Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Natalee Holloway


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 03:35, 30 May 2008.

Natalee Holloway

 * previous FAC

Self-nominator along with and. We've worked extensively on this article to meet the GA criteria and have put in a great deal of effort since it's GA promotion to create a featured article; we believe it meets the criteria and look forward to the additional commentary. - auburn pilot   talk  00:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * CommentThe article has come a long way since I last saw it. However, the main image is a fair use image.  I think this may be O.K. since whe is not living, but can someone who knows fair usage check on this.
 * I believe a five paragraph WP:LEAD ia against policy. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey Tony, thanks for the quick comments. As for the lead, I believe we could combine the 5th paragraph with the third, to make it meet the 4 paragraph limit from WP:LEAD. This would leave the criticism/boycott paragraph as the final comment in the lead, and may better match up with the order of the article, without neglecting to summarize some of the key points. Thoughts? -  auburn pilot   talk  00:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There are no policies on leads; only guidelines. User:Elcobbola can be consulted on the image issue.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Sandy. While I'm not a fair use expert, I do believe such a use would be permitted. I've been claiming fair use for Image:NancyLynn.jpg for quite some time, under similar circumstances, and I can't imagine a free alternative becoming available. - auburn pilot   talk  01:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The image provides a valid fair use rationale. Her claim to notability comes from her disappearance and possible death. Given this, it's safe to say that there are probably no freely licensed pictures of the subject available. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 06:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, we could combine the fifth and third paragraphs, and will do so if it is needed for FA, but given that it is a guideline, and given that it reads much stronger and more logically if we use the five relatively short paragraphs as at present, I would suggest leaving the lede as it stands. As for the photo issue, no more likely to have a free use available than for any other random American kid at the age of 18.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There are differences between suggestions, guidelines and policies. I recently started venturing into doing more notable biographies. In recent attempts to get Jack Kemp to FA, Jesse Jackson, Jr. to GA and preparing to attack Jon Corzine, I have begun to look closely at some of the leading political biographies that examine some of the most notable subjects on the project.  Currently Franklin D. Roosevelt has a five paragraph lead and if it came to WP:FAR my voice would be to take it to four.  I have seen several other incredibly notable biographies that have been trimmed to four.  I think you should reevaluate this individual's bio and assess whether the bio is so complex and notable that it is best introduced over five paragraphs.  It may seem well-written, but I just think that even the most notable biographies on the project should be introduced with four para leads.  I am but one voice, but I think anyone who is not a top priority bio should reconsider the need for five paragraphs. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've merged the two paragraphs per discussion.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment I quickly skimmed through this article, and I have to say that this is fantastic. I never thought that it would be possible to bring Natalee Holloway up to FA, though I'm not really familiar with the subject. Anyways, I love the style of writing, and all the ref templates seem great. I don't really have much negative things to say except that it would be best to get a fair-use image, though I guess it is fine the way it is. Most people recognize her by that image anyways. And another thing: current ref 73 and possibly others need language tags on the ref. (French=, Chinese=  , but I'm not entirely sure what Dutch is.)--haha169 (talk) 02:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments, Haha169. I've added the "|language=Dutch" parameter to the ref, which I believe accomplishes what you're talking about, and will check other references for the same. - auburn pilot   talk  02:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. There were four others, and they've been tagged as well. - auburn pilot   talk  02:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

 Comments


 * Comment "with locals Joran van der Sloot" What does "locals" mean? Aruban citizens? Dutch nationals living in Aruba? "Holloway remains officially missing to this day, although according to Aruban authorities she is most likely dead." "Officially" means what? "to this day" is redundant. Budding Journalist 15:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and removed "on this day" as redundant. I believe Van der Sloot and the Kalpoes are described as locals, in order to clarify that they are not tourists, but three men living in Aruba. As for "officially missing" I believe this had to do with the legal standing that she has not been declared dead, and is still listed as missing. - auburn pilot   talk  15:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "to clarify that they are not tourists, but three men living in Aruba." Well yes, I understood that, but that wasn't what I was asking. It's unclear what is meant by "locals": Aruban citizens? Dutch nationals living in Aruba? This should be made clear to readers here. "Officially" according to whom? By the way, the "v" in Van der Sloot is not capitalized on first mention. Is there a reason for this? Budding Journalist 16:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The v should not be capitalized unless simply referring to him by his last name. I don't know much about it, but that's just the proper capitalization of the name (Joran van der Sloot). As for locals, I'll let somebody else address that, as I don't see what's so confusing about the word "local". In my opinion, it wasn't meant to have any deeper meaning. I've removed "officially" until I can find a source. - auburn pilot   talk  16:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "Locals" is not so much confusing, as just unclear. The reader understands that the three live there from "locals", but they don't get an explicit mention of their nationality; locals may mean Aruban citizens. When I read the lead, their Dutch names and the mentioning of Dutch authorities/military becoming involved led me to suspect that they were perhaps Dutch citizens living in Aruba. If this is the case, it should be made explicit, instead of leaving the reader hanging with "locals". Budding Journalist 16:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, sorry for completely misunderstanding what you were asking. Yes, Joran is a Dutch citizen and was living in Aruba, but the Kalpoe brothers are citizens of Suriname, who were simply living and working in Aruba. - auburn pilot   talk  16:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "locals" was meant to sum up the varying status of Joran (a Dutch national entitled to live in Aruba because his parents are employed there) and the Kalpoes (who, judging by the articles after they were first released, are Surinamese nationals entitled to live in Aruba but not entitled to live elsewhere in the Kingdom of the Netherlands). We could change that to "local residents", if it is helpful.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify the residency and citizenship concerns, and cast my vote for "locals". Aruba, being a country within the Kingdom of the Netherlands, issues a Dutch passport, just like the Netherlands and the Netherlands Antilles. Anyone that holds that passport is entitled to live anywhere in the kingdom. Van der Sloot is entitled to live in Aruba by virtue of holding that passport. Suriname is a former member of the Kingdom, and became independent about 30 years ago. However, based on the historic ties, there are a lot of Surinamese residents of Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles. The Kalpoes are permanent residents of Aruba, live as Arubans, work as Arubans, and are subject to Aruban law. The specific nationalities aren't particularly important to the story ... if any one of them had been Aruban or Antillean, I don't think it would have made any significant difference. The reason for the heavy Dutch involvement is the simple fact that they are the wealthiest member of the Kingdom, and the only one with a military.Kww (talk) 20:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And to clarify further, the nationality and very basic biographical information on Van der Sloot and the Kalpoe brothers is included in the first body paragraph of the article; "Disappearance". I believe going into further detail within the introduction would be excessive. - auburn pilot   talk  14:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose: criterion three concerns: Comment:
 * Regarding Image:Natalee Holloway yearbook photo.jpg: the WP:NFCC#1 verbiage of "could be created" (analogous to "could be obtained") may be problematic; I don't think it unreasonable to suspect that the family would be happy to release an image, if only asked. Reasonable people could indeed argue the fair use claim fails.  That being said, however, I haven't seen precedent to establish how strictly NFCC#1 is interpreted in these instances, so this is merely food for thought.
 * Image:Nhposteraruba.jpg, however, is problematic. In its component parts, it is a picture of Natalee (NFCC#3A requires minimal use - the article already has a superior image of her), a picture of her mother (not necessary - NFCC#3A - or a significant contribution to our understanding - NFCC#8) and text (which could be included in the article as prose - NFCC#1).  I don't see value to the image as a whole, either.  What does it tell us about Natalee, search efforts or her disappearance that prose alone could not?
 * Image:NataleeHollowayWall-female.jpg: Freedom of Panorama applies only to buildings in the United States. If the image of Natalee is copyrighted (as is asserted by Image:Natalee Holloway yearbook photo.jpg, the same image), this is a derivative work.
 * Image:Lastnatalee.jpg is purely decorative (fails NFCC#3A and NFCC#8). The boilerplate rationale indicates that either no or inadequate thought was put into this image's inclusion or that its function is redundant.
 * Image:Joranbook.jpg and Image:Nataleebook.jpg: Why are these images necessary (NFCC#3A)? What significant understanding do they impart (NFCC#8)?  What does seeing the book covers tell us about Natalee or the literature regarding her circumstance?  ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 19:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hm. Images and copyright claims aren't my specialty, so I will keep the discussion to the need for the images.  The poster image gives us info on the early reward, a photo of Beth (saves us getting a screencap from one of her TV appearances), and, since it apparently is based on an assumption that Natalee may have run away (something which is alluded to in the Amigoe section), speaks to the uncertainty of the early search.  Joran's book cover of course not only lets us see Joran's book but also Joran himself.  The Natalee at CnC shot I think illustrates the party atmosphere just before her disappearance (which could explain why she got into a car with three men of slight acquaintance), and is not merely decorative but nicely sets off the "Natalee's Behavior" subsection.  Does the article otherwise qualify in your view, elcobbola?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I quite disagree that the main image of Holloway fails WP:NFCC. It is highly unreasonable to expect a free image of a missing/deceased person to be obtained, and I personally would never consider contacting the Holloway family in that regard. I also very much disagree with respect to Image:NataleeHollowayWall-female.jpg being a derivative work. If that were true, images such as Image:Missing persons 2 - by Keith Tyler.jpg and Image:Missing persons - by Keith Tyler.jpg would not be free, but very much are. Image:Lastnatalee.jpg is not purely decorative, and meets all aspects of NFCC:
 * No free equivalent: One time occurrence, as the last known image of a missing person, cannot be reproduced.
 * Respect for commercial opportunities: image is low quality, limiting any potential for commercial reproduction, but I doubt any commercial value exists.
 * Previous publication: Image was shown on 48 Hours, a national news program
 * Content: Last known image of a missing person, encyclopedic.
 * Media-specific policy: meets all requirements.
 * Significance:Last known image of a missing person, illustrates concerns over subject's behavior, shows location where she was last seen
 * Restrictions on location: used in only one article
 * Image description page: source, status, tag, and rationale present.
 * The two book images are used in sections where the books are discussed, and both books are used as references within the article. elcobbola, I would appreciate if you would work with us, rather than outright opposing. We are open to making necessary changes. -  auburn pilot   talk  20:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I side with elcobbola on the book covers: we could make arguments to have them (and in fact, you have), but they are not strong arguments. The real question is Is there anything about the book that the reader would not understand properly without the image?, and the answer to that question is No. We added them because people at the GA review insisted that the article didn't have enough pictures, and I think those two got added on primarily for decorative reasons.Kww (talk) 20:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Of the images mentioned, the book covers are my least concern. I honestly would not object to them being removed. - auburn pilot   talk  20:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment on images
 * The main image - this issue has arisen before over non-free images of recently deceased people. Technically this image fails NFCC#1 - but in reality, common-sense (and IAR) would suggest that asking the family for a free image isn't in our best interests.
 * Image:Nhposteraruba.jpg - agree with Elcobbola above.
 * Image:NataleeHollowayWall-female.jpg - USCOC 14 says "a derivative work must be different enough from the original to be regarded as a new work or must contain a substantial amount of new material" - I don't think the Holloway photo can be said to constitute the main part of the image - the person signing is the central feature - so I don't think this is derivative.
 * Image:Lastnatalee.jpg - debatable - I would say it fails WP:NFCC#1, because it doesn't show anything that couldn't be covered in prose.
 * The two book covers are clearly decorative and don't add anything to the reader's understanding - nothing on the covers is discussed in the text, so these two quite clearly fail WP:NFCC.
 * As a side-issue, Image:F-16am.falcon.j061.rnaf.jpg is a free image, but is completely irrelevant to the subject and should be removed.
 * Black Kite 21:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've removed the images of the book covers, reward poster, and F-16. - auburn pilot   talk  21:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I reluctantly concur. I'd have liked to be able to keep them, but it is not to be.  I should note that the lastnatalee image does speak to what was going on with the kids in Aruba, as summarized by Dompig, and I don't think that we could cover it in prose.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * A sincere question as I honestly don't know. Are we sure of the copyright status of images gathered and released by the Department of Justice as part of these investigations?  Information generated by the US Federal Government is public domain.  In particular it's not clear to me that copyright for Image:Lastnatalee.jpg, having been discovered and disseminated by the FBI from an unknown person's camera, could now be asserted to actually have been generated by the owner of the camera, in the unlikely event that this person attempted to claim copyright.  Perhaps this is a legal gray area, or perhaps it's been settled one way or another, but it's clear that de facto the Department of Justice can supersede copyright in disseminating information related to criminal investigations. --JayHenry (talk) 04:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That is actually something I wondered about previously, as the FBI also released three images of Holloway on their website. Are these images still under the copyright of whoever took them, or are they considered public domain, as they've been released by the FBI? I simply don't know enough about copyright law, but it would be worth finding out. - auburn pilot   talk  04:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure this is something we need to find out within the context of this FAR, but it would be worth finding out for future information. Possibly some research into the Zapruder film would be a start, as I recall there was a court case over that.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: Per the instructions on WP:FAC, please note that we believe we have addressed the concerns regarding the article's images, raised by and confirmed by . We've asked Elcobbola to check back with us twice, once 21:22, 5 May 2008 and again 22:20, 9 May 2008. -  auburn pilot   talk  13:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've stricken addressed concerns. To clarify: I didn't articulate the concern about Image:NataleeHollowayWall-female.jpg well enough; the FoP comment was meant to be separate from the "photo" comment, but I can see how it could have been interpreted as one thought.  The "wall" itself (even without the photo) is sculptural in nature and, thus, subject to copyright in the U.S.  That said, however, proving a derivative work for a 3D object is substantially more difficult than with a 2D object (given the role of angles, shadowing, etc), so, not wanting to open that can of worms, I've stricken.  My concern regarding Image:Lastnatalee.jpg has not been resolved.  ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 14:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for getting back to us. I don't want to speak for others, but I do not share your concern for Image:Lastnatalee.jpg. I believe a case has been made, Black Kite agrees the image is debatable, and I personally do not intend to remove it. The image clearly identifies the behavior many have spoken about and pointed to as a contributing factor to the disappearance. It shows Holloway on the last night anyone saw her, in the bar where she was last seen. I do not believe the subject of the image can be equally illustrated in words. - auburn pilot   talk  14:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks also to Elcobbola for getting back to us. I am inclined to agree with AuburnPilot.  It is a matter over which reasonable people can differ, and I think the image should stay.  I do not know of any way to describe in prose how Natalee looked and what Natalee and others were doing, perhaps only an hour or less before Natalee was last known to have been seen.  For example, her face is red, on discussion boards people have taken that as a sign of intoxication and/or dehydration.  I don't offer that as truth, what I say is that people look at that and it helps form their opinions; the reader can look at that photo and ponder what was going on with her at that moment.  It is valuable.  It should stay.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've stricken the oppose and left the concern as a comment. I certainly agree that it is a matter over which reasonable people can differ.  I also don't disagree that certain aspects would be impossible, or at least overly cumbersome, to replace the image with prose.  My concern is, however, whether the image is truly necessary or a significant contribution.  Indeed, it's "important" in that it's the last known photo, but does that importance transfer to being truly important for us to understand Natalee or the events?  As a still, it doesn't really convey behaviour and meaningfulness of the redness of her face (an aspect that could be covered by prose) is speculative.  Again, I leave it as a comment in case others want to chime in.  Otherwise, my concern isn't great enough to oppose the FAC.  ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 16:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for your comments, Elcobbola. We are always searching for new, free use images, and will continue to do so. Right now, however, there doesn't appear to be a free equivalent that serves the same purpose as Image:Lastnatalee.jpg. Even as a still image, I believe it fairly accurately illustrates the general atmosphere of the trip, and the behavior of the students, in a way that could not be captured by plain text (and thus is important enough to the understanding of the subject). Thanks for striking your oppose, and we'll certainly keep your comments in mind as we move forward. - auburn pilot   talk  17:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

(Might not get through everything now, will continue when I get time...) (more later). dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * In general, newspaper (etc. - see MOS:ITALICS) publishers in references need italics.
 * "Holloway and 124 fellow graduates of Mountain Brook High School,[22] located in an upscale suburb of Birmingham, Alabama,[23] were visiting Aruba on a five-day, unofficial senior class graduation trip.[22] - I really fail to see why the first two cites are necessary...they just make readability bad. Move [23] to the end of the sentence if you like.
 * "17-year-old Joran van der Sloot" - the V in van der Sloot is later capitalised...consistency?
 * "Van der Sloot initially denied knowing who Holloway was, but then Van der Sloot and Deepak Kalpoe" - sounds weird naming him twice...reword
 * Thanks for the comments! Dutch naming practices is to capitalize the Van if not accompanied by a first name, otherwise it is lower case.  We are consistent on that throughout.  I have addressed the other concerns and await your other comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

More stuff, done offline. Yeah, that's about it. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 00:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "John and Jones were released on 13 June" - shouldn't this be in the previous paragraph?
 * "On Friday, 17 June, a fourth person, later identified as disc jockey Steve Gregory Croes, was also arrested." - most of those commas can go...
 * "Van der Sloot called Deepak Kalpoe to tell the latter that Van der Sloot was walking home" - would "that he was walking home" work better?
 * "In the months following his release..." - this paragraph is annoying with every sentence starting the same way ("Van der Sloot stated..." etc.)
 * "because he believed Natalee would soon turn up" - should refer to him by surname
 * "Dutch National Police(nl)" - couldn't you just have the text wlink to the nl article rather than the stuff in brackets?
 * ""De Zaak Natalee Holloway" ("The Case of Natalee Holloway")" - book titles need italics
 * "Twitty's book "Loving Natalee: A Mother's Testament of Hope and Faith"" - same again
 * "The prosecution appealed the Kalpoes' release." - merge this paragraph with the previous? (and perhaps the next?)
 * "on Dutch TV on February 3" - wlink date
 * Check paragraphs 3 and 6 of De Vries footage and "confession" section for numerous sentence starting with the same phrase
 * the Philadelphia Daily News reported" - newspaper needs italics...though I don't really see the point of this paragraph...
 * "Members of Holloway's family have denied drug use by Holloway." - reads awkwardly, probably better to change the second Holloway to "her"
 * "they have told, and, at least one" - rmv second comma and put a "that" there
 * "(which, according to Twitty, may still have been alive)" - you already said this a sentence ago
 * "Senator Jeff Sessions, and Congressman Spencer Bachus, Alabama Senator Richard Shelby" - the and should go after Bachus I think (needs copyediting, this section does)


 * Thanks for the thorough review, DM. I've implemented all of your suggested changes except for the last one. It looks like caught that awkward wording earlier today. . Thanks again, -  auburn pilot   talk  01:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. That's what I get for doing this offline. :) Everything looks good. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Tentative Support The article is exhaustive, diligently sourced, and neutral. Lead and structure are okay.  References 81 and 138 look to be missing some info.  I read through and gave a mild copy edit.  The writing contains a good deal of legalese, but I think given the subject this is unavoidable and should not be held against the article.
 * I'm of two minds about the length however. On the one hand, this received a staggering amount of media coverage, and the length of the article merely reflects this coverage.  On the other hand, the coverage was mostly cable television news programs that aren't held in particularly high regard.  They were desperate for any morsel of the Natalee Holloway story to feed before their ravenous audience and I'm concerned that the article gets lost in minutiae.  I'm of two minds because the audience that fueled the programs would likely be grateful for the article's depth, whereas a person (like myself) who found the coverage repugnant, struggles to retain interest at such length.  I would be interested to hear the nominators thoughts regarding this. --JayHenry (talk) 19:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments, JayHenry, as well as your copy edit. I appreciate your view on this, since you seem to be on the opposite side of me in terms of viewing the subject matter, but I don't believe the length is inordinate. If I remember correctly, the length was briefly discussed at some point in the past, but there was no logical place to break up the article, without creating senselessly small subarticles. According to the readability link at the top of the page, the article contains 40.0 KB of readable prose, which certainly isn't a small article, but I don't believe we could adequately cover the subject in a smaller version. - auburn pilot   talk  19:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Additionally, I've fixed ref 138 and added a second ref to backup reference 81. I don't speak Dutch, so I can't fix the existing reference. will have to check that. -  auburn pilot   talk  20:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm confused about what needs fixed. The Antilliaans Dagblad is my local paper, and hasn't got a website. The reference includes the name of the paper, the date of publication, and the original Dutch text. What more is needed? I'm happy to do it, but need to understand what needs to be done.Kww (talk) 22:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the only thing missing would be the title of the article, if you can still find it. - auburn pilot   talk  22:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, cleaned the windows with that newspaper months ago. If your backup is good enough, maybe we can just go with that.Kww (talk) 22:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It might not be a bad idea to keep both, since one has the direct text of the quote, and the second (the one I just added) confirms the context of the quote. - auburn pilot   talk  23:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Please try to locate the title via a library or some other means, so future readers will be able to find the article. Without a title, searching for it in the future will be somewhat difficult.  Considering the amount of English-language coverage, why are Dutch sources used? Also, pls use the correct Category:Language icons.  Study B with Shepard Smith. ??  It's Studio B (TV series); please make a careful review of citations and wikilinking.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Now I'm confused, because I let people tell me that there was a problem. The citation reads ::::::*Antilliaans Dagblad May 15, 2007 pg. 12, "Onderzook bij de broers Kalpoe", original Dutch text is "een beter beeld krijgen van de plaats waar, of de omstandigheden waaronder, een delict zou zijn begaan, of waar sporen van betrokkenheid bij een delict kunnen worden vastgesteld" (Dutch).
 * I see you solved the confusion by correctly templating it. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * So, it was published by the Antillians Dagblad on May 15, 2007. The article was titled "Onderzook bij de broers Kalpoe", and the original text was "een beter beeld krijgen van de plaats waar, of de omstandigheden waaronder, een delict zou zijn begaan, of waar sporen van betrokkenheid bij een delict kunnen worden vastgesteld". So, what is the problem?
 * As for "why do we use Dutch sources?", two reasons: First, because the American sources tend to be quite sloppy on the legal terminology. They refer to crimes and things by American titles. Since every legal system in the Kingdom is in Dutch, English sources wind up appearing to disagree on what is happening when they actually agree: it's just their translators disagree. Second, some of the details of the investigation were never reported in reliable English sources. Once the initial furor wore off, there were events that got picked up in English speaking blogs and similar sites, but never deemed important enough by major English-speaking news outlets to discuss. Actually, there's a third reason : I'd have to fly to Miami to get an English newspaper, and I can pick up Dutch ones at the grocery store. Kww (talk) 23:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've just switched the Antillians Dagblad reference to a cite news template. I'm not sure how JayHenry and I both overlooked the title, as all the necessary information was already provided. As for the language icons, where are we using an incorrect one? - auburn pilot   talk  00:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks good now, the formatting was causing confusion. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

(←) Ah, my apologies. I didn't realize that was the title because of its placement in the citation, and thought it was a quote supporting the material. I'm content to support. It's long for my tastes, but well within guidelines, so I can't oppose for that (and I know it'd be like asking you to chop off your arm after you've worked so much on it). --JayHenry (talk) 18:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks to everyone. I'm currently travelling so my access is limited.  I know that there are a number of things going on on the article talk page, which I just commented on, and also SandyGeorgia made some comments as edit summaries.  Can I suggest that if there are unresolved concerns (including the one I just proposed a compromise to over on the article talk page), that we bring everything here?--Wehwalt (talk) 09:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I change the article per discussion on this and the article talk page, mostly to integrate the material from the behavior section into the article. I hope people are pleased with it.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Concerns I reviewed only the "Disappearance" section, and the issues I found are rather troubling.
 * "The students were accompanied by seven "chaperones", whose exact function is unclear." Why is chaperones in quotations? If it's according to some source, then the source should be given.
 * "According to Jodi Bearman, who organized the trip (and whom "Vanity Fair" would identify as one of the seven chaperones), "The chaperones were not supposed to keep up with their every move."" Who is this Bearman? A parent? Vanity Fair is a publication and should be italicized. Why the conditional "would"? Most importantly though, the given source does not match this statement. The quote is nowhere to be found, and neither is any mention of Jodi Bearman. Also, where is the source for the Vanity Fair parenthetical?
 * "There is little question but that the students had a good time, up until the final night." This is an odd sentence with the "but".
 * The Disappearance section does not establish the context of the trip. When did the students arrive? Where did they stay? The quote from the Commissioner just seems out of the blue.
 * "Two of Holloway's classmates agreed that the students' drinking was "kind of excessive"." Putting this in quotation marks implies that the classmates said this exact quotation, but this is certainly not the case!
 * "Holloway was last seen by her classmates leaving the vicinity of Carlos’n Charlie’s,[22]" Certainly not what the [22] source says: "The night she disappeared, Holloway went to a beach concert and then ate and danced at Carlos' n Charlie's bar and restaurant." Nothing about her classmates. Nothing about leaving the "vicinity". Budding Journalist 21:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe I have now addressed your concerns. I removed the quotes from around "chaperones" and added a reference and quote from another chaperone to clarify the section and their role (Jodi organized the trip and chaperoned, Plummer is a Mountain Brook teacher and chaperone). I removed the parenthetical mention of Vanity Fair and made reworded the sentence, adding Vanity Fair as the reference. "There is little question..." sentence removed all together. I added the date they arrived in Aruba, where they stayed, and relocated the Dompig quote later in the article, where we mention his allegation of drug use (more logical, in my opinion). Removed quotes from "kind of excessive", specified who the students were, and reworded. Holloway was last seen outside of Carlos'n Charlies so I've added a source and removed the word "vicinity" (now simply states "leaving Carlos'...". Thanks for your comments. - auburn pilot   talk  22:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The only small caveat I have is that I've restored the quotes, but expanded it, so now it is the students "agreed the drinking was kind of excessive". It is in the article. While likely the kids said it, or agreed to it, it no longer creates the confusion that BuddingJournalist spoke out against above.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Incidently, the reason we had "vicinity" in there is that she was seen in the car about a block away by classmates, who may have urged her to get out of the car and gotten the response from her "Woo hoo Aruba!" But perhaps we were being too picky.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm wondering whether this article is misnamed. Disappearance of Natalee Hollaway seems the appropriate target as the article deals solely with the event and investigation and she is only notable because of it. See Disappearance of Madeleine McCann or Disappearance of Ben Needham. We're no doubt inconsistent on this and I'm wondering what others feel. Marskell (talk) 16:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The topic has come up a few times (and there have been a few bold renamings). Consensus among the three most frequent contributors has always been that the vast majority of links and searches are to Natalee Holloway, so that's what the article should be named. The policies are against having a separate biographical article: if there was a Disappearance of Natalee Holloway article, there should not be a separate Natalee Holloway article that tells you where she went to grade school, her favorite hobbies, and what she named her cat, because she isn't notable in and of herself. The policies do not dictate the title, a decision largely based on this article's name.Kww (talk) 16:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Kww. I've always used Joseph Force Crater as my example, but if you look in the category for disappeared people, most are under their own names.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree as well. Like JonBenét Ramsey, Natalee Holloway is the most likely search term, and most links to the article appear to reference Holloway by name. - auburn pilot   talk  18:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I actually argued similarly on McCann and was talked out of it. It would be nice if they were consistent.
 * Given that you're treating this as we do bios, I think an Early life and family section is necessary. If you think it breaks up the flow having it after the lead then it can be placed as a last section. Marskell (talk) 19:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What is there really to say in what would be an even longer article? She really didn't do anything notable until she vanished.  She went to school, etc.  She was on the dance team.  I hesitate to have such unnotable matters in the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Response below. Marskell (talk) 20:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Support. The article is now comprehensive, and the prose just meets FA standards, in my opinion. Great job on responding to comments. Karanacs (talk) 16:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC) Comment. I noticed a few instances where a quotation is not directly followed by a citation. While I assume the citation at the end of the paragraph covers the quote as well, per the MOS there should be a cite immediately after the quoted sentence. If you'll fix that I'll support. Karanacs (talk) 14:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC) Oppose. While the article certainly appears comprehensive, I don't think the prose is quite up to FA quality. There are repetitive sentence beginnings, redundant text, a mix of overly unwieldy sentences and short choppy sentences and other issues. I've provided a few examples here. I think a really good copyedit but someone who is uninvolved in the text would help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karanacs (talk • contribs) 19:30, May 20, 2008
 * I think I caught them all. Thanks for getting back to us so quickly. - auburn pilot   talk  16:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * How is the chaperone function unclear? It is detailed in the next two sentences.
 * "A third chaperone, Paul Lilly" - this wording really makes it sound like these were the only 3 chaperones, but we know there were 7
 * If this is a bio of Holloway, why is there nothing on her life before the disappearance? I'd recommend either a small section on her family life or rename the article to Disappearance of Natalee Holloway (with a redirect from this title)
 * Might need to add a brief descriptor of Carlos and Charlies for those who are unfamiliar with the chain (maybe wikilink to it also)
 * The prose does not seem to flow very well. For example, in the first paragraph of Early investigation section:
 * the interjection "(the two would divorce in April 2007), " seems out of place here.
 * "Within four hours of landing in Aruba, the Twittys and others went to the Aruban police with Van der Sloot's name and address, as the person last known to have been seen with their daughter" - this makes it sound like the TWittys visited the police, and the "others" visited at a different time. There is alos not an agreement between "name and address" and "person".
 * "Accompanied by two Aruban policemen, various other Arubans, as well as by the friends they brought on the plane and other Americans," - this seems unnecessarily detailed and wordy. It almost seems to read that random other Arubans and Americans decided to join the procession.
 * "he explained what he said happened, with which Deepak Kalpoe, who was present, agreed." - very awkward construction
 * A lot of the sentences seem short and choppy, which contributes to the prose issues.
 * This seems to have no relevance in this article ", an attorney who had been part of the judge in training program, but who had left it prior to the Holloway incident, "
 * Why is "the gardener" in quotes? (and "the jogger")
 * "While the searches were carried out, neither witness was deemed credible by authorities, and the searches were fruitless" - this makes it sound like the witnesses were not deemed uncredible (incredible?) until the searches had begun - is that the case?  This is also needlessly verbose.
 * "On April 11, 2006, Dave Holloway published his book, co-authored with two writers" - at this point in the article, we don't know who Dave Holloway was.
 * There is an error in the refs - "Cite error: Invalid tag; no text was provided for refs named FNCThree "
 * Thanks for the comments, and I hope you will be willing to withdraw the oppose if we address these issues. I only have time to deal with a couple of them right now, but Kww and AuburnPilot will pitch in.  I should note that they were called the gardener and jogger because that's how the news media usually referred to them.  We never got a name for the jogger, the gardener was named "Carlos" or "Cumpa" but the media rarely called him that.  See the Vanity Fair article if you want a fuller explanation.  The jogger, for instance was a convicted criminal.  Good catch on the Dave Holloway thing, that's a hangover from a former sentence which was taken out a while back.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * My comments are almost totally prose-related; once the article has gotten a solid copyedit I'd be happy to change my !vote. Karanacs (talk) 19:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've asked somebody from WP:LCE to give a hand, so hopefully we'll get that independent copy edit soon. In the mean time, I'll try to directly address the concerns noted above. - auburn pilot   talk  20:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Weak oppose given the absence of an Early life and family section. Siblings? POB? Details on parents? I'm not especially bothered by the title issue; but the title does indicate a bio and the page needs a brief sketch of her life and family.

Also, I don't like how clauses take multiple refs: "On June 5, Aruban police detained Antonius "Mickey" John and Abraham Jones, former security guards[38] for the nearby Allegro Hotel,[6] which was then closed for renovation,[39] on suspicion of murder and kidnapping.[40]" Is there no way sentences like this can be reduced to one or two refs? It's visually distracting. Marskell (talk) 20:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I would seriously object to the introduction of an Early life or family section. This is not a biography, regardless of the title, and both sections would be out of place. As for references, I don't think removing them just for aesthetics is a good idea. This is a highly contentious subject and the more sources the better. - auburn pilot   talk  20:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Why would you object to background information on the subject of the article? If it's well and truly not a bio then rename it. Marskell (talk) 20:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The name of the article doesn't make it a biography. As we've stated above, there are numerous cases where articles reside at the name of the subject who was murdered, kidnapped, shot... It's the most likely search term, and most articles refer to Holloway by name, as opposed to "the disappearance of Natalee Holloway" or something similar. To say it must have an early life section because of the title isn't true. - auburn pilot   talk  20:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that the name of the article does in fact imply that this is a biography. In this case, since her family was so involved with the investigation, I believe that a family section is warranted.  If it isn't included, then the title should be changed to "Disappearance of" and the Natalee Holloway title should redirect to it. Karanacs (talk) 20:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And, in general, why object to background information on the main subject of the article? Regardless of the title, it is a comprehensiveness concern (the title merely reinforces it). Even with "Disappearance of..." I'd still like to know a little more about Natalee Holloway than the article provides at present. Marskell (talk) 20:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't object to some basic information being added to the article where it's relevant, but I don't see the need for two sections (Early life and Family). There are two other nominators, and I'm sure they have an opinion too. - auburn pilot   talk  20:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't want to come off as combative, but that's simply not true. If you look through categories like Category:Disappeared people or Category:Murdered American children, the majority of articles reside at the name of the person who is the subject of whatever action the article discusses (whether it be a murder, kidnapping, or disappearance). - auburn pilot   talk  20:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * But those articles aren't FAs, Auburnpilot. This is a legitimate comprehensiveness (1b) concern. Leave the title, fine, but at least briefly fill-in the details that people would expect on a bio with a short, dedicated section. Here's how they do it on McCann. Note I am not asking for two sections, just one: Early life and family. Or you could shorten it to, simply, Life. Marskell (talk) 20:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If we are to do it, it should be only a couple of paragraphs containing only undisputed basic vital data.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I would propose the following language, to be added to the article in the "Disappearance" section, to be retitled "Background and Disappearance":
 * Natalee Holloway was born October 21, 1986 in Clinton, Mississippi, to Dave Holloway and Elizabeth Ann (Beth) Holloway (nee Reynolds). After her parents divorced, she and her younger brother Matt resided with her mother, who subsequently remarried George "Jug" Twitty, a prominent Alabama businessman.  At the time of the disappearance, Dave Holloway was an insurance broker in Meridian, Mississippi, while Beth Twitty was employed by the Mountain Brook school district.  In April 2007, the Holloways would divorce."

Assume all that would be properly sourced and wikified, which I think it would be, it is all fairly well known info. Frankly, that should be enough on background. This is a long article already and I'd like to keep it to a minimum.--

Karanacs, I think this would address the remaining specific concerns you expressed (we would delete the existing language about the divorce). We've taken care of all the others, I think.

Marskell, you mentioned the concern about the security guards sentence. That was not put together that way by happenstance. I had to find those pieces of info in different articles, that they were no longer security guards, that the Allegro was closed, etc. I did not find one source that had the whole thing in it, or I would have simplified it. It isn't us, it is the sources. I hope you will, once we settle the issue of the background, withdraw your oppose. Wehwalt (talk) 08:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy with the addition of this new paragraph. Karanacs (talk) 13:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd be fine with that as well. - auburn pilot   talk  13:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've wikilinked, referenced, and added the paragraph to the article, along with an image of MBHS.(diff) - auburn pilot   talk  15:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the para is good; I wasn't asking for much more than that. It does provide some basic info that wasn't there previously.
 * If my example sentence literally can't be constructed without four sources, so be it. I'll strike the oppose but would like to read again for POV and prose. Marskell (talk) 21:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Marskell. I emailed and he has agreed to give us a thorough copy edit, as Karanacs suggested. Hopefully that will further address any prose concerns. -  auburn pilot   talk  21:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose—1a. Here are random samples of problems.
 * Where on earth is Aruba? Do we have to meander to the linked article to find out?
 * "outside of"—what does "of" add?
 * "Van der Sloot was arrested twice on suspicion of involvement in her disappearance, and the Kalpoes were each arrested three times, but the three were released due to lack of evidence." Confusing "three"; remove "the three"? And weren't they released three times? Which time was it for lack of evidence?
 * " missing white woman syndrome"—again, I don't want to have to go to the linked article to find out what it is, so a short explanatory phrase after this item is in order (or remove it from the lead).
 * "upscale suburb"—upscale??
 * Do you really think our readers don't know what "suburb" means? Please delink all of the useless links.
 * stated "The chaperones were not supposed to keep up with their every move."—Dot after the final quote-marks (see MOS).
 * "Searches for Holloway, or for her body, began soon afterwards."—Is the nested phrase really necessary?
 * "but it is unclear whether or not the security cameras at the hotel were working"—Spot the redundant couple of words.

Plus lots more. TONY  (talk)  04:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey Tony, thanks for your comments. I hope you will work with us to get this article passed, and will either now or after the member of the League of Copyeditors that AuburnPilot has gotten to do a copyedit of this article, revisit this, and inform us of your other concerns, and reconsider your vote.

I have taken care of the specific concerns you mentioned as follows:
 * Aruba: We had language stating what and where Aruba was, but it was deleted as (it was perceived) unnecessary during, I believe, the good article review.  I've restored it.
 * "outside of": Deleted the "of"
 * The releases: I've rephrased it so it is clear that each time, they were released for lack of evidence.  We had it that way before, actually, but it was changed for one reason or another.
 * "upscale": changed to "wealthy".  Suburb delinked.
 * Chaperones sentence: Period moved.
 * "or for her body". Deleted.
 * "security cameras". "or not" deleted.

Again, I hope you will work with us to get this article passed by showing us the other concerns your eagle eye has spotted, and review either before or after the copyedit. Thanks!--Wehwalt (talk) 09:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I need to spend time working through this cascade after a month's absence from FAC. Please recruit a new collaborator to polish the language. TONY   (talk)  16:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As I stated, we have a member of the League of Copyeditors coming in. Hopefully that will do the trick.  I hope you'll look back on us to review and reconsider in due course.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * would not be able to copyedit the article for another week, ignored my request,  is too busy, and my post at WikiProject League of Copyeditors‎  has thus far gone unnoticed. Any thought from the FA regulars on how to get an article copyedited when nobody is willing to do it? -  auburn pilot   talk  21:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. Why the unfree picture?  It is not fair use by a long stretch.  &#10154; Hi DrNick ! 23:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This was discussed above, and as an image of a missing, and likely dead person, it is a perfect claim of fair use. It would be exceedingly unreasonable to expect a free use image to become available. Thanks, - auburn pilot   talk  00:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Just because a free image is unavailable does not mean that we can go all willy-nilly with fair use. This is a portrait photograph taken by a professional photographer, exactly the kind of people notorious for pursuing infrindgement claims.  This image is not needed for an encylopedic understanding of the subject; it is decorative.  &#10154; Hi DrNick ! 00:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I, and others, disagree. Think of it this way: logos of companies, organizations, and sports teams, album covers, book covers, and the like are all seen as adequate fair use within articles which discuss them (rather than direct commentary on the image itself). In this case, not only does the image illustrate the subject, but the there is actual commentary on the image's subject. Holloway's appearance is a major part in the understanding of the missing person case, and has been the subject of much discussion (accusations of missing white woman syndrome). This image is not decorative, and I truly believe it's removal would be detrimental to the understand of Holloway and the case. - auburn pilot   talk  00:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And unrelated, I saw you did a bit of copyediting on the lead. If you'd be willing to copyedit the article as a whole, we'd greatly appreciate it. As you can see from my comment directly above your first comment, we've been having a hell of a time finding somebody to copyedit this article. - auburn pilot   talk  00:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Support, the prose has shaped up nicely. I am satisfied. -- Laser brain   (talk)  16:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC) Oppose, 1a (prose) and 2a (lead) pending some treatment of the narrative.  The prose is pretty good but it needs a fresh pair of eyes. The narrative left out information in a few places; I've tried to point them out below. There are puzzlers in the lead that don't have corresponding text in the body.  The lead should summarize the article and it doesn't seem to do that; given the length of the article, the lead should be fleshed out.
 * "The disappearance became a media sensation in the United States, Aruba, and the Netherlands." Source given does not back up the statement - it doesn't talk about the media in Aruba and the Netherlands.  I can't find anything else about this in the body.
 * Can you find a more reliable news source than Court TV for the statement in the lead that she is most likely dead? Again, where is this in the body?  Chronologically, it should fall at the end of Rearrests and re-releases but there is nothing there about the Aruban authorities considering her dead.
 * Both times you say she didn't show up for her return flight, it is rather jarring. I think it's because we're hit with it suddenly.. when was it scheduled, etc?
 * We're told that the Twittys arrived and gave the police Van der Sloot's name, but how did they have that information?
 * "Hundreds of volunteers from Aruba and the United States joined the search." The lead tells us "thousands" and then you say it again right after this sentence.
 * "Beth Twitty was provided with free housing..." What about Jug?
 * "On July 4, the Netherlands deployed three F-16 aircraft equipped with infrared sensors to aid in the search, also without initial result." The "also" implies we were just told about a search method that yielded no result.. but we weren't.
 * Little grammatical glitches should be ironed out by an experienced copy-editor, such as "... though searches still continue." (extra word) -- Laser brain  (talk)  04:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your thoughts. We avoided how Beth found about JvdS because she has told multiple stories about this.  Maid at hotel, stopped and asked some kids, it didnt seem worth going into it.
 * What is wrong with Court TV?
 * We dont know where Jug stayed. Presumably with Beth, but that is just an assumption.  The focus has been on Beth.
 * I have made other changes requested--Wehwalt (talk) 08:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you should say in the article that Beth told multiple stories. That was a moment in the article that I thought, "How did she know that?" and we can expect other readers to react that way.  On the topic of Court TV: I don't wish to mount a source assault, but my understanding is that Court TV employs mostly "anchors" rather than journalists and, to me, that weakens it as a source.  For statements that others may challenge, I would prefer a vetted news source such as a journal or newspaper. -- Laser brain   (talk)  14:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added a second source (from MSNBC) for the statement that Aruban authorities believe she is most likely dead, and a brief sentence mentioning who gave Van der Sloot's name to Beth Twitty. -  auburn pilot   talk  15:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have played with the language a bit.
 * Look, I would like to thank everyone for their concerns. I hope that we have answered everyone`s concerns.  I remain committed to this nomination.  I hope everyone is generally satisfied with the article, and that we can move ahead as a FA.  I see that we are the longest-standing open FAR, and it will no doubt close soon.  I think that this is an article to be proud of.  This is a controversial topic.  People have strong views on Holloway.  AuburnPilot, Kww, and myself, who have done the most work on the article, have been vigilent in keeping POV out of it.  This is not easy.  It would be very easy to write this article as an attack on Joran, or on Beth, or on the Aruban police, or on the media.  We have, however, maintained a neutral article, and if you go and read the talk page archives, you will see how difficult this has been at times.  From what I gather, we three nominators do not agree as to what happened to Holloway, and we have very different views on the case.  Yet we have come together and made a well written, neutral, comprehensive article.  I have been personally attacked on a forum for it, even my picture posted.  It does not matter.  This is an example of Wikipedia at its best.  I ask that it be passed as an FA.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well said. I'll echo the above, in that I sincerely appreciate all the comments we've received so far, but I really hope we can wrap this up soon; I had no idea the process would last so long (25 days thus far). Reading back through the discussion, I don't see any concerns that have been left un-addressed, and Tony appears to be the only one who has not checked back with us (I've asked him to do so). -  auburn pilot   talk  03:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.