Talk:Murder of Huang Na/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I will review this article. Cirt (talk) 05:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Cirt! Thanks for taking the time to review this article, which I spent several months on. Since late July, I have been on an extended wikibreak to prepare for major exams, so I may take longer than usual to address your concerns. Please also note that I have reverted some changes made by other editors during my break, including the inappropriate addition of an infobox. Have fun reviewing the article! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, recent reversions seem to indicate a lack of stability here. It appears that this is an unresolved issue. Cirt (talk) 11:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: Perhaps Andreasegde (talk · contribs), Jacklee (talk · contribs) and Judo112 (talk · contribs) could be contacted to weigh in on the recent reversions, so that I can assess if they have consensus and the article is stable? Cirt (talk) 16:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concerns over stability, but if you wait too long for the article to be stable, I would not have time to address your concerns, as my exams are in early October. I do not plan to make further edits, so would you consider the article stable if there are no non-minor edits in the next three days (if you consider Richardshusr's edit minor, the last non-minor edit was four days ago)? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 04:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you notified the above-mentioned editors as I suggested? Cirt (talk) 04:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just notified Jacklee, whom I regularly work with on Singapore-related articles. Perhaps you could contact Andreasegde and Judo112? So if none of them object to my reversions (silence implies consent) within three days, would you consider the article stable? (I suggested a three-day limit not just because my reversions were four days ago, but if you conduct the review three days later - on a Friday - I would have the weekend to address your concerns.) --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 04:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I notified the other two. Cirt (talk) 04:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Judo112

In my opinion Huang Na needs an infobox and the aftermath section needs just some expanding in my opinion. I cant really point out what it is but i cant really 100% say that this is a GA worthy article. However im not an expert and its up to Cirt to make a decision when my suggestion has been taken care off.--Judo112 (talk) 14:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also would suggest that you add the day,month and year Huang Na was born at the beginning of the article, and that you also expand the Background section as it is a bit to weak for GA article. It needs more details.--Judo112 (talk) 15:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have cleaned the article and added birth and death date in the lead. I put the infobox back in, because someone rolled back the page. I think that even though this article is short, it is worthy of a GA rating. The poor girl's life was short, after all. --andreasegde (talk) 19:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stability issues

Recent reversions again regarding this infobox issue lead me to unfortunately think that the article is not stable, which is an issue as part of WP:WIAGA. Have the above editors come to a consensus about this? Cirt (talk) 04:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see there are no stability problems at all. If you look through the history you will see that one editor accidentally deleted the infobox (because of rollbacks or something) and I put it back in again. As simple as that: "Hildanknight (talk | contribs) (9,672 bytes) (Temporary massive rollback. Some edits made during my wikibreak were helpful - I'll restore them shortly - but some were harmful.) "

There are no arguments on the talk page at all, so I don't see the problem.--andreasegde (talk) 09:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The editor who removed the infobox is the primary contributor and as the edit summary suggests, the reversion was intentional, with the following justifications:

Since this article is not about Huang Na, but her murder (in fact, the article mentions Took more than her), I believe there should be no infobox. That memorial is obviously not her website.
Her date of birth should not be included as she was a minor, was never a public figure and the date is unsourced.
Several other changes are just plain wrong. For example, someone added the category "Chinese Singaporeans" to the article, but Took is from Malaysia, while the Huangs are from the PRC. A lead section with three one-sentence paragraphs reads horribly.

Looks like the article does have stability issues. If they cannot be resolved by this weekend, I will have to renominate the article after my exams. By the way, Judo112, Denise Phua and Yip Pin Xiu are even shorter, yet I successfully took both to GA status. Shortness is not a problem, considering the dearth of information on many Singapore-related topics. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wash my hands of it.--andreasegde (talk) 10:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stability review[edit]

Not done - See above unresolved issues. Cirt (talk) 17:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not GA at this time[edit]

Unfortunately this article is not GA at this time, per above. Feel free to renominate when these issues have been resolved. Cirt (talk) 18:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]