Template:Did you know nominations/Kidnapping in the United States


 * The following 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 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:10, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Referencing and other aspects still ridiculously below standards; other issues not dealt with.

Kidnapping in the United States

 * ... that kidnapping in the United States remains one of the most common crimes in the country; in 2010, the US Department of Justice reported 200,000 cases of parental kidnapping?

Created by OccultZone (talk). Self nominated at 18:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC).


 * "most common" is mentioned in the lede of the article but it is unreferenced. I'm intrigued to see how this crime compares with shop lifting or speeding. Victuallers (talk) 14:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * , it is easy to find sources for that, I've just added one.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 20:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


 * :-) OK - you found a list of common crimes and kidnapping is in the list. But can you find a ref to show that it is "most common" .... bit trickier I think. Can I suggest you rephrase your lede? Victuallers (talk) 20:34, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * , I will try.
 * ALT1:... that in 1976, the statistics of parental kidnapping in the USA stood at 60,000, and by 1974, it was between 459,000 and 751,000?  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 15:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:45, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg This article has less than 1000 characters of prose at this time, and a big, gaping hole where legislation regarding kidnapping should be. Prevalence completely ignores the kidnapping of adults (read the kidnapping article if you don't realize why this is an issue). Notable cases is fluffy (what makes a case notable? several of the individuals kidnapped don't have articles, so they are not notable by Wikipedia's definition), mostly uncited, and completely ignores the kidnapping of adults. This article doesn't even have how different states define kidnapping, nor any federal definition. There's just too much work required. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:20, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I need some time myself, be back here soon.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 16:37, 17 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Now, the article exceeds 1500 bytes. Kidnapping of people(younger than 18) has been highlighted, a new section called "Law" has been added. Additional references have been added to the notable cases.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 06:09, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The article is so poorly written that it would be rather humiliating to highlight it on the main page. The "law" section especially; I don't mind the occasional typo, but I do prefer sentences with a semblance of internal logic and structure. A selection of often contradictory figures and unclear newspaper reports (e.g. has Phoenix the highest number absolutely or relatively?) without checking them against other sources or follow-up sources may help you reach the 1,500 character mark, but doesn't make a good article. Take e.g. the Phoenix "fact" you included; shouldn't you have found this as well? "Other large cities could tally thousands of kidnappings if counted this way." Should we really be reporting old news if the same news organisation has already debunked it since? Fram (talk) 06:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * , Re-worded the Law section, removed the Phoenix's report, added a better report, check?  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 07:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I haven't checked the article again, but I in general have very little interest in promoting articles that may have been nominated inside the five-day margin, but were far below the threhold at the time (and by experienced editors, a newbie needs more clemency). DYK is not a substitute for article review. Fram (talk) 07:24, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Looking at the article again: please take your time to correct things, instead of rushing it. The article needs a complete, thorough rewrite, not some superficial quick cleaning. Fram (talk) 07:31, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem, I am frequently working on it.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 07:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)