Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Koh Tao murders/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 18 September 2021 [1].

Koh Tao murders

edit
Nominator(s): ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:53, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the murders of two tourists in Thailand. The coverage in sources largely focused on the police investigation and trial, which received a lot of international attention. It went through GA in March and peer review in April. It's my first FA nomination; hoping to get the article up to scratch and understand the FA criteria better. Appreciate any & all reviews! ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:53, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am a little concerned about the sourcing. For an article about a murder and resulting trial, one would expect the judgment itself to be cited at least a few times. On the flipside, a rather large amount of news media are cited - I dunno if these are really high-quality sources, oversimplifications, simple mistakes and overly-hasty/sensationalistic coverage is very common. I am not outright opposing because I am not sure if my concerns about news media not being high quality sources are shared by anyone, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:44, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I don't understand what you mean by one would expect the judgment itself to be cited at least a few times You mean the outcome that it was guilty? The verdict was cited to CNN and BBC, and also discussed in the peer-reviewed journal article (I've just added a ref to that, too). But surely CNN & BBC are HQRS anyway? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:58, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See, my impression is that courts usually write out their reasoning when issuing a judgment, rather than making a mere "The defendant(s) is/are guilty/innocent". I'd expect that reasoning to be used as a source - at least for some things - in a FA about a trial. I'd be wary of using second-hand news media reports as a substitute for the actual judgment, they tend to oversimplify and often there is an error or two in the coverage. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:05, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see what you mean now. I haven't seen any sources refer to a written judgement, and it wasn't referred to in the journal article either. The Court didn't allow observers to take notes, but there are some written from memory. I found this report from an observer; in the second half of the document there is an unofficial English translation of the court's judgement (~40 pages long). I don't know where the original Thai version would be (maybe Paul_012 will know?) I've read the first few pages of the translation and it mostly matches up with what the article says, but with some additional details (eg details of the rape, where the pair stayed after immigrating illegally, etc); some of it could be added for detail, other parts fall a bit foul of WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. I'll read the full judgement later today. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:35, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I added some details from the translation of the court judgement. Does this work? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:50, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seems OK to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:23, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's a PDF posted by the political news website Prachatai, but the file itself is hosted on Google Drive.[2] I understand the courts now have websites that are supposed to publish such documents, but haven't been able to find this case in any of the ones I've tried. Couldn't find the full Supreme Court judgment anywhere. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:48, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil

edit

Placeholder, reading through now. Ceoil (talk) 19:52, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceoil: Just wanted to gently follow up on this? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Display name 99

edit

I know nothing about Thailand or the events described in the article, but I don't want the only review that this article gets to be by an account which seems to have been created solely for that purpose. So I'll do my best. Display name 99 (talk) 19:12, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) Few replies below & will try to do the rest tomorrow. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:32, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under Background, please state the year for which the data about the population of locals and migrant workers on Kon Tao applies. It won't remain constant and thus cannot be presented in the present tense, as if what was true a certain number of years ago is necessarily true now. Display name 99 (talk) 19:12, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clarified; it's as of the time of murders (2014).
  • Why are there so many migrant workers? Can you provide some background on why so many of them are illegal? Display name 99 (talk) 19:12, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Economic reasons I think. I added a bit from the underlying source.
Still not quite what I'm looking for. Does every one of the 2,000 illegal immigrants pay the exact same bribe to the police every month? That doesn't seem right. What kind of jobs do they fill? Why can't people from Thailand fill them? What is it about Myanmar in particular as opposed to other countries that makes people want to travel to Thailand? Display name 99 (talk) 23:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The victims..." I would add "of the murders" or something to that effect, just to be sure you don't catch the reader off guard. Display name 99 (talk) 19:12, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done
  • "structural engineering graduate"-graduate of what? Display name 99 (talk) 19:12, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand that he graduated from the Uni of Leeds doing a civil and structural engineering bachelors course. I didn't want to write "structural engineer" as that may not necessarily have been his occupation. I reworded that paragraph a bit, if that's better?
It looks better, yes. Display name 99 (talk) 23:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you say a little more about Witheridge and Miller? Were they just regular tourists? Did they know anybody in Thailand? What drew them to Koh Tao? Display name 99 (talk) 19:12, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I clarified the details and added a bit more, but looking through my saved sources not too much seems to be mentioned about their background. Thailand is a popular place for people to go on gap years or after they finish education, reading between the lines of sources makes me think that was the case here. I added a bit more on Miller, will try and look for more sources tomorrow and see if any others mention more.
Can you try looking outside of your saved sources? Sometimes, producing high-quality content on Wikipedia requires major digging and finding things outside of the sources that you're most comfortable with, as long as the places where you're going are reliable. Display name 99 (talk) 23:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did deeper digging. I found a bit more in local sources, but mostly only about Miller. I can't find anything on Witheridge's reasons for travelling, other than she was travelling with a few female friends. I'm not sure what direction to go to find out more, if there is anything else. I can only think of statements by family members, but of the ones I found they didn't say anything more pertinent.
  • Under Murder, what was the name of the bar where they were last seen? What is Sairee Beach and where is it in relation to the bar? Furthermore, you ought to give the name and a brief description of the hotel in the previous section, especially because it ended up being so close to where the bodies were discovered. Display name 99 (talk) 22:15, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the second paragraph, please eliminate the two unnecessary uses of "also." Display name 99 (talk) 22:15, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done
  • I'm not clear on what the three sites were from where DNA was collected. Display name 99 (talk) 22:15, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The three sites are the vulva, perineum, and right nipple. I wasn't sure if it was too much detail but I figured it was worth adding for review since there was a lot of focus on the DNA evidence. Happy to trim it too.
I see. Maybe make sure it's a way to clarify that it's referring to body parts. I don't know if this is common medical or forensic terminology, but the word "site" (at least in American English, which I'm most accustomed to) is virtually always used to refer to a physical place, and never as far as I've encountered to a body part. At first, I thought it was referring to collecting DNA from three different locations on the island. Display name 99 (talk) 00:14, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified.
Can you add that to the article? Display name 99 (talk) 19:21, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • [11][5] Fix ref order. Display name 99 (talk) 22:56, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Done
  • I want to see more about claims of torture. I think that you should have at least one or two separate sub-sections for the first half of the "Investigation" section. I'm seeing some stuff that I think needs to be covered in greater detail. Display name 99 (talk) 22:56, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there was an attempt to cover the events chronologically, but perhaps it would be clearer to break it up into elements. e.g. a sub-section on the timelines presented by the prosecution and defence, then a separate sub-section on the evidence and criticism on it, and then a sub-section on the trial itself. Do you think that would work better than the current structure, or did you have something else in mind?
That could work, or you could have the last three paragraphs before the Trial section be in a sub-section called "Investigation and interviews," or something similar, and everything above that be in its own subsection. Do what you think is best, but I think that there should be at least one subsection for everything above the trial. Display name 99 (talk) 19:21, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing...

  • How did police get the workers to sign up for mass DNA testing? Display name 99 (talk) 15:45, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "found them both home asleep by the time he'd" Do not use contractions in formal writing. Display name 99 (talk) 15:45, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed
  • "found them both home asleep by the time he'd returned" Wait, so the three men lived together? How can that be if you only say that one of them lived nearby? Display name 99 (talk) 15:45, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The judgement just says that it was Mau Mau's house. Since they were illegal it could be that they were living in his house permanently, too, or could have been some kind of sleepover. I got a copy of the judgement of the Appeals Court which is more specific in details but is contradicting on this particular. The Appeals Court judgement suggests this residence was AC2's "staff housing" (AC2 being a business where Mau Mau worked). It also says Zaw Lin was arrested at a different residence. I'd feel more confident if I had a copy of the Supreme Court judgement (which supposedly reiterates the entire case in detail) but I looked, as did Paul_012, and we couldn't find it, but in its stead I can try clarify the details based on the Appeals Court judgement. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then say something like "found them both in his home asleep" so that the reader knows that it is his house and does not think that the other men lived there. Display name 99 (talk) 19:21, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Made it to "Trial and conviction." Display name 99 (talk) 15:45, 8 September 2021 (UTC) Now starting under "Trial and conviction."[reply]

Please clarify in the article or remove altogether. If suicides and accidental deaths were misinterpreted as homicides, you need to say that. I find that the current version hints at foul play, which of course was not true. Display name 99 (talk) 03:07, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose-I have offered close to a dozen featured article reviews. I think that this is my first time opposing a nomination. The nominator has not responded in a timely manner to my concerns, and the problems that I have laid out are so extensive that I do not think that they can be dealt with in the timeframe of a featured article review. There's a lack of background information and detail in a lot of areas, and other things that as written seem to contradict or just don't make sense. I see on the user's userpage that they have DYKs and GAs, and from the absence of a FA star I would guess that this is likely their first FA nomination. I suggest that they possibly get someone to help prepare the article and take it to WP:Peer review before renominating it here. Display name 99 (talk) 01:23, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies - I meant to respond sooner but it's been a busy week. The outstanding points of feedback from you above are very helpful to improve the article, and I'd like to address them outside the time constraints of FAC. @FAC coordinators: can I withdraw this for the time being? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, take your time -- and by the way you kept your head really well in the face of that SPA earlier. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:36, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Koh_Tao_murders/archive1&oldid=1045033909"