Talk:1987 Viking Sally murder

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Viking Sally 1987 murder/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Willbb234 (talk · contribs) 11:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll take up this review. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 11:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• You say in the first sentence that it is a "long-unsolved crime", but later on you say that police have solved the case so this might need to be changed to try and say something along the lines that it was once long-unsolved but now solved.
• I would suggest using the specific date of the murder in the first sentence (see Murder of Dee Dee Blanchard).

More to come, but I'm a little busy at the moment so later. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 12:14, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Hey @Willbb234: Thanks for taking on the review task, and thanks for your initial comments. The 'long-unsolved' reference is the work of another editor; it was a simple fix at the time when the case was solved (previously it read 'unsolved'). I'll rephrase that passage, and also add the date as you suggest. Cheers, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• "were both students from West Germany" I think the word 'both' is redundant here.
  • Done
• "romantically involved." this doesn't sound quite right, I'd suggest something like were both students from West Germany, who were in a relationship having met earlier in 1987. Let me know your thoughts.
  • The problem is, the source is unclear on whether they were just casually dating, living together, or what, and I didn't want to put my own spin on it. I'll leave it as is, for now.
• I think you should wikilink to Stockholm and Turku in the 'Background' section even though you linked to them in the lede, as I seem to recall this is how it's done, but I've tried searching for guidelines that say this but I can't find any so it's up to you.
  • Fine, I've nothing against multiple links, but have been told in the past to avoid them. Have added these as you suggest — let's see how long they stay. ;)
• Schelkle and Taxis in particular were social and outgoing, while Schmid was not so interested in partying.

• No need for 'in particular' here I don't think.
• There's no previous mention of 'partying' so this should probably be removed and rephrased.

• Done and done.

• "which explains[2] why on the night of the killings" I think this reference should be moved to the end of the sentence. Also there was just one death so 'killings' should be singular.
  • Done and done. Good point, only one killing, of course!
• I'd recommend a little more background on the murder that happened the previous year.
  • There's a link to the article on the previous year's murder, if someone wants to read about it.

More to come, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 13:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Another word other than 'fetched' should be used here as I don't think it's formal.
  • I'm thinking if it's good enough for Jane Austen, it's good enough for my writing. ;)
• In the first two paragraphs of the 'Night of the incident' section, only one source is used. I think as this is arguably the most important part of the article, more sources should be used.
  • Added another source
• Some clarification is needed so that it is known that it is the Finnish National Bureau of Investigation rather than the Swedish.
  • Done
• Likewise, the 'Investigation' section relies heavily on a single source, If possible, you should try and use other sources.
  • Cited additional source

The article is of good quality so there wasn't many mistakes to point out. I have a couple of comments:

• I think it would be useful to include a map of the the route the ship took, pointing out the locations of Turku and Stockholm. I also don't see figures for the distance or time the journey took, which would be useful for the reader.
  • Hi @Willbb234: I'll work through the list, starting with these final comments of yours. I tried to render a route map, and ended up making a right royal pig's ear of it, so dropped the idea. If you, or anyone else who comes across this discussion, knows how to make one, I'd be grateful. Failing that, I will give it another go at some point, as it really would add a lot IMO.
• Infobox needed?
  • Yes, a good idea, I'll do that azap.
    • Done.
• It looks like the prosecution is still ongoing, so more monitoring of the news and future expansion of the article is needed.
  • Correct, the case is scheduled to go before a court in May, IIRC, plus possible appeals etc. after that, so this will be evolving for quite some time yet. Cheers, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Other than that, I think the article can get no better, so I'll pass it for GA once the comments are addressed. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 11:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Any issues have been addressed.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The MOS has been adhered to.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Could do with some more sources, but the sources that there are are well attributed.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	References checked and reliable
	2c. it contains no original research.	No
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Checked with Earwig's detector and no copyvio found
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Yes
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Yes
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Neutral
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	no edit wars
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Checked and fine
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Could do with some more images, but the ones there are are relevant and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Well done and very well deserved. Happy editing.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 07:00, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

MS Viking Sally pictured in Stockholm harbour in the 1980s

• ... that one of the longest-unsolved crimes in Finland, the 1987 murder onboard the cruiseferry MS Viking Sally (pictured), is going to court after 33 years? Source: https://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/finland_to_try_danish_man_for_33-year-old_crime/11684825

Improved to Good Article status by DoubleGrazing (talk). Self-nominated at 08:52, 28 January 2021 (UTC).

• GA status and date check out. Article properly sourced to reliable sources. Hook interesting and sourced. Earwig check shows no concerns. No QPQ required as only the nominator's second DYK. Image is Commons and appropriately licensed. Good to go. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:02, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Privacy of the victims

I propose to hide or conceal the name of at least the surviving victim. The person is still alive and should not further suffer from being involved in this crime. Especially since the case will go to court later in 2021. There are no public statements, books or anything that suggest the person's intent to be exposed further. See "prolonging the victimization" and "Privacy of names" in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Sommozzatore (talk) 13:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Sommozzatore: thanks for your comment; I have some sympathy with this, and indeed the thought occurred also to me when writing this article. That said, I'm not entirely sure what can be achieved by omitting the name here, when it has been widely published in print and online media for 30+ years. But I've no strong feelings about this either way; happy to go with whatever the consensus is. (Incidentally, I take it your reference to 'Biographies of living persons' was meant to point to the WP policy at WP:BLP?) Best, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:AVOIDVICTIM says: When writing about a person noteworthy only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems—even when the material is well sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. My understanding of this is that the article must use the details sparingly. E.g. if this were an article about a rape, a detailed and graphic five-paragraph description of the event would have been highly inappropriate. However, there no such details here beyond very basic facts, with the exception of the date of birth.

W.r.t. WP:BLPNAME, I'm not sure: I don't really see a strong case for concealing the name, but I don't see a particular benefit from including it either. GregorB (talk) 14:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)