Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chandler's Ford shooting/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 15 January 2021 [1].

Chandler's Ford shooting

edit
Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:17, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a slightly thinner article, on a slightly more recent subject, than I normally bring here but I've had little luck in attracting feedback (though I'm grateful to SchroCat for casting an eye and helping to dig up some more sources). It's part of my back-burner project on British police shootings. This one wasn't especially controversial in that the people shot were pointing a loaded handgun at a security guard, but police shootings in Britain are few and far between so they always attract plenty of attention and they're the subject of some academic study. This one raised some interesting questions about police tactics, being a pre-planned operation with the stated aim of apprehending the robbers. Also of note is that the whole event was caught on video by the police, and (somewhat sensationally) the video of the shooting was later played in court at the trial of the surviving gang members. See what you think! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:17, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • Could you archive the sources?

~ HAL333 17:51, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did for them. Le Panini [🥪] 20:31, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, Le Panini, I wouldn't have known how to do that. I'm not convinced it's necessary, but it certainly doesn't harm anything. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:42, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, neither am I. Le Panini [🥪] 20:45, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Nick-D

edit

I'm coming into this article knowing exactly nothing about the topic, so can provide a fresh set of eyes! It's a very interesting article.

  • "and apprehend the suspects in the commission of the robbery." - could be trimmed and converted to more accessible language (e.g. "and apprehend the suspects as they attempted the robbery" or similar)
    • Sure , that works. Done.
  • "Armed police officers arrived in the early hours of the morning " - arrived where?
    • In Chandler's Ford. Added.
  • The 'Prelude' section would benefit from a description of the rules of engagement or similar which governed when police could fire on armed suspects, and especially those who have been classed as highly dangerous ones like the robbers here.
  • "The Flying Squad received intelligence that the gang intended to rob a G4S cash-in-transit van as it delivered to the HSBC bank branch in Chandler's Ford, Hampshire. " - do we know what the source of this intelligence was, and when it was received (and hence how long the police had to prepare and plan for this operation)
  • Could a map, based on Open Street Map or similar, be added to the 'Robbery' section? I presume that the inquiry reports or similar will provide the geographic details and possibly a map which can be used as the basis for this
  • "the team received word " - do we know from where? (from intelligence sources, or were the robbers being followed by other police officers?)
    • This one we know. The gang were under surveillance at this point.
  • Did the snipers request/receive authorisation or orders to open fire, or were they able to do on their own initiative and/or at a set escalation point under the plan for this operation?
    • There wouldn't have been time to clear it. The officers acted on their own initiative as they apparently felt the guard's life was in danger, though what possessed Markland to pick up the gun is beyond me.
  • The article is largely written from the perspective of the police. Can anything be said about the robbers' planning for the robbery before the day it was attempted or what their plans were - e.g. were they actually intending to have killed the security guard as the police feared if he resisted them, and did they have armour piecing ammunition?
    • History is written by the victors? We don't tend to hear from the criminals involved in notorious crimes (Ronnie Biggs being the obvious exception that comes to mind), especially when they're dead. Probably even more so in this case because it's only really notable for the police actions. Had they succeeded or been arrested without shots fired, it's unlikely the incident would have received much coverage. It would seem that they did have armour-piercing ammunition. Their history of violence is discussed in the prelude section; in my opinion it's unlikely they would have shot him—in most previous robberies they used fists etc and brandished a gun but had never actually fired it. But imagine having to make that judgement in a split second with a gun being held to somebody's head.
  • Has this incident attracted any attention in academic journals? None are listed, but it seems an interesting example for academics with an interest in the use of weapons by police.
    • I drew a blank on Google Scholar when I was researching this, but tow of the books used (Squires & Kennison and Punch) are by academics. Most other academic works on police shootings pre-date this incident or focus on a specific case.
  • I'd suggest adding the Coroner's report and the IPCC report as 'further reading' if they're online - the BBC story says that the IPCC report was published. Nick-D (talk) 06:26, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All most comments are now addressed, and I'm pleased to support this nomination. Nick-D (talk) 09:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

edit

Recusing to review.

  • The lead seems excessively long, at 29% of the wordage of the main article.
    • I always struggle with leads! Especially with all the caveats required for a potentially controversial subject. I've trimmed it a bit.
  • "which concluded that the armed officers had acted properly, though found flaws in the planning of the operation." Is it me, or does this not quite read right? Maybe 'though flaws were found'?
    • I'd rather not switch to passive voice if possible, but I added an "it" after "though", which hopefully makes it clearer.
It does - that was my back-up suggestion.
  • "where their actions were later considered unjustified". Would 'where it was later considered that their actions may have been unjustified' be more accurate?
    • Isn't that just more words for the same meaning? ;)
I assume, possibly incorrectly, that you are saying that officers actions have been held to account in the courts, which may or may not have found them justified. If so, my suggestion seems to capture that better. If, on the other had, you are saying - and they have been found guilty of criminal offences, then fine; but, IMO, the sentence still needs tweaking.
Hmm. I've reworded it a bit. The point is that officers have to have a rock solid justification for opening fire (I can think of at least three incidents where an officer was charged with murder, two where the officer was mistaken about a matter of fact, though all were acquitted).
OK.
  • "was pursuing a criminal gang". "pursuing"? Perhaps 'investigating'; attempting to apprehend'; or similar?
    • "Investigating" works. Done.
  • "The gang had used a handgun in previous robberies and had fired at bank staff and members of the public and were in possession of armour-piercing ammunition"> Does "and" need to be used twice?
    • Re-worded.
  • "along with snipers providing cover from nearby buildings." Optional: explain the purpose of these snipers, as the purpose of the armed officers closer to the bank has just been explained.
    • I've added a little bit. See what you think.
  • "the team received word from overs watching the gang".
    • Oops! Fixed.
  • "the town of Chandler's Ford"; "were spotted in the village".
    • Fixed.
  • "and parked in a space opposite the bank." Is "in a space" necessary?
    • Ah, the benefit of fresh eyes! Gone.
  • "By this time, the armed officers hiding in the toilet block were running towards the bank." 'the armed officers who had been hiding in the toilet block'.
    • Done.
  • "by the second police sniper". If it is known that the number of snipers was two, could that be mentioned earlier?
    • I'm pretty sure there were more than two; possibly four but I can't find the exact number in the sources.
In which case could "the" be changed to 'a', as it is in the lead?
Good point. Done.
  • Second image. I am not sure that the MoS requirement that "Image captions should be succinct" is met here.
    • I feel it's as succinct as it can be; a short caption on a non-free image would invite a challenge that there wasn't sufficient "contextual significance" (NFCC#8).
  • The first link under "See also" seems a little random to me. What is the link.
    • As far as I can tell, it's the only other Flying Squad operation of the decade that has a Wikipedia article (also, I was seriously struggling to find places to link this article from).
  • "several recommendations. Among them was that a separate firearms commander—independent of the investigation—be appointed for similar operations in the future to better balance public safety against the need to gather evidence." I can have a pretty good guess at what is being implied here, but do the sources allow you to be a little more explicit?
    • Sadly not. The implication is that the police let it play out too long and should have arrested the gang before they were holding a security guard at gunpoint but the IPCC were never explicit; in fact they acknowledged that they couldn't be certain that the outcome would have different had there been an independent firearms commander.

Very neat little article. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gog. Happy new year! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:28, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And to you Harry. A couple of counter-responses above. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And replies inline Gog. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:06, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit

Source review

edit

Spotchecks not done

  • Lead says 17 robberies, text says at least 18 - which is correct? (Not a sourcing issue but I'd actually suggest rephrasing both sentences, as they're a bit hard to parse)
    • Fixed (and re-cast per your comments)
  • Grohmann has a harvref error
    • Ugh. I'm not sure what the error is, but I think this fixes it.
  • FN19 is confusing me a bit as there is an author credited as "Pa" at the source link - do you know if this is a pseudonym, or is this an error?
  • This source has links to some additional stories on this subject that are not cited, for example concerning issues with the inquest - have you reviewed these?
    • Yes. I didn't include the missing document because it didn't seem to have any effect on the inquest and none of the other sources mentioned it. None of the others contain any details not already mentioned but I added one of them anyway.
  • For FN28, the citation information provided doesn't match that at the link given. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:31, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

edit
  • The gang were responsible for at least 18 robberies, from which they stole around £500,000. In previous robberies, gang members had carried firearms and had violently assaulted security guards who had resisted. Suggest "The gang were responsible for at least 18 robberies, in which gang members had carried firearms and had violently assaulted security guards who had resisted, and had stolen around £500,000."

Support. That's the only nit I can find to pick, and I'm not going to hold up support over it. Concise and readable. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Mike. I've addressed that sentence. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:52, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Struck. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

coord note @Nikkimaria: How are the image and source reviews looking? Ealdgyth (talk) 22:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both good to go. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Chandler%27s_Ford_shooting/archive1&oldid=1000630220"