Talk:Disappearance of Ayla Reynolds/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Zwerg Nase (talk · contribs) 17:20, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to review this. Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:20, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Several things to adress here:

Lead: The very first sentence sounds weird, since she is not 20 months old anymore. Better would be: On December 17, 2011, Ayla Reynolds, a then 20-month-old toddler from Waterville, Maine, disappeard
Night of Ayla's disappearance: I feel that the second paragraph belongs in the "Search efforts" section.
The "Search efforts" and "Aftermath" sections are quite tattered. You should build bigger paragraphs.
Aftermath: You should put the section in chronological order.
Several dead links in the references, as can be seen here. Also broken is ref #10 from Yahoo. Those should be sorted out.
Also, several developments should be covered: 1, 2, 3.

I am placing this on hold for seven days. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"National history" should also be changed. Most Wikipedia readers do not live in the USA, so it should be rewritten in a less US-centric way. Also in the search efforts section, the body found was believed "to be three to five." Three to five what? Years, months, kilos? Valenciano (talk) 11:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that "in national history" can stand as it is, I didn't feel offended by the phrasing and I am not American. Good hint on the age though. Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Notecardforfree

I concur with Zwerg Nase's comments above, but I have a few comments I would like to add about this article, which I hope will be addressed through this GA Review process:

1. The lead says that "Ayla's disappearance is believed to be the result of 'foul play'", but this assertion is not substantiated by a reliable source. First of all, the link in the footnote does not direct the reader to a specific episode of the Today Show. Even if it did, I don't think that would be a reliable source to substantiate a claim of murder. Gossip shows say all kinds of inflammatory things to attract viewers, so I think we will need a better source for any claims that Ayla was murdered (see also WP:BLPSOURCES).

Zwerg Nase comment: Does foul play really imply that she was murdered? It might also imply "just" a kidnapping. I do however agree that a source should be provided proving that such a claim was made be the investigators.

I think that "foul play" usually means murder. See, for example, this definition. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 23:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2. This article portrays Ayla's parents in a manner that may violate WP:BLP. For example, the statements about the parents not being "forthcoming," the statements about her mother being in a substance abuse program, the statements about Ayla's father "having something to hide," the statements about Ayla's father being "first to leave the vigil" for his daughter, and the statements about her father's arrest on an unrelated domestic violence charge all portray the parents in a negative manner. The tone of this article implies that the parents are culpable in some way, but those kinds of descriptions are expressly prohibited by WP:BLPCRIME, which states "editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured" (emphasis in original). At the very least, the references to the parents' substance abuse issues have nothing to do with Ayla's disappearance and must be deleted (see also WP:SYNTH).

Zwerg Nase comment: I would argue that the information on the substance abuse program could be considered important because it explains why the child was staying with his father. Of course, this could be stated more neutrally. As for the crime accusations. Thank you for pointing this out, I have probably underestimated the policy of Wikipedia here concerning accusations made in the media. This will certainly need some rephrasing for a more neutral tone.

3. Although Wikipedia's Good Article criteria permit "shorter articles" and "articles that do not cover every major fact or detail", this article is rather short even by those standards. Has there been any other coverage of Ayla's disappearance by reliable sources? I'm concerned that this article may fall short of the "broad coverage" requirement. Many references cite to the Bangor Daily News, but I am sure this story has received coverage elsewhere.

Zwerg Nase comment: I have checked this during my initial review, and seeing that media such as CNN and state newspapers covered the case, I was satisfied with it getting broad enough coverage. As for the size of the article, I feel that while short, it is not necessarily too short, apart from the new developments I mentioned.

Please let me know if you have any questions about my comments. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:27, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing has happened since my initial review. Considering new comments have been made, I give the nominator(s) three more days to give a notice on how and when they want to proceed with changes to the article. Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zwerg Nase, I put notations on your comments above to indicate that they were written by you. In the previous version, it was difficult to distinguish where my comments ended and yours began. Feel free to edit the formatting if you don't like it. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 23:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Notecardforfree: Thanks! I didn't indent them enough... Zwerg Nase (talk) 07:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I am forced to fail this. Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]