Wikipedia:Featured article review/Natalee Holloway/archive2


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

The article was kept. Dana boomer (talk) 20:48, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Review commentary

 * Notified: Wehwalt
 * Restarted 18:18, 22 November 2013 (UTC); most previous commentary moved to talk. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:18, 22 November 2013 (UTC)''

For those previously involved with this article, can you briefly describe any efforts made to update/improve sourcing since the FAC? For those who believe the article is not at FA standards: can you succinctly identify which criteria and/or policies are at issue, in your opinion? I might then ask for explanation, but at this point I'm just wanting straight numbers (ie. "IMO criteria 1a, 2c, and WP:BLP are problems"). Nikkimaria (talk) 01:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Regarding sourcing. The FAC was, I believe, in the spring of 2008.  Obviously there were a number of developments after that, when there were, the article was updated.  News coverage was looked at to see what could be gleaned for the article, and there are discussions in the talk page archives.  Not much has really happened in this case since 2010, so there hasn't been much done since.  I have a Yahoo! news alert set for NH and for JvDS and generally keep an eye open for new sources, but things had been pretty quiet the last couple of years. The question of how to deal with the Flores murder and the indictment for fraud in Alabama were obviously matters that had to be carefully dealt with, and I think they were successfully.  At least there was no serious objection to how we did it at the time. Noticeboards, so far as the substance of the article, I am not aware of any.  Basically until Overagainst came along, it was my impression that the Holloway matter was fairly settled, and that the community (leaving aside those who had opined in the past) was generally content with it.  It still gets over a thousand hits a day and there wasn't much talk page traffic.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to draw your attention to this from the archives, when an editor removed the Flores material from the NH article, and AuburnPilot, Kww, and myself argued to keep it in. That and surrounding sections show that we reacted soberly to events and worked, in an open manner, to figure out how best to fit it in the article. This diff, by, is very thoughtful and I think it was his line of thinking we followed in deciding what aspects of the Flores murder to include in the NH article.  It explains why, I think, we are not willing to have, as Overagainst put it, "some form of words" about the Flores murder in the NH article lede. Joran van der Sloot's actions are reprehensible and he is paying the price for them, but he's entitled to BLP protection just like anyone else, and we've held our noses and done what we had to. To emphasize: how the Flores murder was integrated in the article was a matter which evolved out of discussion which did involve community members outside the usual suspects, and I think that's entitled to a lot of deference.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Wehwalt. Noting Sandy's comment a ways up (and now below) about potential journal sourcing for missing white girl/woman syndrome - is that something you had considered? I do see that such sources exist, though I haven't examined their content. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I checked JSTOR. I saw three articles, here that mention Holloway, each more or less in connection with MWWS.  Each is fairly scanty, though I saw a couple of useful items (that Fox chose to run the split screen of Natalee with the dark-skinned Kalpoes but never with light-skinned Joran, for example).  That being said, MWWS may be usefully considered by experts, but there's nothing wrong with lay reports/articles.  After all, the use of the term "Syndrome" doesn't mean this falls under MEDRS.  I've downloaded the articles, and when I have a bit of time, possibly Friday, I will add the useful bits (not much) and possibly consider the others as "further reading" though I don't know how useful those are in that role.  If there are other useful sources that anyone wants used, I will be happy to look at them.  Please make sure I see them, I only saw this question to me by happenstance.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * 1a, prose: the issues I raised above are relatively minor (overuse of however, subsequently), but if new and less newsy sources are consulted, some rewriting will be involved.  There is also a (slight) tendency to overquoting which gives the article a tabloid, newsy feel (less than engaging prose-- it is evident it was written from a chronology of news sources available at the time). This can be seen, for example, in the discussion of "Missing white woman syndrome", which really can be summarized to what multiple journal articles published say.  And, as I mentioned above and below, there are many gaps in the story-- things that just leave the reader saying, 'Huh'?  Like, why was Paulus detained?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * 1b, comprehensive: is a big flaw (perhaps the biggest). Because the article was written when only sources like Fox News and CNN could be relied on, there are numerous gaps.  I've given examples above already-- there is more. The parts that aren't covered create POV, because what could be covered when the case was still open was limited. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * 1c, well researched: as I've already said, it was written at a time where it mostly used news sources. There are journal reports that are not used on "Missing white woman syndrome", and there are multiple books that have been published since, but efforts to get those sources included in the article have not succeeded.  I am not following the talk page at all (other than seeing the edit summaries that pop on my watchlist), so it is unclear to me if this article is going to move to a "Disappearance" article to make way for a bio article on Natalee, or if they are going to include a bio on Natalee in her current non-bio bio article, but the problem has been that there is no "bio" in this bio, yet no place to put a bio article, which adds to the "drunken promiscuity" notion of who Natalee was. If this is to be the Natalee bio, there needs to be a bio, and it is quite possible to cautiously, and with attribution, make some statements about Natalee the person based on her parents' books.   We don’t just leave the bio out of the bio because we don’t want to say anything her parents might have added about her.  If this is not to be the Natalee bio (via an article name change), then her bio can be written, and there is room for making some selective statements about the person from her parents' books, with attribution, in her new bio.  Otherwise, it would be appropriate for Natalee the person to have a paragraph in this bio.  Another  book, written by Lisa Pulitzer (a former writer for the New York Times), is mentioned in the article but not used at all (Portrait of a Monster: Joran van der Sloot, a Murder in Peru, and the Natalee Holloway Mystery).  Because the authors of that book gained access to information not available when this article was written, it can be used to fill in some gaps in the story and minimize POV, while reducing the newsy/tabloid chronology.  Some contributors here may not like the title and may say it contributes bias, but we don't just discount a source because we don't like it:  it can be used selectively, with attribution when needed.  I have already raised two examples: it says that the Kalpoe brothers recanted their story of Natalee's drunkenness, and it tells how Paulus came to be detained.  We cannot just leave out some accounts because we may not like the book title; information from this book can be used carefully, with attribution.  It offers what we specifically seek relative to NOTNEWS-- an analysis of the events long after the fact, incorporating information not available during the investigation. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * 1d, neutral: the text that is missing leads to POV (what we sometimes call "cherry picking" of sources, but I am not saying that is what happened here-- just that it is hard to write a neutral story when an investigation is underway and there isn't full access to information that may come out later-- but the result is the same-- we have Dompig's story, unbalanced).  The text that was a slur on Beth Twitty (information about her dating life and her divorce, with no  reason established for mentioning the mother's divorce while no bio was given for the victim-- the mother's divorce has no bearing on the daughter's death) has, I believe, now all been removed (I haven't checked), so that particular POV/BLP issue is (I believe) finally resolved.  A lot could be done to correct the remaining POV by dealing with issues like those I gave as examples. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * 1e, stable: [Content removed by Nikkimaria (talk) 05:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)] I haven't followed the talk page at all, or the article closely, so I don't know if that is resolved.  I'm assuming that 2 thru 4 are ok, but haven't checked. In summary, I don't think it currently meets any of the 1-level criteria, but neither do I think there is a large chore ahead nor that major changes are needed to get there.  But I didn't bring this FAR, I don't have time to help, and if Overagainst wants this work done, then she or he needs to consult those sources and help in the rewrite.   I am glad the BLP issues with Natalee's mother are (apparently) resolved, and beyond that, I just do not have time for this article, nor is it high among my Wikipriorities.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I have ordered that book from Amazon, fortunately it was very inexpensive, only about one-seventh of its cover price, and new at that! Used was even cheaper, $.01, but book rate takes forever, and I should have a copy Friday. I'll see what it says.  Nikki, I take it there will be no issue of time?  This is the first time we have gotten, all in one place, something hinting at what the detractors feel might be wrong with the article. I do remember Sandy "working on the article" in 2008, rather than characterize what she wanted the day before the article was to TFA, I link here, though it is rather rough reading although we did our best to calm things down so the article would be stable for the TFA, despite the personal comments made.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Feel free to take time as you need. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I have four PR promised and not yet done, several articles in various stages of development, and all my Rodgers & Hammerstein books spread around me gathering dust. So it may be a few days though I will not unduly delay.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:21, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

On hold - this review is being placed on hold for a period of three months. Editors are encouraged to continue working to address points raised and to resolve disputes on the article's talk page or in other venues, as appropriate. After the three-month period the review may be reopened if insufficient progress has been made. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * No longer on hold Nikkimaria (talk) 15:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Within three months, there have been changes. We'll see the current results of the article. Section about Amigoe article may have been addressed, but I'm unsure if it's fully resolved. --George Ho (talk) 23:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I think those dead links should be fixed.--Jarodalien (talk) 02:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * There has been only one comment since Nikki restarted the review, so, AGF, I'm assuming that most people are OK with the current state of the article. However, I'm moving it to the FARC section to give anyone interested a last chance to comment before the review is closed. Dana boomer (talk) 13:15, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I still object to the sleight of hand link in the lede, whereby the page on sensationalism is being linked with the words 'media sensation'. Maybe the coverage amounted to sensationalism, and that's a reasonable contention, which is reflected on in the main body of the article by lavish quotes and at very great length, but it's not FA quality NPOV to come down on one side in the lede that, yes, it was sensationalism. Because although you would never guess from reading this FA, most people don't think the massive media coverage over such a mysterious disappearance is so surprising it requires nefarious media manipulation. The above mention of skin colour (re the Kalpoes being shown as relatively dark skinned) by Wewhalt, reflects his tactic throughout this article, giving massive weight to  a putative sensationalism by US media. There is even quite a bit more weight given with various quoted general complaints about disproportionate coverage of media stories about white girls, a lot more than there should be in an encyclopedic article on NH. I am not saying that point of view should be excluded, but it shouldn't have that amount of weight, because not all that many people agreed it was the main factor in the publicity around this case. Some media didn't like the high ratings their rivals were getting, so they played dirty. They had a dog in the fight.


 * The amount of critical attention on Beth Holloway's statements is just silly. You would think she was a suspect they way her every statement is examined. The use of 'However' is indicative of an inappropriately argumentative tone in the article's account of the Twittys MAKING ALLEGATIONS WHICH SEEM RATHER MORE LIKELY NOW THAN WHEN MOST OF ARTICLE WAS WRITTEN. Contrast how the article treats the accounts and statements of the the actual suspects, and what the ARUBAN POLICE  made of them. It's unreasonable to have an article that reads as if Beth Holloway said things that were completely incorrect about the essential facts, while the police were right about what happened. If anything the opposite seem to have been true.


 * The lede misrepresents what Sloot and DK said when first asked, because when the parents flew to Aruba that day, located Sloot at his house, and asked about Natalee, he denied ever having met Natalee. According to witnesses mentioned in the Vanity Fair article, initially questioned, Sloot (with Deepak present) and Jug Twitty and his freinds listening, had at first told two policemen, who were not officially investigating yet, that he'd never met Natalee. There was no investigation, she had just not turned up for a flight earlier that day. So when first questioned Sloot and DK lied. Then, told they had been seen with her the previous night, they (DK did not demur) altered their story massively and told a huge calculated lie: "the three men said they dropped her off at her hotel and denied knowing what became of Holloway." At the hotel when they couldn't identify a guard they said had helped her "Don't tell them anything," Deepak Kalpoe told Joran. "You don't have to tell them anything." And then that story, which implicated innocent men, altered. Those living persons falsely implicated by Sloot are named in the article "police detained Nick John and Abraham Jones, former security guards[50]". They shouldn't be, especially as it also says "Reports also indicate that the two former guards were known for cruising hotels to pick up women". The lede makes it seem that the Sloot and the Kalpoes' accounts and behaviour were far less suspicious than they actually were from the beginning.


 * Crucially, nothing at all in the lede informs the reader that the Aruba policeman Dompig in charge of the case, went on TV to say he had came to the conclusion that Natalee had probably ODed, and the trio were not killers. That was not a totally unlikely hypothesis, at that time, at least compared to the main alternative: that they were rapists and murderers. But the disappearance section has a awful lot, an excessive amount, about Natalee's drinking which was only relevant in the context of her having ODed, which is not a mainstream theory now. So why is it front and centre there in the disappearance section? It's character assassination IMO, and does not belong in a FA. The drinking should be mentioned below, in the section where it details Dompig's TV laying out the of the OD theory; that is the proper context for the drinking to be mentioned. And why on earth the imputation of sexual promiscuity in this section, how is that relevant or appropriate for anything except character assassination?  Two of Holloway's classmates are named in the disappearance section, they shouldn't be, especially as the article attributes  drug taking sexual promiscuity and alcohol abuse to the party from that school.Overagainst (talk) 12:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I would be interested in knowing precisely what makes you state that the theory that Natalee OD'd (or met her death by some similar misadventure) is no longer "mainstream". Whether you think the Twittys' allegations appear more likely to be true now than they did ten years ago or not, they are still merely allegations: the Twittys provided no evidence to support them, nor do they have a reputation for being credible criminal investigators. That really is the crux of your objection: the article tends to place greater weight on the opinions and actions of professionals than it does on the opinions and actions of amateur sleuths. That's as it should be. It also places considerable emphasis on Beth Holloway simply because she made herself the central figure of the investigation. She's no bystander here: she wrote books, produced movies, and started charitable foundations in an effort to keep this story in people's minds. Every time she did something like that, she gets discussed again.&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The article is not placing weight on the Aruban police's conclusion, because What Dompig said about the OD is BURIED in the article here. But what Dompig said about Natalee's drinking and some creepy innuendo about her sex life is front and center in the disappearance section. There is no point mentioning alcohol (and innuendo) so prominently without the OD theory except for the purpose of character assassination. The drinking and the OD theory should be mentioned together and once only. Beth is not the story here, she has her own article and that is the proper place to discuss and criticise her campaign in relation to Natalee in detail. The weight on refuting beth's statements might have been OK once. But surely you can see why it seems a bit lame and outdated now since Sloot has been convicted of killing Flores. No reasonable person is going to expect remotely the same weight (explicit or implicit) on the facts of the case actually having being the death by accidental OD of a sexually promiscuous girl, and an unfounded accusation by her mother days later that though Natalee had been gang raped and murdered local police weren't investigating properly. Overagainst (talk) 18:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Beth pretty much is front and center in the investigation of Natalee's disappearance. I was surprised to find that someone had split her article away from this one, but there's no reasonable way to discuss this investigation without focusing on the woman that kept it going.&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Encyclopedic focus on the main issues in proportion to their importance to the subject is what is needed, rather than the current exhaustive treatment of the mother ("Every time she did something like that, she gets discussed again"). She didn't tell lies and she wasn't a suspect, so what's the relevance of going on and on about it. NPOV throughout too, there is a big difference between discussing allegations of media sensationalism and stating them as if they are generally accepted as true by using a weaselly link in the lede. The context has charged, and the weight implicitly given to the theories has to change as well. That's just regular article standard. The names of the classmates and the security guards should never have been in the article in the first place.Overagainst (talk) 20:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.