Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Murder of Liu Hong Mei

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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: promoted by Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 00:39, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Murder of Liu Hong Mei

[edit]

Created by Bonkers The Clown (talk). Self nominated at 14:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC).

  • The robbery and body being sewn together are in the (uncited) lead but not in the body of the article. Those facts need cited in some way (as is in the lead, or when repeated in the body). While not required for DYK, a contemporary source would also be nice. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:56, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Also the DYK provided as a QPQ isn't really a review, just adding a symbol that the reviewer forgot. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Done done. :) ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. We are good to go (length, date, and fact all verfiied). --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
In view of the near-identical hook at Template:Did you know nominations/Murder of Darren Ng, shouldn't we find something more original to say about this one? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:53, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
ALT1: ... that in the murder of Liu Hong Mei, the victim's body was deposited into various boxes? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Better, but the wording is a bit awkward: it implies that the victim was the one who caused the depositing to happen. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:47, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Tweaked. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 05:18, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
David has commented further, so I assume the reword is fine by him. Fact verified by inline cite is good to go. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:42, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the tweaked wording is fine with me. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:12, 28 July 2013 (UTC)