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 by User:Marskell 10:51, 22 October 2008 [1].

---

Natalee Holloway[edit]

This article is written in a journalistic style which doesn't enable readers to get to grips with the problems of the case. A "case" it is indeed, as the article barely discusses the title subject beyond her disappearance (and probable death) on Aruba in 2005. In discussing the case, the article takes each media event in turn, often finishing with a (welcome) admittance that the preceding paragraphs actually don't have any relevance for determining why Ms Holloway is not with her family at the time that editors are reading these lines. Points to address: were the Aruban police negligent in their initial investigations? did they receive the necessary cooperation from the American authorities (including, but not limited to, the FBI)? are there reasonable hypotheses other than murder by one or more of the people who have been arrested to date? Unless and until the article addresses these points, I can hardly say that it is among our "very best work". Physchim62 (talk) 00:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also Talk:Natalee Holloway#Misnamed and Talk:Natalee Holloway#Should not be FA (check them quickly before they're archived): not that I necessarily agree with the statements made there, merely to point out that I'm not the only one who feels that this article should not have passed WP:FAC in its current state, or even under its current title. Physchim62 (talk) 01:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, please. The one section has to do with the name of the article and the other is an anon ranting that we're catering to Nancy Grace's "agenda". The discussion regarding the name has nothing to do with the article being a Featured and the second is worthless crankery. - auburnpilot talk 01:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As per the rules for a featured article review, I suggest that this article doesn't meet featured article criteria 1(a), 2(b) and 4. Physchim62 (talk) 02:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment None of the above has anything to do with FA criteria, and I think Physchim62 has taken a wrong turn when searching for the article's talk page, where such concerns would be appropriately addressed. - auburnpilot talk 00:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further, I don't think you'll find anyone willing to add original research to the Holloway article. Any commentary on whether or not the Aruban officials were truly negligent or whether or not the suspects' stories were credible would be pure analysis/OR. Additionally, it's already discussed in the article that the FBI aided the investigation (but you already know that having read it I'm sure). - auburnpilot talk 00:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Agree with AuburnPilot. In addition, this was TFA of 10/21/2008, the FAR rules say you should not nominate the TFA (or within three days of same) for FAR. I ask for this to be closed.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggest close The nomination seems to be in good-faith, but has little to do with WP:WIAFA. I agree with Wehwalt, as well. An article cannot be nominated for FAR within three days of appearing on the Main Page. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "FAs are held to the current standards regardless of when they were promoted." from the top of WP:FAR. Physchim62 (talk) 02:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed, but how does that relate to the issue at hand? –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Is this a joke? April Fool's Day is not in October, you know,... Dr. Cash (talk) 03:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No, just misguided.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I think it would be too much red tape to close this due to the technicality of this being yesterday's TFA. However, I suggest it would be helpful if the nomination showed how the concerns can be addressed without resorting to original research or editorialization. For example, "were the Aruban police negligent?" That's not for us to decide; are there any good sources discussing the negligence or lack thereof of the Aruban police? It would be easier to think of improvements to the article once we know what the missing sources are, if any. Same for the question about "other reasonable hypotheses"; we certainly can't make up our own, so it would be more helpful if a pointer to good sources that discuss alternative hypotheses were provided. To de-feature an article due to lack of comprehensiveness we need to show that the missing information actually exists. --Itub (talk) 10:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think rules are there for a reason, and this should be closed. Aside from the family's claims, as well as talk show hosts (who are there to create controversy) I know of no indications the police were negligent. Check the Burroughs article for a thoughtful discussion. The family's concerns are in the article, in appropriate summary style

It is also my understanding that the nominator has an interest other than improving Wikipedia, in getting this removed as a FA, that he has a personal animus against Kww, one of the principal editors of this article, because Kww sought to have his sysop privileges removed. That interest has not been declared by the nominator, and could explain the scattershot approach the nominator has taken to this, and why he reversed the initial removal of this review. I would say this smacks of wheel warring.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, what a massive failure to assume good faith! Can we discuss the article and the arguments rather than the nominator? Or if you want, close this process, but if it's reopened in two days to satisfy the red-tape requirements we will all have wasted our time twice. --Itub (talk) 13:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would have assumed greater good faith had the nominator tried to work with us. This provides a cooldown period. Rules are rules. In addition, I make no accusation, I merely point out the fact of the conflict, and also that the nominator didn't disclose it.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)--Wehwalt (talk) 13:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closing. The FAR rules exist for a reason. We do not need the review overwhelmed by TFAs. Take up concerns on the talk page. Marskell (talk) 14:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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