Talk:Disappearance of Amanda Campbell/GA1

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.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: EF5 (talk · contribs) 21:17, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Spintendo (talk · contribs) 22:20, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello! I'm happy to begin this review and look forward to working with you. We'll go section by section. Feel free to leave comments and counter suggestions below each entry.  Spintendo  22:20, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Wow, thank you for picking this up so fast! Wasn't expecting that given most of my noms are on the list for at least a month. ^EF⁵ 23:04, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

I've completed my review of this article and my suggestions for improvement are listed below. I'll be placing this review on hold for the next 7 days in order to allow for nominator improvements. Please feel free to offer any feedback or counter suggestions you may have. All marks placed in the GA table at the bottom of this review are tentative ratings subject to change along with nominator-made improvements. At the end of this 7-day period, whichever marks remaining in the table will be permanently ascribed and the review closed. If more time than this is needed to make improvements, please advise. Thank you! Regards,  Spintendo  01:13, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

@Spintendo: I will get to this in the afternoon; just a bit overwhelmed with stuff at the moment. ^EF⁵ 16:13, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:THEREISNORUSH, take as much time as you need.  Spintendo  18:34, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

@Spintendo: that should be everything.

---

(Note: Y = Reviewer suggestions addressed by the nominator.)

Lead section (done)

• Y No issues here.

Life and prior events section (done)

• Y"According to her mother, Amanda loved the holidays" This information is not pertinent to the article.

 Done, removed. ^EF⁵ 23:13, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Disappearance and search efforts

• "On the afternoon of December 27, 1991, Campbell was riding her bicycle to a friend's house near her own; earlier in the day she had been at another friend's residence with her brother. " The times of these occurrences should be given. "Earlier in the day" is not precise.

A time is never given in the sources provided, so that's as specific as I'm able to get without going into WP:OR territory. "4:30" and "5:00" is mentioned in The Charley Project but that doesn't compensate for the "earlier in the day" part. ^EF⁵ 23:23, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

The San Francisco Chronicle gives a rough timeline starting at 4pm:

"On Friday afternoon, Amanda and her 5-year-old brother, Matthew, left their family's home just after 4 p.m. and went to play with a boy a few houses away. After the two arrived, the boys began to tease Amanda, saying they did not want to play with any girls. Amanda got back on her bike and left, apparently to visit a friend.

Here is the citation for that:

• Lynch, April (December 30, 1991). "Missing Girl, 4, Still Sought". San Francisco Chronicle.

• Y "Campbell never arrived at the home, however, and she has never been seen or heard from since. This reads in a difficult manner. "never arrived at the home" doesn't specify which home, her home or the second friends home? Other contemporaneous news reports give the reason why she left her brother and the first friend's home, but that reason isn't given here.

 Done, added. ^EF⁵ 23:23, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

• Y "During initial searches, authorities believed that the bicycle was not in its original position and that Campbell's older brother may have moved it" I don't see this fact confirmed in the SF Chronicle article. It would stand to reason that information in the Examiner would also be given in the Chronicle.

It is mentioned: Searchers found the bike a half block from Amanda's house, but authorities now say they believe her 5-year-old brother, Matthews, may have moved it there after finding it at another location. ^EF⁵ 23:23, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Ok, their description of it sounds better, I think because they elaborate that he moved it after first finding it at a different location.  Spintendo  03:04, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

• Y "The following day a motorist reportedly saw a girl matching Campbell's description inside of a Datsun B-210 sedan in East Fairfield, around six miles from where Campbell was last seen" The motorist gave their account of this event two days after the abduction, not "the next day". It's not clear whether the motorist saw this on the Friday of the abduction, or the Sunday when they reported it—and if it were the Sunday, why the motorist waited 2 days to report it.

 Done, fixed. ^EF⁵ 23:23, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

• Y " The motorist also noted that it appeared like the girl was "tied up and screaming", although the car was never located after authorities rushed to the location" I don't know that I would describe this as "rushing to the location". The responding officers searched the entire east side of Fairfield, checking any vehicle that was even close to that description, and found nothing.

The source given (SF Examiner) uses that wording, and per WP:SYNTH it's best to report what sources say even if it's not 100% accurate: Officers sped to the scene about six miles ... ^EF⁵ 23:23, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

On this, if you need any help accessing these sources let me know, I'm aware that they aren't traditional. ^EF⁵ 23:23, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Well then we have a problem here because the Chronicle tells it the other way. They presumably searched the entire East Fairfield section, so I don't see how the cops could "speed" to the entire East Fairfield part of the city. Perhaps this is merely hyperbole on the part of the Examiner. Does the Examiner explain the time difference between the motorist's reporting of the incident and the actual time it occurred? If there was a two day delay, that would make the likelihood of them speeding to the incident's location less so. Spintendo  03:04, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

No, it simply says "rushed to the scene", and I highly doubt they rushed there two days after. The caller reported it at 10:00 pm, and authorities got there "earlier Monday", but again saying that's not rushing would be WP:OR. ^EF⁵ 12:03, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

• Y The Sacramento Bee confirms that the motorist's description of seeing the girl tied up in a car happened on Sunday evening, the same evening the motorist made the report. Note: This would seem to confirm the Examiner report that the police "rushed to the scene". Source: "Intense Hunt for Fairfield 4-Year-Old". Sacramento Bee. December 30, 1991. Follow up: The sentence as its worded now in the article already correctly indicates when the motorist made the sighting.
• Additional information about the disappearance that should be included:
  • The fact that Amanda returned home after leaving the first house, to ask her father for permission to visit the second house: "The girl's mother, Mary Ann Campbell, said Amanda had left home with her brother, Matthew, 5, to play at a boy's house. But when the two boys didn't want to play with her, she returned home and asked her father's permission to visit her girlfriend. Her father told her to be home by dark, Mary Ann Campbell said. But Amanda never made it to her girlfriend's home." - Source: Her, Scott (December 30, 1991). "Search Continuing for Missing Girl, 4". San Jose Mercury News.

 Done. ^EF⁵ 12:26, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

• • The fact that the father gave Amanda permission, then watched her cross the street on her way to the second friend's house: "Nikki had asked her father for permission to visit her friend Beth Ann across the street. Her father, Jim Campbell, stood watching her through his living room window until she had crossed Larchmont Drive safely, then gone about his business." Source: Goldston, Linda; Weiss, Mike (September 20, 1992). "The Worst Nightmare". The Mercury News.

 Done. ^EF⁵ 12:26, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

• • The second friend that Amanda was attempting to visit, named Beth Ann, turned out not to have been at home at the time Amanda would have tried to visit her. Source: "Intense Hunt for Fairfield 4-Year-Old". Sacramento Bee. December 30, 1991.

Not super relevant and I couldn't comfortably fit it in the prose. ^EF⁵ 12:26, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

I was able to fit it in.  Spintendo  22:32, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

• • The grandmother was the one to find the bicycle, reportedly a block and a half from her (Amanda's) house. This can be included along with the already-existing assertion from the police that the bicycle may have been moved inadvertently by the brother. Source: Lynch, April (December 30, 1991). "Missing Girl, 4, Still Sought". The San Francisco Chronicle.
  • In 1992, a billboard went up on the corner of 19th and J St. in Sacramento, picturing Campbell and asking the public for information. Source: Sacramento Bee, July 8, 1992 title: The Search Goes On

 Done. ^EF⁵ 12:26, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Timothy Binder and further leads section

• Y The title of this section unfairly spotlights Binder. The section should be renamed to Suspects or some other title.

 Done. ^EF⁵ 23:46, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

• Y The main issue with this section is that it does not mention Binder's lawsuit filed in 1993 against the city of Fairfield, claiming illegal search and seizure, invasion of privacy, defamation of character, libel and slander. That lawsuit was settled out of court in 1997 for a reported $90,000.

 Done. ^EF⁵ 23:46, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

• Y "Bindner's vehicle was also searched; posters of other kidnapped children including Amber Swartz-Garcia and Michaela Garecht, names of missing children written on the vehicle's inner walls, children's underwear and a small shirt in the rear portions of the van." This is not grammatical.

Less a brain fart and more a brain shart; no idea how I wrote that and didn't notice. Call it  Done. ^EF⁵ 23:46, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

• "Later investigations concluded that the abductions of Swartz-Garcia, Garecht and Campbell may have been related" It's my understanding from the SFGate article used as a source for this claim that this was a conclusion reached by Larry Graham's attorneys about Bidner in an attempt at introducing doubt on the guilt of Graham in his trial for the murder of Angela Bugay. The SFGate article states:

  "Graham's attorneys, who have tried to link Angela's abduction to the mysterious disappearances of Amber Swartz, Michaela Garecht and Nikki Campbell, hope to undermine the strong science of DNA with as much doubt as possible. 'The mere fact that these investigations may have determined that Mr. Graham was not involved in the abductions of the other two girls . . . could raise a significant doubt about Mr. Graham's guilt of the crime with which he is charged,' according to a defense motion. But DNA tests have excluded Bindner and several other potential suspects in Angela's kidnapping. So far, Contra Costa Superior Court Judge Barbara Zuniga has denied defense motions to bring other abductions up at trial."

  Mentioning it while speaking specifically about Bidner is questionable, in that it implies that some police force conducted the "later investigations" which concluded that the three were related, when in fact it was a defense strategy which links the others to Bidner. Also, the claim of "being related" does not take into account that the Garecht case had a breakthrough in 2020 with David Misch being charged with the crime, and that in the Swartz-Garcia case, Pinole police and the FBI announced in 2007 that Curtis Dean Anderson had confessed to the murder. (So in essence, even later investigations concluded that two of these abductions may not have been related.) In any event, the claim is vague by stating "later investigations" but not clarifying whose investigations it is referring to, in what way they may be related, or that in two of those cases, others were found to be at fault.

 Done. ^EF⁵ 16:53, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

• "In July 1992, authorities declared that the abduction and rape of a child in the Napa, California area that month may have been connected to Campbell's disappearance; both incidents were traced back to the western side of Fairfield." It's not clear from the prose who this child was. The fact that she was "abducted and raped" indicates that either she was returned or her body was found; otherwise how would the authorities know that she had been raped? This additional information should be given.

 Done. ^EF⁵ 16:53, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

• Additional information about Bidner that should be included:

 Done. ^EF⁵ 16:53, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

• • Some of the info is already here and is perfectly fine to use (the information about the van). Additional source on materials found in Bidner's van: Goldston, Linda (December 11, 1992). "Kidnap Suspect Had Arrest Record, Van Filled With Photos". San Jose Mercury News.

 Done. ^EF⁵ 16:53, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

• • Another story is about the suspect actually going to the Campbell's home. Source: Goldston, Linda; Weiss, Mike (March 21, 1993). "Moves and Countermoves - A Strangely Macabre Game, Played by a Detective and His Chief Suspect, Has Evolved in the Attempt to Find Several Missing Children in the East Bay". San Jose Mercury News.

 Done. ^EF⁵ 16:53, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

• • The incident where three missing children's mothers, one of them including Mrs. Campbell, interrogate Bidner on a segment of The Jane Whitney Show. I have two sources for that:
    • Wilson, Yumi L. (February 5, 1993). "Missing Girls' Moms Quiz Kidnap Suspect - Oakland Man Denies Accusations on TV Show". San Francisco Chronicle.

 Done. ^EF⁵ 17:03, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

• • • Goldston, Linda (February 4, 1993). "The Confrontation: Three Mothers and the Man They Think Took Their Daughters Away From Them, Face the Nation and Each Other". San Jose Mercury News.

 Done. ^EF⁵ 17:03, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

• • Bidner's own reason for his activities. According to the sources, Bidner's actions were because it was "God's will" that he try to help find missing children, saying they are the "lost sheep" described in the Bible. Sources:

 Done. ^EF⁵ 16:53, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

• • • Koury, Renee (May 8, 1997). "Ex-Suspect Proclaims Innocence; Was Accused, Not Arrested". San Jose Mercury News.

 Done. ^EF⁵ 16:53, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

• • • Brown, Mareva; Wilson, Wayne (December 12, 1992). "Morbid Tastes of Child Abduction Suspect". The Sacramento Bee.

 Done. ^EF⁵ 16:53, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

• With the addition of extra Bidner material, it will become necessary to make Timothy Bidner a separate level 3 heading under the level 2 heading of Suspects. Zandstra should then be given the second level 3 heading.  Spintendo  21:54, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

 Done. ^EF⁵ 16:53, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

See also section (done)

• Y The entries should not be stepped in that way, i.e., with one entry at level one and the next entry and a sublevel 2.

Personally I don't think it's an issue as I've done it on several GAs, but I've ( Done) fixed it for this one. ^EF⁵ 23:27, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Notes and references section (done)

• Y These should be placed into two different level 2 sections, one titled Notes and the other References.

That's already been  Done. ^EF⁵ 23:25, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

• Y The note is unreferenced.

Removed ( Done); while true it's WP:SYNTH. ^EF⁵ 23:25, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

• Any reference that is archivable should be archived.
  • Semi-done I've archived 12 so far.  Spintendo  23:08, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

GA table

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.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	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.
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.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

The discussion above 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.