Talk:Securitas depot robbery/GA1

Latest comment: 2 years ago by Whiteguru in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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

Reviewer: GhostRiver (talk · contribs) 17:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC)Reply


Hello! I'll be reviewing this article to help reduce the good article nomination backlog and to gain points in the WP:WIKICUP. Although quid pro quo is not required, if you fancy returning the favor, I have a list of articles in need of review here. — GhostRiver 17:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Great thanks for taking this on Ghostriver - looking forward to working with you again Mujinga (talk) 22:24, 15 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Infobox and lede

edit
  • With the opening paragraph, I think the first sentence should say it was the UK's largest cash robbery, and then the part about the extra 154 million should be after what they did take
    • I prefer the current structure Mujinga (talk) 18:12, 20 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
      • Just read through this article and then saw it was up for review so I thought I’d add my two cents worth. I think it’s definitely worth noting that it’s the largest ever robbery in the opening sentence. It’s the defining point of the event.Xx78900 (talk) 10:06, 23 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
        Hi Xx78900 thanks for dropping by, I've made some replies. If the largest cash robbery bit was to go in the first sentence, how do you see the first paragraph working, something like this?
        The Securitas depot robbery was the United Kingdom's largest cash heist. It occurred in Tonbridge, Kent, England, beginning with a kidnapping on the evening of 21 February 2006 and ending in the early hours of 22 February. The criminals left the depot with almost £53 million and left behind another £154 million only because they did not have the means to transport it
        The claim would rest on Criminology Theory, Research, and Policy. But that's dated 2006 so then it's hard to say it's still the largest, for some reason it's hard to find a more recent source for that. Mujinga (talk) 11:24, 24 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • They tricked their way inside the depot and armed with weapons including AK-47 assault rifles and a Škorpion submachine gun, they tied up fourteen workers. Awkward syntax with the lead-in between the trickery and the capturing
  • As of 2016, £32 million had not been recovered and several suspects were still on the run. Source conflicts the second part; most recent ref saying people are still on the run is from 2011

Depot

edit
    • {{EngvarB|date=July 2014}} used on the article. Template tells – for non-specific but not N. American spelling ... Article Talk should say "Use British English"

Conspiracy

edit

Robbery

edit

Investigation and arrests

edit

Trials

edit
  • Just linking "judge" feels as if it borders on MOS:EASTEREGG; can probably be written out to "High Court Judge"
    • I'm not convinced "High Court Judge" reads better and it's tricky because the case was at the Crown Court I think, because of its severity. However, the Crown Court has High Court judges apparently, so I'll make the change Mujinga (talk) 17:30, 20 March 2022 (UTC)  Reply
  • Instead of parentheses around "Hysenaj had not picked up the phone ...", use a semicolon
  • No comma needed after "and one year later"
  • Given the line ‘suggesting he was the inside man’, should there be a line where prosecutors/police deduce that the heist could only have occurred with the cooperation of an inside man? And how did it emerge that it wasn’t him? Xx78900 (talk) 10:49, 23 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
    • it was the defence suggesting it but i think it's common practice for the police to look for an inside man and in this case it was the phone records linking hysenaj and bucpapa that proved hard to explain Mujinga (talk) 11:15, 24 March 2022 (UTC)  Reply

Later events

edit
    • It actually does not read well.

Similar incidents

edit

References

edit

General comments

edit
  • Images are properly licensed and relevant
  • No stability concerns in the revision history
  • Earwig score looks good, WP:LIMITED and all (you can't really rephrase criminal charges)

That's all I've got! I'll leave comments on the FAC later today, as Fridays are my light teaching days on the block schedule. Please feel free to ping me with questions, and let me know when you're finished! — GhostRiver 17:47, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

@GhostRiver: Thanks a lot for the careful reading, I believe I've answered everything, see what you think. Mujinga (talk) 18:22, 20 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for the delay, Mujinga. A few remaining comments. — GhostRiver 17:55, 12 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

  • The use of page numbers in the references is inconsistent. In the "Depot" section, for instance, I see both "33, 34" and "35-6". Per MOS:PAGERANGE, consecutive pages should always be listed as full numbers with an en dash, so they'd be "33-34" and "35-36", respectively. This does not apply for cases like "31, 33" because those numbers are non-consecutive.
  • In "Conspiracy", "As well as being a cage fighter" → "In addition to being a cage fighter" still
  • "Signed up" still reads a bit informally
  • "attached it to a belt, then Hysenaj used it" → "attached it to a belt, which Hysenaj then used"
  • Per MOS:IMAGELOCATION, the map of Kent should probably be right-aligned
  • MOS:DATED issue isn't fixed with "are suspected by police"; present-tense statements like this need date qualifiers (i.e. "As of X date")
  • Still don't like the "In another shooting," phrasing
  • The Paul Allen shooting happened three years ago, should probably include an update on his condition, if one exists
    • I went to the tabloids and they totally froze my computer with all the adverts! I've updated on the arrests, Allen didn't die but there isn't much else on his condition that I could find Mujinga (talk) 15:12, 14 April 2022 (UTC)  Reply

@GhostRiver: I've answered everything, please see what you think when you get a chance Mujinga (talk) 13:03, 21 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

@GhostRiver: Hiya don't want to pressure you but I'd like to finish this off, shall we say if there are no more comments in a week's time then we agree to close the review and I'll move to peer review? Since I'd like to take this to FA I'm not especially fussed about it being a GA and I think I've incorporated a lot of your comments already Mujinga (talk) 13:39, 4 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Second opinion requested

edit

As nominator I'm requesting a second opinion, since the article has been on hold for 57 days and in my opinion the article is nearly there. The reviewer has had issues IRL and has not commented here in a month, whilst they have been making limited edits elsewhere. They are not replying to pings or talk page messages. Mujinga (talk) 08:46, 12 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Second Opinion

edit

Starts GA Second Opinion. Hopefully get to this in the next few days.   Thank you --Whiteguru (talk) 03:09, 10 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

 


Observations

edit

Document statistics

  • HTML document size: 167 kB
  • Prose size (including all HTML code): 40 kB
  • References (including all HTML code): 59 kB
  • Wiki text: 44 kB
  • Prose size (text only): 22 kB (3850 words) "readable prose size"
  • References (text only): 6609 B
  • Page is >100 kb - see WP:SIZERULE
  • Page created 23 February 2006
  • Total number of edits = 784 by 289 editors
  • Page has 61 watchers
  • 90 Day page views = 18,492 with a daily average of 203 views
  • 20 bot edits on page; no visits by ClueBot NT indicating no apparent vandalism
  • Majority of edits on this page occurred during 2022
  • IABot has been on the page twice

Images

  • File:Securitas Depot, Vale Road, Tonbridge, Kent - geograph.org.uk - 1124839-Optimised.jpg = Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license.
  • File:Kent UK location map.svg = Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.
  • File:Hook and Hatchet Pub, Hucking - geograph.org.uk - 1154886.jpg = Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license.
  • File:Central Criminal Court - geograph.org.uk - 650721.jpg = Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license.
    • All images found to be correctly captioned with appropriate use licences and attribution

References

  • Comments on references noted and sorted satisfactorily.

Overall

edit
  • All the previous reviewer's commentary and subsequent corrections have been noted
  • Some observations on the language issue are offered
  • The issue of Paul Allen's injuries does not read well; however, this is not a show stopper
  • The matter of the previous heists merits consideration; however, this is not a show stopper - I leave both these matters in the hands of Mujinga who has done yeoman work in responding and corrections.

Good Article Criteria

edit
  1. The article should be clearly written, in good prose, with correct spelling and grammar.  
  2. The article should be factually accurate according to reliable sources  
  3. The article should broadly cover the topic without unnecessary digressions.  
  4. The article should be stable, with no ongoing edit wars.  
  5. The article should comply with image use policy.  
  6. The article is free of obvious copyright violations.