Talk:LaToyia Figueroa
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
||
Changed the info about Beanie Sigel; he is no longer in prison.
Contents |
[edit] Is she missing or dead?
The article doesn't make it clear whether the remains discovered were her or not. It says that "the remains of a missing pregnant woman" were discovered, and then it goes on to say that many charities are offering a reward for Figueroa's safe return. Then it says the remains were "presumed" to be her, then it gives a physical description of the woman, presumably to help people identify her. Have the remains been confirmed to be hers, or not? - Brian Kendig 16:52, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Missing White Woman Syndrome
I am changing the "Missing pretty girl syndrome" section to "Missing White Woman Syndrome," as that is the phrase the relevant Wikipedia article uses. Also, the fact that that Figueroa got little media time combined with "missing pretty girl syndrome" would seem to imply that she was not pretty. Pretty is subjective, but we can all agree that she was not "white." The phrase "missing white woman syndrome" also returns 2-3 times more hits on Google than "missing pretty girl syndrome." I'm still not completely pleased with way the section sounds, but I'll let someone else clean that up. :-) DejahThoris 21:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
i live in an area where her story was covered, and she did not get national attention, but she she did get a lot of coverage in our local area. --Colorfulharp233 18:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] News update 10/13/06
Philadelphia Daily News, 10/13: Trial opens in slaying of LaToyia Figueroa
10/14: Witness describes dumping of pregnant woman's body
--George100 14:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Vandalism?
I'm wondering why after making an edit on October 18, I was warned that it was vandalism. I simply removed redundant information on the Laci Peterson case: Peterson was mentioned in the previous section, and the details of that case aren't really relevant here. And the heading "Details of the case" doesn't accurately describe the information that follows, either.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.26.131.177 (talk • contribs) 10:29, October 18, 2006.
- If you think a section of an article needs to be removed, it is best to state that in the talk page first. Also you did not give an explanation in the editing summary. --George100 09:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
