Talk:Downing Street mortar attack/GA1

GA Review

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

Starting review. SilkTork *^YES! 15:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) 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:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) 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); and

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) 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:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

This is a new to mainspace article, only two days old, so stability is difficult to establish, but there was a revert in the first day. I'd like to see this in mainspace for at least 14 days to see what unfolds before deciding on the GA status.

The article is short. Short articles are acceptable for GA, but they have a slightly higher demand on them to be broad in coverage as there is an unconscious expectation in some reader's minds that short equals lite or incomplete. The article has the three main sections one would expect - before, during and after, though there are aspects that a reader might expect that are missing: the Reaction section has 2 statements from the IRA, a large quote from the Police Anti-Terrorist Branch which seems more fitting in The attack section, as it describes an expert's view on the mechanics of the attack. There are the views of the politic leader's of the day. And there is a suggestion of the reaction of the Irish rebels. But there is nothing of the reaction of the British public, nor the general Irish public. There is no information about how security was stepped up in Downing Street after the attack. In the section on The attack, there is no mention of the police sealing off the area. There is no mention of the weather conditions which was speculated at the time possibly prevented the deaths of tourists who might have normally have been in the area. The is no mention anywhere of the police investigation into the attack. There is no mention that the key IRA personal returned to Ireland before the attack.

The writing is clear and the article is neutral, though it could be said that the selection of material and quotes in The reaction section is slightly weighed to give a favourable impression of the IRA's role. This could be solved by moving the quote on the mechanics to The Attack section, and by including a wider range of responses.

Cites appear to be reliable and support what has been said, though I haven't checked them all.

Putting on hold until the end of May to allow discussion of points raised about broad coverage generally and balance in Reaction section; and to judge stability. SilkTork *^YES! 09:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Why would a quote from an expert in REACTION to the attack not belong in the REACTIONS section? You are correct in that there are no mentions of the reactions of the British or Irish public, chiefly because the secondary sources do not cover it. Which begs the questions of why if the secondary sources do not cover it why should we, and also how can we if the secondary sources do not cover it? Perhaps you should actually learn how to write a question such as "Do the sources include any details of reaction from the British or Irish public that we can include" rather than making a statement of fact. The same applies to various other statements you have made. Moving on to other matters, you claim that there is "no mention that the key IRA personal (sic) returned to Ireland before the attack", have you actually read the article?

Once preparations were complete the two IRA members returned to Ireland, as the IRA leadership considered them to be valuable personnel and did not wish to risk them being arrested in any follow-up operation by the security services.

Is there some part of the first half of the sentence you have difficulty understanding? You claim that there was speculation that the weather conditions prevented the deaths of tourists, speculation by who? Source for that claim? The closest I have seen is "On a good day, the Horse Guards on Whitehall, opposite the spot from which the mortars were fired, would have been thronged by scores of tourists. But the snow and bitter cold kept most of them off the streets". However if you think that sources the claim you made, you are very mistaken. There is no mention of security being stepped up, largely because there is no meaningful information about how security was stepped up. The work was secret other than the installation of a new blastproof front door, though why public money should be wasted on a blastproof front door when the front of 10 Downing Street is virtually inaccessible for an attack is anyone's guess! No mention of the police sealing off the area, well why should there be? It's standard police procedure, adding some information about the police aimlessly standing around talking into their lapels doesn't really tell the reader much. Why would there be details of the investigation? Your statement that the article is lacking those details seems quite ignorant of police procedure. When investigations pertain to matters of national security, unless arrests are made details of those investigations rarely enter the public domain. So as no information is in the public domain about the investigation, it isn't going to be in the article. How is the reactions section weighted? It makes sense for the IRA's admission of responsibility to come first. Then you've got negative comments from Major and Kinnock, then you've got an objective opinion from an expert (and as a member of the Met's Anti-Terrorist Branch who actually dealt with the attack, I'd say he's pretty objective and his "praise" is reasonable enough as he's got no reason to say anything "positive" unless he means it"). Could the opinion of Commander Churchill-Coleman be included? Possibly, but the Met are well known for making self-serving and incorrect statements on the same day as an incident. His claim that the attack was "badly executed" is just nonsensical. Let's examine the facts. The IRA had one shot at it, they couldn't have a practice shot beforehand then try again at a later date or hang around and adjust the aim after launching a shell or two. The IRA couldn't hang around Whitehall with surveying equipment measuring out exact distances. Even parking the launch vehicle was a precision job, pointing the van a few degrees to the left or right significantly effects where the shells may land when you are firing them 200 yards and especially when you have no line of sight to the target. Mortar trajectory is not an exact science especially when using improvised mortars, so even with the best planning in the world you're still trusting to luck somewhat about where the shells will land. And that's not just my opinion, it's essentially the one expressed by Peter Gurney. I could see that Churchill-Coleman's view could be included just prior to Gurney's, but for the reasons I suggested I don't believe it should be.

Now for your competence as an editor. Look at this edit where you add the text of "Between 1970 and 1985 seventeen UDR members were convicted of murder or manslaughter, 99 of assult, and "others" (no exact figure) were convicted of charged or convicted of armed robbery, weapons offenses, bombing, intimidation and attacks on Catholics, kidnapping, and membership in the UVF." which I originally posted on the talk page here. However your copy and paste neglects to remove my note of "no exact figure" and the quotes I put around others to emphasise that, tremendously done! This coupled with your comments above and your actions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Roberts (murderer) and related articles, mean I have zero faith in your competence as an editor. As such I consider you totally unfit to review this article, and I will ignore everything you say from now on and will revert any attempt by you to take any action relating to the review of this article. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I've been asked to comment here, although I'm not going to formally take over the review without further discussion from SilkTork. Firstly, I encourage One Night in Hackney (or do you prefer 2 lines of K now?) to stay clam when replying and not to drag up interactions on other articles here unless there is a clear and direct connection to the subject under discussion. Secondly, I think that he makes a number of valid points: I think the Anti-Terrorist officer quote is in the correct place and I agree that it is not feasible to expect details that have not been published. I do however think there is a case to be made for including the quote from the police officer: accurate or not, the reaction of the police to the event is important and the other quotes and information in the article should be enough for readers to decide whether their reaction was justified or not. I also see a case for the weather conditions to be included, with the conclusion that this prevented injuries in the park if it is merited by the sources.--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

In light of Hackney's comments above, it would be appropriate for Jackyd101 to take over reviewing this in order to avoid drama. I will withdraw my name on Wikipedia:Good article nominations, and Jackyd101 can then formally take over. SilkTork *^YES! 09:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)