Talk:Richard Tomlinson/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 23:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review. In the next few days, I'll do a close readthrough, noting here any issues I can't immediately fix myself, followed by the criteria checklist. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Initial readthrough

Overall, this looks like a good start, and I think with some work this can get to GA status. The article is fairly detailed, though in a few key places it needs to be better sourced. I've had to immediately remove several of the paragraphs dealing with criminal charges without sourcing per WP:BLP.[1] Were these recent additions? I'm surprised these weren't caught prior to GA nomination. I'm also concerned that a few sources appear to be misrepresented in a way that portrays MI6 in a negative light. Details below--thanks again for your work on this one, and I look forward to working with you to improve it.

Just a few comments on the early paragraphs here. More to follow...

• "He excelled at mathematics and physics" -- is the only source for this Tomlinson himself? That's probably worth mentioning in the text that this is his self-report.

Yes, but he must have excelled at them to get a scholarship to Cambridge.Farrtj (talk) 08:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. -- Khazar2 (talk) 09:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• "MI6 claimed that he was sacked for "not being a team player, lacking motivation and having a short-term interest in the service", but admitted that he had experienced a "personality clash" with his senior line manager." -- "claimed" and "admitted" should be changed here per WP:WTA
• "The decision angered Tomlinson who felt he had been treated unfairly by his spymasters who, he claimed, had failed to take into consideration his fraught personal circumstances and his previously strong record" -- rewrite claimed per WTA; also, the double "who..." makes this sentence perhaps more confusing than it needs to be. Perhaps split into two sentences?

Thanks for sorting this one out.Farrtj (talk) 17:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• "Perhaps as a result of Tomlinson's campaign," -- does a secondary source for this exist? This appears to be a minor bit of WP:OR.
• " now have the same employment rights " -- consider rewriting "now" as "as of [date]" per WP:REALTIME
• " It is of note that MI6 have never succeeded in obtaining another PII certificate since the Tomlinson case, even though they have been subjected to more rigorous court scrutiny (for example the Inquest into the death of the Princess of Wales) than would have been involved with an employment tribunal." -- needs source; also, "it is of note" should probably be cut as a minor bit of editorializing.

More:

• "Tomlinson fled to the Costa del Sol in Spain in early 1996" -- I'm confused as to why he's fleeing here. Is this a different event from the previous sentence that refers to his leaving the UK? Or a repetition of that event? Is his arrest eminent?
• "to attempt to lure Tomlinson back on side," -- what does "on side" mean here? This seems a bit idiomatic and should probably be rewritten.
• a "school leaver's" -- I'm not familiar with this phrase (I'm American, which may have something to do with it)--what's the sense here?

<--- Sorted out all problems north of this sentence ---> Farrtj (talk) 15:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• "In October 1997 Tomlinson was arrested" -- had he returned to the UK, or was he arrested in Spain or Australia?

I don't know, and have been unable to find this information out.Farrtj (talk) 15:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• "He claimed that he " -- fix claimed per WTA
• "Tomlinson can now travel freely " -- rewrite "now" as "as of [date]" per WP:REALTIME
• "In October 1997 Tomlinson was arrested" -- this paragraph is largely uncited. As it deals with criminal charges against a living person (and includes quotations), everything will need to be carefully sourced here per [{WP:BLP]]. Please make this one your top priority in revisions.
• "On completion of his three months probationary licence on 31 August 1998" -- can you verify that all the legal details in this paragraph appear in the source? I don't have a subscription, so can't access.
• "Tomlinson was apprehended by French authorities..." -- this paragraph also needs sourcing per WP:BLP
• " It was reported in some quarters..." -- what quarters were these? A source should be added, too.
• "During 2008, Tomlinson was a witness for the inquest" -- this paragraph clearly needs a citation as a serious allegation
• "At the Coroner's Inquest into the death of the Princess... " -- this paragraph needs a secondary source, rather than a direct transcript
• "hounded out by officials under orders from MI6" -- seems to be moving into very non-neutral language; what's the original language of this source?
  • I found a copy of the source, which does say "hounded out" but does not mention orders of MI6.
• "From 2006-7, Tomlinson maintained a series of blogs detailing his treatment" -- seems like a repetition of the previous sentence "During this period Tomlinson maintained several blogs publicising his treatment."
• "police acting on the orders of MI6 in 2006" -- does the source say that the police were acting on MI6 orders? I read it quickly, and didn't appear to see that.
• "MI6 also apologised for its unfair treatment of him." -- did MI6 specifically use the word "unfair"? What's the language of the source? Just want to make sure this isn't an editorial insertion.

The Sunday Times uses the phrase "unfair treatment", but it is not a direct quote from MI6. "As a result, MI6 has agreed to let him return to Britain, unfreeze royalties from his book and drop the threat of charges. It has also apologised for its unfair treatment of him."

• "was expelled in June 1999 after the Swiss authorities described his presence there as "undesirable"" -- this doesn't seem to be an accurate summary of the source, which states, "in June 1999 he was forced to flee Geneva only hours before the Swiss authorities were to throw him out on allegations that he had violated a civil order not to publish the list." The source doesn't appear to use the word "undesirable" anywhere.
• "His next posting was to work as an undercover agent against Iran, where he succeeded in penetrating the Iranian Intelligence Service." -- needs source

<--- All sorted above this line ---> Farrtj (talk) 16:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• "after he became suicidally depressed" -- what source does the suicidally part come from, or the girlfriend dead of cancer? Neither of the linked articles appears to describe him as suicidal: " was a little bit depressed when I came back from Bosnia and I think those things combined to lead to my dismissal"; " He was sacked by MI6 in 1995 for poor service when he became depressed".

sorted.Farrtj (talk) 17:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• "he decision angered Tomlinson who felt he had been treated unfairly by his spymasters who, he claimed, had failed to take into consideration his fraught personal circumstances" -- this sentence is copied word-for-word from [2].
• "In 2009 MI6 agreed to allow Tomlinson to return to Britain, unfreeze royalties from his book and drop the threat of charges if he agreed to stop disclosing information about MI6 and speaking to the media.[6] MI6 also apologised for its unfair treatment of him" -- appears to be copied from the Sunday Times, when compared to an excerpt found elsewhere: "MI6 has agreed to let him return to Britain, unfreeze royalties from his book and drop the threat of charges. It has also apologised for its unfair treatment of him."
• This source [3] does not appear to have any mention of Cumbria or Australia, which is what it's cited for.

That must be because you don't have access to the full article. As the whole article is not available freely online, a link to a subscription service is better than none. It does in fact mention that his parents live in Carlisle. Farrtj (talk) 16:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I do have access to that one, actually, but was weak enough on the geography that I was just CTRLF-ing Cumbria. I still don't see any mention of brother/sibling/Australia--am I making a similar mistake here? -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The evidence for this is Tomlinson himself, but I can only find it mirrored on untrustworthy sites. It's hardly contentious information, but remove? Farrtj (talk) 17:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Nah, don't worry about removing, but I'd say move the footnote to after the parent sentence instead of after the Australia sentence. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake--I was misremembering that as two sentences. It's fine the way it is. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• " offering him a £15,000 loan and a "school leaver's" marketing job with Jackie Stewart's Formula One racing team, in return for a promise of silence." -- needlessly identical to the words of the source: "Temple helped negotiate a £15,000 loan and a job with the Jackie Stewart racing team, in return for a promise of silence."[4]
• "The Sun newspaper called Tomlinson a "traitor", and published his email address, urging readers to contact him" -- needlessly uses the language of the source: " the Sun newspaper published his e-mail address, calling him a traitor and urging readers to contact him."

Closing review

This article is making progress toward Good Article status. But on further review, I'm concerned with the extent of the sourcing problems I'm seeing in this article:

• a few sentences cut and pasted word-for-word from sources (above)
• Sources that don't contain the information attributed to them, particularly accusations about MI6's "orders" to other European countries
• Unsourced information about criminal charges against a living person

Other sources, like #4, #23, and #43, appear to have no online presence at all outside of Wikipedia, despite being from major publications/agencies that have a large web presence, which worries me that they've been misidentified.

They come from the subscription-only service, Lexis Nexis. A lot of these sources come from the late 1990s, before news organisations put all of their articles up on line as a matter of course. Having said that, I managed to find #23 online in a matter of seconds. Farrtj (talk) 17:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, #23 came right up for me in Google, too. Not sure if that's a typo on my part or what. Apologies for the mistake. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

In short, while I respect the work that's already gone into this article, it appears to me to still need significant work before passing as a Good Article, beyond the scope of a normal review. I'd suggest a check of all the sources to make sure their language is not copied, and that the information given in the article indeed appears in the given sources. I'd also recommend that all information related to criminal or legal proceedings be clearly cited to reliable secondary sources. I wish everybody the best of luck in continuing to improve this one; I hope my copyedits and some of the recommendations of this review will prove helpful. Thanks for all your efforts, -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Just wanted to add more generally here, thanks for taking care of the points above--your work is much appreciated! I'll keep half an eye on this page to see if there's any way I can pitch in. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. One of the more constructive ones I've had, which on the whole have tended to be spiteful and nit picky. I feel that I've addressed all of the issues now, and will reapply for GA status in a couple of weeks time.Farrtj (talk) 17:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Glad to hear it! And I'd say no need to wait a few weeks if you think it's ready to go, though of course it's up to you. I'll look forward to seeing this as a GA. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)