You know the drill when it comes to my reviewing style, but just to reiterate one thing I always like to stress, anything that I say is a recommendation, suggestion, "how I would do it", "would read better as", etc., is just that, and you're entirely free to disregard such advice. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 22:48, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Tamzin I am grateful for any suggestions. This is a relatively new article I am the primary contributor for, and so some new insights would be valuable. No rush or pressure. Whenever you have time. Cheers — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• Noting that because probably-dead people still fall under WP:BLP, I've created an editnotice with {{BLP editintro|BDP=yes}}. If Murphy's death is ever confirmed conclusively (or once she'd be 115...), the editnotice can be blanked after a suitable period of time. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 00:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
• Okay, I've written some stuff below, but I'm going to pause here because I'm not sure what to do. This article is about a developing story. This poses problems both for criterion 3a (broadness) and criterion 5 (stability—more the spirit than the letter, in this case). New developments about the case keep coming in, and some get added then removed then re-added and reworded... It's a live article, in other words. And this will remain the case for the foreseeable future. Because of that, I'm not convinced it's possible for this to pass broadness. How can it "address[ ] the main aspects of the topic" when many of those details are still in flux, still being reported in a trickle of breaking-news coverage? And just on a more practical level, even if I do complete the review below, will the article I review still even be there in a month?
  You know, Max, that I think you're a great content writer, and so the way I see it there's two ways we can go here:
  • I can fail this. If you want, I can finish the prose review first, so you have that to work on for improving the article; or not. Then once the dust has settled on this case, you can renominate this, and if I'm still around then I'm happy to take this again.
  • I can put this up for a second opinion, on the question of whether the developing nature of this topic prevents it from passing on 3a and 5. If the second reviewer doesn't see an issue, I'm happy to finish the review from there.
• -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 00:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Tamzin, thanks for this. I think you have (to your credit and my regret) found a fatal barrier to the article passing GA and I believe it must fail. I have to consider what I would say if asked to provide a second opinion, and that is that I do not think this article can be considered complete or stable until the story behind the article has developed more. Too many things will change between it's review and the next few months. Thanks for the feedback provided though, they're good changes to make in the interim. I probably need to wait until we have a body and/or conviction. The future funeral, the court case, any changes to the law, the evidence at trial...all of it needs to be included. Thanks Tamzin. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

1: Prose/MoS

Lede

• MOS:SLASH: 1972 or 1973

• Putting a date of death in the opening parenthetical, when then saying later in the sentence that she is presumed dead, is a bit confusing, and also skips past the disappearance.  Disappearance of Natalee Holloway takes the approach (October 21, 1986 – disappeared May 30, 2005; declared dead January 12, 2012). That could work, or just do the declared/presumed dead part.

• In the rest of the sentence, I would suggest putting the disappearance before the presumption of death.

Background

• At the time of her disappearance, Samantha Murphy was a 51-year-old Australian woman is technically true, but reads strange, implying that her Australian-ness or womanhood might have changed since her disappearance. "Australian" and "woman" are pretty much implied here, so maybe just cut the first sentence, then put her age into the last sentence.

• Caucasian probably doesn't need to be linked but it's not something I'll lose sleep over.

Disappearance

• Wikilink bushland maybe? With love from 'Murica, where Bushland sounds like an amusement park themed around invading Iraq.

• Woowookarung Regional Park is redlinked from Protected areas of Victoria. Maybe redlink here?

• I was absolutely certain that lowercasing "am" would go against MoS, as was a more experienced content editor I asked. We were both shocked to find out that no, you're completely right.

Investigation and search

• Three units are linked to articles specific to the Victoria Police, but Dog squad just redirects to Police dog. Either redlink [[Victoria Police Dog Squad|Dog Squad]] or just leave it unlinked.

• By 23 February police said — comma after "February"

• You're probably oversectioned here. This can all be one section (but see below about the forest attack [and why is it "attacks"?]).

• Police have confirmed is recentist language. If it happened, say it happened.

• On 22 February, Police voiced — lowercase "police"

2b: Citations

Uncited

• This might be pedantic, but, while the age of 51 is cited in the body, the corresponding YOB of 1972/3 isn't. There's a few ways to fix this. The simplest would probably be adding |birth_date=1972 or 1973 to the infobox and citing Crowe there.

Source review

Checking sources for all BLP/BDP claims, plus prime-numbered other sources.

3: Broadness & depth

• Are there updates on the February 2023 attack since the suspect's arrest? If not, is there reason to think that it's still relevant to the case? If it is still relevant, should this be under "Background" instead?

• While the reported-and-retracted name of the suspect should not be included per WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLPPRIVACY, the fact of the report and retraction should be.

2d: Copyvio

• A bit too close to [1]. Please reword accordingly.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.