Talk:Murder of Sara Sharif

Murder of Sara Sharif has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: April 1, 2025. (Reviewed version).

While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.

Biography

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Death Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

International relations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Enforcement Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Pakistan Low‑importance

	Pakistan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Pakistani history.

Punjab Low‑importance

	Punjab portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Punjab, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Punjab on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PunjabWikipedia:WikiProject PunjabTemplate:WikiProject PunjabPunjab-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Surrey Low‑importance

	Surrey portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Surrey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Surrey on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SurreyWikipedia:WikiProject SurreyTemplate:WikiProject SurreySurrey-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women

Women in Green: 2025

This article was created or improved as part of the Women in Green project in 2025. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in GreenWikipedia:WikiProject Women in GreenTemplate:WikiProject Women in GreenWomen in Green

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

You must be logged-in to an autoconfirmed or confirmed account (usually granted automatically to accounts with 10 edits and an age of 4 days)

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Honour

Is this something to do with honour code? Many Pakistani filicides in the UK are listed as honour killings like Shafilea Ahmed. Wondering if this is also too. 2A02:C7C:B459:F500:C5C6:8C5C:59EB:51EF (talk) 14:13, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention of it in the article. Is somebody saying it was an honor killing? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 05:23, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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:Murder of Sara Sharif/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Grumpylawnchair (talk · contribs) 04:27, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: GGOTCC (talk · contribs) 19:48, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this page over the next day or two!

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.	* I am being bold and fixing some of the more obvious issues, but several sections are easy to misinterpet. It would be best to have Background be chronological and end with Sara's birth. When I first read the article, it seemed as if Sara was Angelika's child. Please introduce the alligations of abuse against Urfan first with the three women to build context. Done Sharif is repeated constantly throughout the article. Is there any rule about not refering to people via first name? Doing so would remove excess clutter as always repearing the last name adds nothing. It also gets confusing with the distintion between the singular and plural uses. Done Fixed Is there a reason to name George Van der Wart if he is mentioned once and is not quoted? The sentence can end at "constable". Per WP:BLPNAME, I also do not see the point in naming the neighbors when they are mentioned once. Same goes for Jerzy Kalibabka - since the interlanguage link is in Polish, there is no reason why an English-reading audience would need to know the name. Done A round of copyediting (trimming) can be benificial, which I can do. The clause, "cover up the abuse that she was receiving from Urfan and Batool" is redundant as the article already established who was abusing her. Done Removed Re: MOS:QUOTEMARKS. I believe it is proper to use " and not ' in quotes, althought I did not change anything if I am wrong. Also, a comma should go before quotes. Done Fixed I do not see the need to directly quote one or two words from the source when the source of the quotation is not mentioned in-text. It is OK to paraphrase a paraphrased news article on an investigation. Done
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Please check out MOS:LEAD. I rewrote the current lead as it was quite brief for the current article and presented some facts out-of-order. In addition, info in the lead can be uncited. If you need to cite information in the lead that is not in the article, then that infomation is important enough to be in the body.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	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).	* Randomly checked citations for accuracy. Please see below. Since my first few spotchecks failed, I feel the need to question every citation. Also, citations to live BBC updates can be updated to link to the exact location in the timeline the relevant update can be found. Done Replaced all citations to BBC live updates
	2c. it contains no original research.	* The article quotes Cavanagh directly, although Ref 58 does not. The BBC article does not use qutations, meaning the statment may be paraphrased. Neither Ref 1 or 27 names George Van der Wart Done He's in ref 28, but I don't think he's super relevant, so removed
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Copyio gives 27%, although most detections are due to quotes.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	* After some web searches, I have found several articles discussing how Sara was allegedly failed by UK authorities. It would be benificial to add this alongside Sara's Law and expand the article to include the ramifications of the murder aside from the crime itself. Done Added details about Keir Starmer's reaction and a new bill in Parliament about homeschooling
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	* A few specific details are thrown in that do not add much to the article. As an example, "Batool purchased large amounts of tape online" is cited, but does not add much for the reader. If the victem was tied up with tape, one would assume that the family bought tape. Is there a reason to assume that they did not? Or did the line intend to show that both parents were complicit? Either way, the line is out of place and can be removed. Done Removed
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Past edit conflicts have since subdued (in part due to a pp), so I will let it pass
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.	Image is not free-use, however solid rational is provided
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	* Good call on the caption - one self-explanitory image feels good enough for me.
	7. Overall assessment.	Revision is needed, but I am not willing to fail the article. Please see above and object/ask for clerification if you disagree/I got something wrong. I will also add some notes to my review/change the article myself if I see something off. Cheers!

@GGOTCC: I apologise for the sorry state of the citations, some of them were added before I started working on the article and I failed to check those properly. I will check all of them now that you've brought this to my attention. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 02:37, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! I figured that is what happened - it can be hard re-writting an entire article. GGOTCC (talk) 02:47, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I restructured the 'Background' section, would you mind taking a look? Regards, Grumpylawnchair (talk) 03:14, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GGOTCC: The references should be good now. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 15:29, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GGOTCC: All the issues that you've brought up in the review have been resolved. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 23:21, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! This looks MUCH better. As you can see from the edit history, I am making various copyedits for clerity and a few other small issues. If I do not find anything else of issue, I'll award the GA. GGOTCC (talk) 00:09, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your patience in dealing with this article, I should have been more diligent and checked the citations added by other people. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 00:29, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! This is what Wikipedia is all about, after all. Cheers! GGOTCC (talk) 00:30, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your graciousness is also appreciated as well. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 00:31, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GGOTCC: I think that I should convert the article back to using people's surnames to refer to them due to MOS:SURNAME, what do you suggest? Grumpylawnchair (talk) 23:17, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, that would be confusing. Please disregard my comment. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 23:43, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GGOTCC: Don't mean to badger, but how do you think the article is now? Grumpylawnchair (talk) 16:39, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since the latest round of edits have ended, I'll do one last brief check and then pass the article. GGOTCC (talk) 16:53, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I am back from school, everything looks good. Good job you two! GGOTCC (talk) 01:35, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Date of death

I am getting very concerned about this article. Sara died on the 8th, the suspects left for Pakistan on the 9th and her body was discovered on the 10th. The timeline is very confused in the article. The infobox should not list 10th August as the date of death (even if qualified with the date of discovery of her body). It is WRONG for the 'Discovery of the body and investigation' section to say that she died on the 10th. Please make the timeline clear. 2A00:23C4:AC9B:9C01:483:2DBD:71A5:469E (talk) 16:16, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources variously report that she died on the 8th or the 10th, but the Crown Prosecution Service says she died on the 8th, so fixed, with a reference to the CPS's press release. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 16:26, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think if the nominator and reviewer are both confused about the date of death, then article should be failed. One of the really key aspects of this case (very widely reported) is that the suspects left for Pakistan the day before Sara's body was discovered. The fact that this is unclear means that this article is not ready for promotion. 2A00:23C4:AC9B:9C01:483:2DBD:71A5:469E (talk) 16:30, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but the news article themselves are confused as well. They say that she died on 10 August. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 16:33, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NO THE NEWS SOURCES ARE NOT CONFUSED. How could Sara's father have murdered her in Woking on 10 August, if he left the UK for Pakistan on 9 August??? 2A00:23C4:AC9B:9C01:483:2DBD:71A5:469E (talk) 16:36, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

She was found on 10 August. The article explains this. GGOTCC (talk) 16:37, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed that, and I would appreciate if you would stop typing in all caps, which can be interpreted as shouting. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 16:37, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I was looking at the wrong date. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 16:37, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EXACTLY - And you are the nominator. If you have got this fundamental detail wrong (and what could be more fundamental in an article about a murder than the date of death), then what other errors are there in this article? 2A00:23C4:AC9B:9C01:483:2DBD:71A5:469E (talk) 16:39, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The point of a GA review is to identify said issues and correct them. I am not done with the GA review yet. If you would like to check other sources for issues, then please, go ahead and report back. GGOTCC (talk) 16:41, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've double checked all the references in the article again, just in case. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 16:54, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you able to read the Times articles of December 2024 and January 2025 which are behind a paywall? Are you also able to read the articles in Polish? 2A00:23C4:AC9B:9C01:483:2DBD:71A5:469E (talk) 16:58, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes (using archive.is) and yes. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 17:05, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In that case please add the archive urls to the relevant Times references. 2A00:23C4:AC9B:9C01:483:2DBD:71A5:469E (talk) 17:13, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Improving the lede

For me, there are five key dates associated with Sara's murder:
1) The date of her death (8 August 2023)
2) The date the suspects left for Pakistan (9 August)
3) The date her body was discovered (10 August)
4) The date the suspects were arrested (13 September)
5) The date of the convictions (11 December 2024)
At the moment the lede only gives the date of the discovery of her body. It also currently suggests that the suspects fled the UK after the discovery of the body and not before. It also only gives "December" as the date of the convictions, and does not say which year. Please rewrite the lede so that the timeline is clear and these date are unambiguously spelled out. 2A00:23C4:AC9B:9C01:483:2DBD:71A5:469E (talk) 17:13, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Added dates to lead. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 17:25, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I think it is also worth adding that the arrest took place at Gatwick Airport, after the suspects had flown back from Pakistan. The international dimension here is important - if the suspects had not fled from the UK before the body was discovered, then it's likely that the case would not have received the same press attention.

Please also add archive urls to the Times references as requested above. 2A00:23C4:AC9B:9C01:483:2DBD:71A5:469E (talk) 17:29, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the process of adding the archive links as we speak. Thanks for your help, by the way. It is greatly appreciated. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 17:33, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Added archives. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 17:44, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am not a fan of the wording "found guilty in her murder". I know that this phraseology is used in US English, but it is not common in British English. I am concerned that this could be misread as meaning that the three suspects were all found guilty of murder, whereas Faisal Malik was convicted of a lesser offence. I would suggest that this distinction is made clear and that the opportunity is taken to split the lede into two paragraphs - the first dealing with the crime and arrests, and the second with the trial and conviction. I also think you should consider stating that Urfan Sharif and Beinash Batool received life sentences.

Another point to add to the body of the article is that the three suspects returned to the UK "of their own free will" see this BBC News article of 14 September 2023. 2A00:23C4:AC9B:9C01:483:2DBD:71A5:469E (talk) 20:39, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done and done. Thanks again for your assistance, it's really helping me find weak points in this article. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 23:11, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]