Template:Did you know nominations/Kovan double murder
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: rejected by Harrias talk 07:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Kovan double murder
[edit]... that the suspected perpetrator of the Kovan double murder is a policeman?
Created by Yienshawn (talk), Bonkers The Clown (talk). Nominated by Bonkers The Clown (talk) at 04:30, 14 July 2013 (UTC).
ALT1: ... that the suspected perpetrator of the Kovan double murder in Singapore is a Senior Staff Sergeant with 14 years of experience?✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 05:39, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
There seems to be general agreement ([1]) that the proposed hooks are inappropriate for the main page. How about:
- ALT2: ... that a senior staff sergeant of the Singapore Police Force was arrested in connection with the Kovan double murder?
I don't think this raises any BLP issues, and it's an interesting fact regardless of whether or not Iskandar is found guilty. DoctorKubla (talk) 13:29, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'm fine. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:38, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
ALT2 needs to be reviewed; original reviewer didn't mention a few of the usual review parameters, including NPOV and close paraphrasing checks, so a general review probably wouldn't be amiss either. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:32, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- While all the sources present in the article may be local, this case has been reported by numerous non-Singaporean media, including Fox News and Sky. Have you any idea what the importance of this event is? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 14:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Fox and Sky might be considered the same source and are a bit tabloidy but that is at least some evidence of global coverage. Got any more international sources? Gatoclass (talk) 14:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- The Malaysian Insider and Perth Now. I hope that will do. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 14:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Perth Now is also affiliated with Fox, so it could be considered the same outlet. I'd feel more comfortable about this one with one or two additional international sources. Gatoclass (talk) 14:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, I couldn't find any more. But as you can see, local sources are already overhwhelming enough. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 14:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- It's a very big thing in Singapore. Should be sufficient enough? ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 15:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Perth Now is also affiliated with Fox, so it could be considered the same outlet. I'd feel more comfortable about this one with one or two additional international sources. Gatoclass (talk) 14:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- The Malaysian Insider and Perth Now. I hope that will do. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 14:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Fox and Sky might be considered the same source and are a bit tabloidy but that is at least some evidence of global coverage. Got any more international sources? Gatoclass (talk) 14:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Do DYKs even need to be notable? Perhaps I didn't read enough about DYKs. Could someone tell me? Thanks. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 14:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Erm, Arctic, everything on Wikipedia needs to be notable. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 14:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Oh silly me, how could I forget that?!
✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 14:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- However, it is not up to a reviewer at DYK to decide whether something is notable enough or not, it would be up to the community at a deletion discussion. If a reviewer feels an article does not meet the notability, they should not reject the hook, they should open such a discussion. If they article survives, the hook can run, and if not, then clearly the article won't even exist. Harrias talk 15:58, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oh silly me, how could I forget that?!
- Reiterating: ALT2 needs to be reviewed; original reviewer didn't mention a few of the usual review parameters, including NPOV and close paraphrasing checks, so a general review is also in order, and another opinion as to whether enough international sources have been supplied to assure notability (i.e., the WP:EVENT query above). Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 15:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I see some close paraphrasing. Compare "as Murder under Section 302 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224, which can result in a death penalty" and "they have classified the case as Murder, under Section 302 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224, which carries the death penalty." This needs to be scrubbed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Over a week since nominator was informed of latest problems. No action has been taken to address issues, with eh only edit to the article during the last month being a Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser edit preforming routine maintenance. --Allen3 talk 10:58, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
