# Talk:Murder of Huang Na

Since both the victim and the perpetrator of the murder are deceased, the use of copyrighted images of them might be justified as fair. Something to think about. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 16:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Some quick Googling turned up two articles in The Star which contain photos of Huang Na and Took Leng How. Huang Na is so kawaii! These photos would certainly enhance the article - a picture is worth a thousand words. But we need an image expert to write the fair-use rationales, tweak the image code and handle all the other dirty work. Haemo, who helped me with the screenshots in my GAs about Jack Neo movies, has been inactive this year - who should we approach instead? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 10:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I should be able to help. The pictures look quite small, but after you download them just check that their resolution is 72 dpi. Don't upload them on to the English Wikipedia immediately – let me know by leaving a message here which images you have chosen, and I will prepare the templates. Then you can upload the images together with them. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 14:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
For Huang Na: this photo from this article
For Took Leng How: this photo from this article.
I suggest you do the uploading to avoid confusion. Thanks. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 04:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 Done. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

A brief look over the article; just comments, suggestions, and thoughts, all IMHO.

Would be better with citation tags (user:chzz/help/refs)
That would also allow more ref detail - I'd like to see publisher details, etc. For example, one ref says "TODAY" and there are many pubs with that name. External convenience links would be good, too.
Dates shouldn't be linked
Could add Chinese chars for name with appropriate template
Bio's need PERSONDATA, see template:persondata
Woodlands is a disambig link
Add an infobox, perhaps infobox person?
No pictures?
Bai jin is a redlink, and I've no idea what it is; perhaps put something in brackets to clarify
"China PR" - not sure, and I know this is contentious, but I wonder why this isn't just "China"
"seek his fortune" - a direct quote like this requires an immediate reference to source, directly after the quote (even when mid-sentence)
"worked illegally as a vegetable packer" - potentially controversial info in a Bio, hence a ref is needed
"she divorced him and was given custody of Huang Na" - maybe confusing; I assume SHE got custody, but needs clarification
"whom she had lived with for four years, and became pregnant" maybe confusing, suggest "whom she had lived with for four years, and subsequently became pregnant"
No 'see also' or 'external links' applicable?
  Chzz  ►  12:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:MOSTITLE#Italics: "Italic type (text like this) is generally used for the following categories of titles: ... Periodicals (newspapers, journals, and magazines) ..." — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 08:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I have added an infobox, an External links section, and moved some lines about.--andreasegde (talk) 11:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to improve the article! Some of your changes were very helpful, but some were not. For example, birthdates of minors should not be included and the infobox may be inappropriate since the article is not about the girl, but a murder case involving her (and others). I did a massive temporary rollback so I can go through your changes and restore the helpful ones. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 07:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I just want to put on record that i dont agree with The Special ones suggestions on infobox. Infoboxes is not always bad as suggested by many editors. here it gives a picture of huang na, and ofcourse her birthdate should be visible etc etc..--Judo112 (talk) 20:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
This article has no chance of a GA: "the article is not about the girl", and, "a murder case involving her (and others)". Good grief... It's amazing. How blind can one be? I feel sorry for her, but not the turmoil the article is going through. Goodbye.--andreasegde (talk) 21:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Goodbye and good luck with your editing. I understand I may be harsh, but BLP1E and privacy concerns warrant such caution. Back to GA writing for me. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I also disagree with Hildanknight regarding the infobox.  It's true that this article is not about the girl but her murder but it is about her murder and so the infobox is reasonable.  As for WP:BLP and privacy issues, these issues are largely mooted by the fact that the girl is no longer living; the "L" in BLP stands for "living" after all.  I think the article is improved by the infobox.  AFAIK, there is little information in the infobox that is not in the article except perhaps the girl's birthdate.  Presumably this information is a matter of public record and, as I said, not an invasion of privacy since the girl is now deceased.
More importantly, this whole sorry episode has been marked by edit warring, a lack of collegiality and a lack of civility.  Even if you think you're right, it's better to explain why you think you're right than to assert your rightness in a snippy fashion.
--Richard (talk) 16:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't have time right now to survey a group of articles similar to this one.  I will point out that John F. Kennedy assassination has an infobox about the assassination, not about JFK.  However, that is arguably because there is an article about JFK with an infobox about him.  I am still inclined to have an infobox in this article because I think they improve the look of an article.  However, there is possibly some room to argue whether the infobox should be about the girl, the murder or both. --Richard (talk) 16:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Hildanknight, without getting into the details of your "temporary massive rollback", I would urge you not to do that kind of thing again on any article as it is disrespectful of other editors' work.  You do not own this or any other article.  If you disagree with changes, you can revert individual changes on a case-by-case basis subject to collaboration models such as WP:BRD.  Wholesale reversion should be reserved for vandalism or other extreme cases of poor editing.
In particular, just because you went on wikibreak does not give you the right to revert back to your preferred version.  If you go on wikibreak or even stop watching an article for an extended period of time, you should respect the state of the current article and negotiate any reversions.  
Wikipedia would be much less stable if people could go away for weeks or months and then arbitrarily revert the work of editors that has been done in the intervening period.
I don't doubt that some of the changes were harmful and that you had good reason for your reversion.  Nonetheless, the better approach would have been to fix the problems that you saw on a case-by-case basis with edit summaries to let people know what the problems were that you were fixing.  Even better would have been to document the problems on the Talk Page first and then fix them.
--Richard (talk) 16:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Murder of Huang Na/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Nikkimaria (talk) 19:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello! I'll be conducting a review of this article to ensure it meets the GA criteria. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 19:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm placing the article on hold to allow contributors to address the below concerns. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 20:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Nikkimaria! Thanks for the review! Unfortunately, you could not have chosen a worse time to review this; I have exams this coming week! I will do what I can in between study sessions, but please be patient! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


### Writing and formatting
What is "bai jin"? Since it's a redlink, a short explanation would probably be appropriate, unless it has a Wiktionary article you could link to
I added a brief defintion taken from two sources. If I have time, I may create a stub, as there is more to bai jin than the definition suggests. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
The article might benefit from an infobox; I notice that several of the "Murder of..." articles have one
Is an infobox necessary? I know some editors make a stylistic choice not to include infoboxes in their articles. To me, infoboxes are more useful in longer articles. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
It's not an absolute requirement, just something to consider. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Alright, so I think the article is better off without one. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
While according to guidelines the lead is long enough as-is, I feel it doesn't encompass the entire article, and as such should be slightly expanded
Given that Category:People murdered in Singapore is a subcategory of Category:Murder in Singapore, it's probably not necessary to have both
I removed the former category and a duplicate of the latter. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
While your prose is mostly grammatically correct, it could use some editing for flow and clarity (would I be correct in assuming that English is not your first language?)
You are correct. If you feel like doing a little copyediting, please do. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
"Disappearance, search and community reaction" - seems a bit inaccurate and lengthy. While the section does discuss her disappearance, the search and the community reaction, it also talks about the arrest, interrogation and escape of Took, and the discovery of Huang Na's body. Obviously you can't include all of that in a section title; is there a more concise title that still encompasses all of the section's topics?
How about just "Disappearance and reaction", since "reaction" would emcompass the search for her (both by the police and the community), the arrest of Took and the community reaction after her death. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Section title changed. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


### Accuracy and verifiability
Do none of those newspaper articles have page numbers and authors?
I found the newspaper articles through Factiva, which does not attach such information. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Is Factiva an online database? If so, a convenience link would be helpful given the lack of sourcing information. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
No, you need to pay to access it. I am not rich, so I had to rely on a friend who had paid for access. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
"TODAY" is a rather ambiguous publication name, as is "The New Paper"; while I appreciate the wikilinks, it would also be helpful to list publisher and possibly location
All the newspapers which are used as sources in this article are Singaporean newspapers published by Singapore Press Holdings. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Sentences that include a direct quote should be cited immediately
I believe you are referring to the sentence where Justice Lai explained his judgment, which I have cited (same cite as the one for the following sentence). --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Are there any non-news sources available?
Even the equivalent Infopedia article only cites newspaper sources, so I doubt there are reliable non-news sources out there. Singapore is a small country after all. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


### Broad
Given that there is no separate article on Huang Na or Took, it's good to have some detail on each. You've got a bit, but are missing some - for example, when was Huang Na born? What was Took's execution date?
More detail in general would probably be helpful; this appears to be a high-profile case in Singapore, surely more details are available?
Singapore is a little red dot with a population of less than five million people. There are only a few major Singaporean newspapers, all of which are by Singapore Press Holdings. Hence information is scarce, even for "a high-profile case". Some information was omitted due to BLP concerns (I know Huang Na and Took are both dead, but their family members are still alive, so I opted to err on the side of caution). --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


### Neutrality
No issues noted


### Stability
No recent major edits to the article; however, I note a history of rolling back good-faith edits. Please keep in mind that such behaviour is discouraged. However, that was far enough in the past to be ignored in consideration of the article's current stability.
Noted. That will not happen again. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


### Images
Are pictures of the wholesale centre, Huang Na's grave, the trial or her funeral available?
Not to my knowledge. The severe restrictions on fair-use images do not help. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, i think personally that the article is almost GA ready. With the few exceptions pointed out by the reviewer. But i would say that it is GA ready when those fixes had been made.--Bödeln (talk) 14:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I posted an initial reply and was waiting for the reviewer to respond to it, but she did not, so I forgot about the review as I was busy with school. Now I am back and will continue addressing the issues she raised, but I hope she will be back too. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
As this article is now GA standard, is it possible to push it towards FA status? --Siva1979Talk to me 05:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
I doubt so, considering how short the article is and that most Singaporeans are not native speakers of English (the key difference between the GA criteria and FA criteria is the prose standards). --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

While overall a well-written article, I have a couple questions about dates in the section on Took's trial.

It says it was a 14-day trial that began on 11 July. Why was he pronounced guilty on 27 August? Is this a mistake, should it be "27 August"?
It says Took was executed in October 2006. Can an exact date be added to the article?
- Boneyard90 (talk) 03:19, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I believe the perpretrator was mentally ill? Should i add that to the article?
Tokyo12489 (talk) 16:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)