Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Brighton hotel bombing/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

Brighton hotel bombing

edit
Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This October it'll be forty years since the IRA's attempted assassination attempt on the British Prime Minister and cabinet. This article has been through a complete re-write recently, with the widest range of high-quality sources used; a run at FAC is envisioned as the next step, with the hope for a main page appearance on the anniversary. Any thoughts and comments are most welcome. - SchroCat (talk) 09:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tim O'Doherty

edit

Will get round to this when I've finished my review of Genghis Khan. I'm old enough to have been told the "What do you call a man with a hotel on his head?" joke when I was younger - hard to imagine a similar reaction to the same event today! Ping me if I've not moved by next week. Cheers - Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil

edit

Placeholder; reading through. And to say I'm about as anti-IRA/Republican as they come, but some suggested rephrasing, notes of clarity etc from a tone/POV perspective. Ceoil (talk) 21:45, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • Her stance against their demands meant the strike was not quickly settled, and ten prisoners died - "Her stance against their demands meant the hunger strike was not quickly settled leading to the deaths of ten prisoners".
  • Should we also mention here what their demands were (political rather than criminal status)? I'd prefer, but am not so bothered about this level of clarity in the lead.

Patrick Magee

  • If there are "tonal" objections its likely in this brief bio. Have made some edits that you might want to review,[1] but they are mostly around tightening prose and run-on sentences.
    They're all good, thanks - SchroCat (talk) 15:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Context you have in the notes IMO is directly relevant and worth moving into the main text: "In the mid-1970s the IRA changed its structure from battalion to cell-based system. Each cell—also called an ASU—comprised four volunteers, of which only the leader was in contact with the level above." Ceoil (talk) 22:11, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher's approach to Northern Ireland, 1979–1984

  • I would prefer if the words hardline was used in this sect to describe her attitudes towards NI here, especially towards the hunger strikes.
    Thatcher's outlook on Northern Ireland was partly persuaded by her inherent unionist position; she wanted a military victory over the IRA and for "integration", that is, treating Northern Ireland like the rest of the UK, rather than having separate arrangements. - "hatcher's outlook on Northern Ireland had an inherent unionist position; she wanted a military victory over the IRA and sought full "integration", that is, treating Northern Ireland like the rest of the UK rather than having separate arrangements."
    But what does "arrangements" mean here"
  • Who is Eamonn Kennedy
    It's there - Irish ambassador to the UK. - SchroCat (talk) 15:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Then just "Kennedy" on second instance. Ceoil (talk) 00:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thatcher's unionist stance was an intuitive one for her Ceoil (talk) 22:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for these - mostly done as suggested, with a couple of explanations above and a couple where I've put in a variation. - SchroCat (talk) 15:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good to here.

  • Magee had lunch at the hotel's restaurant on the day he arrived, where he dined with a man nicknamed "The Pope". "The Pope" was probably a code name rather than a nickname, ie he probably want wasn't "The Pope" on other jobs
  • According to the journalist Rory Carroll, who wrote a history of the bombing, considers that - grammer
  • The investigation to find and arrest Magee took eight months; sounds like they knew from the top they wanted to convict Magee, as if he was the only guilty IRA member. Maybe "find and arrest the culprits". It also seems, as currently written, as if they hung it all on Magee, not acknowledging that they did not get the higher-ups ultimately responsible. Ceoil (talk) 00:40, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Cheers Ceoil: these ones now tidied up too. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:01, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As another gripe, the see also section seems unnecessary. Ceoil (talk) 11:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UC

edit

Commenting by request: at the moment, a few isolated thoughts.

  • I don't think the issue around "political status" is as clearly explained as it could be, particularly in the lead. The issue was that the British state was detaining captured IRA members as criminals; the IRA wanted those prisoners to have the status of political prisoners, which would give them additional rights as well as arguably greater kudos and dignity.
    Thanks - I wasn't happy with those bits myself either, but I'll work on those pre-FAC. - SchroCat (talk) 07:16, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • dislodging one of the hotel's five long tons (5.1 t) chimneys stacks: I think this would be clearer as "dislodging one of the hotel's chimney [NB typo in original] stacks, which weighed..."
  • killing and injuring the occupants: needs a rephrase: as written, it means that all of the occupants of these floors were both killed and injured.
  • sentenced to eight life sentences: it might be worth clarifying, at least in the body, that British law means that these sentences are served concurrently rather than consecutively, so this doesn't mean what most readers will assume it does.
  • "The Troubles" is plural.
  • I am not sold on the FUR for File:Grand Hotel - Brighton bomb.jpg: we need to demonstrate that it is impossible to replace it with free-use media. In the relevant cell on Commons, we have written Small image—of lower quality than the original—of an image easily found through a normal search. Resolution meets Wikipedia's guideline WP:NFC for non-free media. This isn't a justification -- to be honest, I think the best approach here would be to make our own diagram based on the facts found in the text.
    I know - I had trouble with a request at the graphics lab as no-one picked it up. I've gone directly to someone on Commons who has provided images before, and he'll work on one over summer. It may not be in time for an FAC (in which case this one will just be deleted), but should be in place by the 40th anniversary. - SchroCat (talk) 07:16, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fire Brigade is duplinked, but do we have an article for the specific fire brigade that would have been on hand here?
  • I spot a couple of copyedit issues: see e.g. The attack was condemned by world leaders. It [the attack?] included denunciation; The UK press was condemnatory of the attack, [full stop, not comma, needed] Caroll identifies xenophobic references; The registration card was fingerprinted and showed <a> partial palm print.
  • Their discussion was at the request of Berry who wanted to understand the sources conflict: something strange has happened here.
  • I would spell out coca-cola rather than "coke" in formal writing.

I hope these are useful. There's a lot of work on display here, and it's clearly a tricky one to get right with so many NPOV and, perhaps, access-to-information difficulties at work. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:45, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks UC. All these done except two, one of which I'll work on prior to FAC, as well as some further proofing for copyediting. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:16, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harry

edit
  • Maybe simplify the description Anthony Berry to avoid a sea of blue links and obviate any need to understand the intricacies of British government positions
  • Why are we singling out Berry in particular?
    He was the only MP killed - they were trying to take out the PM and her cabinet, and Berry was the most senior member of government who died. - SchroCat (talk) 06:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should also mention that they (unfortunately) failed to kill Thaggy. (Although I suppose they'd only have made her a martyr...)
  • The IRA took the decision to assassinate Thatcher is a bit mealy mouthed. Suggest just "decided". And maybe "targeted" instead of "decided to assassinate" (especially as the current wording implies they succeeded. Alas...)
  • The lead doesn't really give any sense of what the Troubles were or who the IRA were and what they were trying to achieve.
    Fair point. I'll add something pre-FAC. - SchroCat (talk) 06:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done - SchroCat (talk) 12:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure the locations of previous years' Tory conferences are lead-worthy. Or even perhaps the recon.
  • meant the strike was not quickly settled → maybe "prolonged the strike" or something similarly concise.
    I'm not sure it prolonged the strike though - that's a moot point. Her stance meant it wasn't ended sooner, which is a bit different. - SchroCat (talk) 06:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conservative Party conference I can see you've done this to work in a link to the Conservative Party article but CPC is a proper noun above and the word "Conservative" appears repeatedly.
  • This crashed through several floors, killing or injuring the occupants Agree with UC that this implies it killed or maimed everyone on those floors.
  • Thatcher decided to continue → Thatcher continued
    I think I'll retain this one: the decision (as in a positive act, rather than the conference continuing as a preordained event) was important, and it was she alone who made it. - SchroCat (talk) 06:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The investigation to find and arrest the culprit what else would be the purpose of an investigation?
  • sentenced to eight life sentences sentenced to sentences...
  • Not sure the link to government of Ireland is helpful

Will be back with more. That's just the lead for now. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Harry. All done, except where I've demurred on a couple of points above. - SchroCat (talk)

RoySmith

edit
  • How sure are we about the licensing on File:Grand-Hotel-Following-Bomb-Attack-1984-10-12.jpg. It was uploaded by a user who never did anything else other than upload this one photo; that kind of contribution history always raises question marks in my mind. It also has a strange assortment of license tags; GFD, and CC-BY-SA, and also a notice that it's PD due to it being published in the US blah blah, but I don't see any indication of *where* it was published. And given that it's a British location, it seems odd that the first publication would be in the US. None of this proves anything, but something doesn't pass the sniff test and deserves closer scrutiny from somebody who understands image licensing better than I do.
I'm not too worried about the image: the tags are a little odd, but that's to be expected from a newbie editor. Alamy lists it as being a public domain image (possibly based on it being on Commons - it's not clear on their site), but I can't find too much other information about it. I've gone with AGF that it was taken by the uploader. Either way, even if it was determined that it was non-free (and I don't know how it could actually be proved), I'd upload it as a non-free image, given it's an obvious one to lead with. - SchroCat (talk) 16:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Brighton_hotel_bombing/archive1&oldid=1233923682"