Wikipedia:Peer review/Koh Tao murders/archive1

Koh Tao murders

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion is closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get it to FAC. I suspect the prose needs improvement to reach FA-standard, which is not quite my strong suit. Would appreciate any help & feedback! ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:06, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from 👨x🐱

Ooooo. An article about a muuuuddah. That's gonna be good. Couple of comments from a quick scan.

Does the small paragraph in "People involved" really need its own subsection? Can it be merged into "Bakground"
- I suppose, I think what I liked about the separate sub-heading was it splits up the background between 'context of the island, its tourist nature and history of murders' vs 'background of the victims'. Wonder if removing the heading would remove that structure? If not, removal is fine with me.
  - Just make the paragraph about the people separate, you don't need the sub-heading. 👨x🐱 (talk) 16:10, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since the "Asian Anthropology" is cited constantly and lasts several pages, there needs to be specific page numbers of that article indicated each time its cited for verifability. I would use either Template:Rp or Template:Sfn. If you are to use Sfn, put the full citation in a "Bibliography" section and insert ref= into the cite template, with Template:SfnRef to be inserted to link it to Sfn footnotes.
- I see. Any suggestions on which method is better? If I go the Sfn route, do I need to refactor any of the other citations (like to news articles)?
  - Recently-promoted FAs like Die Hard and Ghostbusters II use regular footnote cites for single-page web sources, and Sfn footnotes for multiple-paged sources. 👨x🐱 (talk) 16:10, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Gotcha. I've edited the article to do that. Did I do it right?

👨x🐱 (talk) 13:15, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aven13

Good article so far. here are some suggestions:

A picture in the heading would really help. Maybe put the picture of Sairee beach in the heading a put a geographic map of the island in the "background" section. That's just my suggestion, though.
- Thanks! Done
Put a bit more info in the first paragraph, and the lead in general. Maybe more about who the tourists were, more about the murder, etc. Right now, it's pretty bare-bones.
- Good point. Will try to draft up some additions.
The exact same sentence is used in the intro and the final paragraph.
You might want to combine "effects on tourism" into the "reaction" section, but it's at your discretion.
- Varied the sentence slightly. Though I feel like it may be worth having the effects on tourism section separate. Sources viewed one reason for the rush as being concerns due to affecting tourism, and given the nature of the island and its economy I think analysis/events on that front is worth a section in itself, separate from thoughts people had on the event.

Good article. I may have more later. Aven13 12:28, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Valereee

So this is a noob question...are the citations to Cohen and to Burney & Hamlin considered to be the same style as the rest of the citations, per WP:CITESTYLE? —valereee (talk) 16:48, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly not sure (first I've learned of this cite format), but I wondered this too. I don't know if the other cites can be put in this format since they aren't really paged. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:29, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Lee Vilenski

Some lede comments:

Our article is at Ko Tao, any reasons why we are different? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:45, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- None of the sources seemed to refer to this as Ko Tao murders. I'm not sure Ko Tao is the COMMONNAME for the island itself, but even if so, I thought that in WP:CRITERIA the COMMONNAME (for the event) would override CONSISTENCY (with the island's title).
  - Not the article title, but we do link Koh Tao in the lede and body. I think it's worth investigating if the title of that article should be changed, as currently it's a bit odd. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:35, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I feel the lede doesn't need the bolding, or at least doesn't need to start like it does. Try On 15 September 2014 when two British tourists, Hannah Witheridge and David Miller, were found dead on a beach on the island of Koh Tao, Thailand, later named the Koh Tao murders by the media. or similar. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:45, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Makes sense, Done
by the international media - no need for "the". Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:45, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Done
two illegal Burmese migrant workers - WP:SEAOFBLUE Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:45, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm. Good point, although which should be unlinked? I felt that migrant workers were worth linking, as well as Burmese (especially given the name change from Myanmar), and "illegal immigration" seems relevant enough to link too. I can't really decide which links to scrap.
  - We don't generally link to major landmasses, so Burmese can be scrapped. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:35, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done
The suspects were initially denied access to legal counsel and alleged that police used torture and threats to secure a confession - this doesn't actually specify whether they got a confession. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:45, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- They did; I'll see if I can reword this portion more clearly.
  - That would be better. Currently it sounds like they did get one Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:35, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done
link forensic evidence. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:45, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Done
Lede probably could do with a few more links Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:45, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Done
The court was criticised for fast-tracking the 18-day trial and not allowing the defence adequate time to prepare.^{[according to whom?]} Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:45, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
. In December 2015 the men were convicted of the murder and sentenced to death. Attempts to appeal the sentence failed, but a royal decree was issued in 2020 commuting the death sentences to life imprisonment. - say "workers", we didn't actually specific these people were men, and we haven't named them. Also might be worth mentioning where the royal decree came from. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:45, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Done
Link is just at decree. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:45, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't it best to link to the redirect in case the article gets expanded?
The government of Thailand was concerned the murders might affect tourism to the island. Tourist arrivals to the island dropped in the months following the murders, but the event did not materially affect tourism to the island over the following years. - tourism said a lot here. Try: The government of Thailand was concerned the murders might affect tourism to the island, with arrivals dropping in the months following the murders. However, the event did not materially affect tourism to the island over the following years. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:45, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! I tried to play around with that sentence quite a few times but couldn't figure out the right formulation.

Thanks for the comments Lee! Some replies above. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:29, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: I think those are addressed, mostly. The title is still outstanding (I don't think we can change it to Ko Tao in the article without it being confusing, especially as no sources use that construction. I haven't checked whether the place itself's COMMONNAME is Koh Tao yet.), and I need to check re who the critics were (source I used is unclear). One question re decree, above. Any other suggestions? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:16, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720

Hi ProcrastinatingReader, it has been over a month since the last comment in this PR, which normally means we close it. Are you still interested in receiving comments? Z1720 (talk) 15:40, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: It is something I plan to still work on and address the outstanding comments above. No objection to delisting it from the PR page though. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:01, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ProcrastinatingReader: Happy to keep this open if comments are still being addressed. Just wanted to make sure it wasn't abandoned. Z1720 (talk) 14:20, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: I think this has mostly died down and can be closed. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:39, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ProcrastinatingReader: Instructions on how to close PRs can be found at WP:PRG; if you have any questions on closing PRs, please ping me. As a closing thought: I highly suggest that you review articles at WP:FAC to help your understanding of the process. Reviewers do not have to declare support/oppose in reviews and new reviewers are especially helpful in checking articles for jargon, technical terms and the ability for the average reader to understand the article's prose. Reviewing FACs will also build goodwill with other editors, who are more likely to review articles nominated by editors who also review FACs. It takes at least five reviewers to pass a nomination, so I suggest reviewing at least that many articles for every article you want to nominate. Z1720 (talk) 16:52, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]