Talk:Disappearance of Samantha Murphy

WikiProject banners

I have added WikiProject Biography because this article is about an individual living person who is notable for one event. Also, I have removed the WikiProject banners for WikiProject Law and WikiProject Law Enforcement on the grounds of over-bannering and project scope. The disappearance of a person is outside the scope of WikiProject Law as it is not "law related" as far as I am aware, as there are no Australian laws regulating how a person can or cannot go missing. This article is also outside the scope of WikiProject Law Enforcement, which specifically excludes crime and similar social issues that police might investigate. If you disagree, please discuss or explain how and why these two WikiProjects might be relevant to this article. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 20:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@Cameron Dewe I don't see an issue with what you have done here. It's a gray area. Technically per NCRIME "The disappearance of a person would fall under this guideline if law enforcement agencies deemed it likely to have been caused by criminal conduct, regardless of whether a perpetrator is identified or charged", and the Chief Commissioner of VICPOL has confirmed the disappearance is being treated as "suspicious" however there is certainly ambiguity remaining and so commonsense says the BIO1E notability criteria is probably the most fitting at present. I will add LP category. Thanks. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:27, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

@MaxnaCarta: Thanks for the comment. I agree that a missing person case can be considered "Crime related". However, my concern is that such a case is not a "Law related", nor a "Law enforcement related" article, as it is outside the scope of both of those WikiProjects. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 09:40, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

@Cameron Dewe no worries at all. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 10:21, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Arrest

A note to any contributors:

Please note that per WP:SUSPECT, A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures—that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures—editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured.

While someone has been arrested and named by the media, at this time it is likely the best solution to not name this individual. Anyone proposing differently is requested to please commence a discussion here first so consensus can be determined. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:01, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

@WWGB pinging you here.

Thanks for clearing up the use of "murder" in the infobox and removing the death category. I just wanted to clarify whether you think I should go further and revert the title.

I am aware of Wikipedia's policy regarding the presumption of innocence for suspects. Therefore, it's wise not to include the name of the person charged until there is a conviction, and I have ensured this is the case.

Do you think I should also revert the article title back to "Disappearance" and write as though Samantha is still alive? I am torn between a desire to accurately reflect the current situation but also conform to the usual protocol for the Wikipedia.

On balance, I believe the decision to use the title "Murder" and refer to Samantha in the past tense aligns with the available information and follows Wikipedia's guidelines, but I do want your thoughts.

Thanks! — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

There has been no murder conviction; there is no proof that Murphy is dead. I have boldly moved the article to Disappearance of Samantha Murphy which is typical in such cases. WWGB (talk) 00:03, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@WWGB thanks, that's fine, I agree with your change. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:42, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Disappearance of Samantha Murphy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: MaxnaCarta (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: Tamzin (talk · contribs) 22:48, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

General discussion

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

• @MaxnaCarta: Hi there! I'll be taking a look at this presently. I've (co)written one disappearance article myself, and I'm familiar with your work of course, so this seems like a good pick. You know the drill when it comes to my reviewing style, but just to reiterate one thing I always like to stress, anything that I say is a recommendation, suggestion, "how I would do it", "would read better as", etc., is just that, and you're entirely free to disregard such advice. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 22:48, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Tamzin I am grateful for any suggestions. This is a relatively new article I am the primary contributor for, and so some new insights would be valuable. No rush or pressure. Whenever you have time. Cheers — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• Noting that because probably-dead people still fall under WP:BLP, I've created an editnotice with {{BLP editintro|BDP=yes}}. If Murphy's death is ever confirmed conclusively (or once she'd be 115...), the editnotice can be blanked after a suitable period of time. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 00:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
• Okay, I've written some stuff below, but I'm going to pause here because I'm not sure what to do. This article is about a developing story. This poses problems both for criterion 3a (broadness) and criterion 5 (stability—more the spirit than the letter, in this case). New developments about the case keep coming in, and some get added then removed then re-added and reworded... It's a live article, in other words. And this will remain the case for the foreseeable future. Because of that, I'm not convinced it's possible for this to pass broadness. How can it "address[ ] the main aspects of the topic" when many of those details are still in flux, still being reported in a trickle of breaking-news coverage? And just on a more practical level, even if I do complete the review below, will the article I review still even be there in a month?
  You know, Max, that I think you're a great content writer, and so the way I see it there's two ways we can go here:
  • I can fail this. If you want, I can finish the prose review first, so you have that to work on for improving the article; or not. Then once the dust has settled on this case, you can renominate this, and if I'm still around then I'm happy to take this again.
  • I can put this up for a second opinion, on the question of whether the developing nature of this topic prevents it from passing on 3a and 5. If the second reviewer doesn't see an issue, I'm happy to finish the review from there.
• -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 00:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Tamzin, thanks for this. I think you have (to your credit and my regret) found a fatal barrier to the article passing GA and I believe it must fail. I have to consider what I would say if asked to provide a second opinion, and that is that I do not think this article can be considered complete or stable until the story behind the article has developed more. Too many things will change between it's review and the next few months. Thanks for the feedback provided though, they're good changes to make in the interim. I probably need to wait until we have a body and/or conviction. The future funeral, the court case, any changes to the law, the evidence at trial...all of it needs to be included. Thanks Tamzin. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

1: Prose/MoS

Lede

• MOS:SLASH: 1972 or 1973

• Putting a date of death in the opening parenthetical, when then saying later in the sentence that she is presumed dead, is a bit confusing, and also skips past the disappearance.  Disappearance of Natalee Holloway takes the approach (October 21, 1986 – disappeared May 30, 2005; declared dead January 12, 2012). That could work, or just do the declared/presumed dead part.

• In the rest of the sentence, I would suggest putting the disappearance before the presumption of death.

Background

• At the time of her disappearance, Samantha Murphy was a 51-year-old Australian woman is technically true, but reads strange, implying that her Australian-ness or womanhood might have changed since her disappearance. "Australian" and "woman" are pretty much implied here, so maybe just cut the first sentence, then put her age into the last sentence.

• Caucasian probably doesn't need to be linked but it's not something I'll lose sleep over.

Disappearance

• Wikilink bushland maybe? With love from 'Murica, where Bushland sounds like an amusement park themed around invading Iraq.

• Woowookarung Regional Park is redlinked from Protected areas of Victoria. Maybe redlink here?

• I was absolutely certain that lowercasing "am" would go against MoS, as was a more experienced content editor I asked. We were both shocked to find out that no, you're completely right.

Investigation and search

• Three units are linked to articles specific to the Victoria Police, but Dog squad just redirects to Police dog. Either redlink [[Victoria Police Dog Squad|Dog Squad]] or just leave it unlinked.

• By 23 February police said — comma after "February"

• You're probably oversectioned here. This can all be one section (but see below about the forest attack [and why is it "attacks"?]).

• Police have confirmed is recentist language. If it happened, say it happened.

• On 22 February, Police voiced — lowercase "police"

2b: Citations

Uncited

• This might be pedantic, but, while the age of 51 is cited in the body, the corresponding YOB of 1972/3 isn't. There's a few ways to fix this. The simplest would probably be adding |birth_date=1972 or 1973 to the infobox and citing Crowe there.

Source review

Checking sources for all BLP/BDP claims, plus prime-numbered other sources.

3: Broadness & depth

• Are there updates on the February 2023 attack since the suspect's arrest? If not, is there reason to think that it's still relevant to the case? If it is still relevant, should this be under "Background" instead?

• While the reported-and-retracted name of the suspect should not be included per WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLPPRIVACY, the fact of the report and retraction should be.

2d: Copyvio

• A bit too close to [1]. Please reword accordingly.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.