# Talk:Cris and Cru Kahui homicides

I am glad to say that this article which was nominated for good article status has succeeded. This is how the article, as of July 4, 2007, compares against the  six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Reasonable, although spelling and grammar may need a little work. Good use of sourcing.
2. Factually accurate?: Verified by multiple reliable sources.
3. Broad in coverage?: Lengthy and detailed.
4. Neutral point of view?: No obvious POV wording.
5. Article stability? Yes.
6. Images?: n/a (probably no free-use images available)
If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status. 
— Waltontalk 13:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Calling this article the Kahui infanticide case is incorrect, or is it being too politically correct. Under the Crimes Act, Infanticide requires the offender to be the mother of the child. In this case the Police charged the Father with murder, twice, not infanticide, once. It would be better called the Kahui murders case or perhaps the Chris and Cru Kahui murders as the article was originally Chris and Cru Kahui. -- Cameron Dewe 10:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Good point. The article was originally at Chris and Cru Kahui, but was moved by another editor since they viewed it as a WP:COATRACK article -- ie although it would suggest a biography, it was more about the murder investigation than their actual lives. I've moved it onto Chris and Cru Kahui murders. Evil Monkey - Hello 21:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I have changed all the double redirects on the many alternative names of this article. If it is to be renamed again, editors should be aware that there are about half a dozen redirect pages that are associated with this article. -- Cameron Dewe 09:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
They weren't "murders" either. See move request below. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed. 
A lot of references (at least half) have dead web links. This should be fixed. 
I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Regards, Ruslik 08:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, since dead links have been removed, the article will be kept in the GA list.
This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, Ruslik 05:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The article doesn't meet criteria 3a because it is lacking information from the trial. F (talk) 11:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)