Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Shooting of Stephen Waldorf/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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23 April 2023 [1].

Shooting of Stephen Waldorf

edit
Nominator(s): Harry Mitchell (talk)

London. 1983. A police task force is hunting a dangerous escaped criminal. Thinking they've got their man, they follow a car through the West End. When the car grinds to a halt in traffic, an armed officer moves in to confirm their suspect's identity. Apparently believing his quarry has recognised him, the officer opens fire without warning. Two more armed officers join in the shooting and, having run out of ammunition, the first officer begins clubbing the man with the butt of his revolver. Only afterwards do the officers realise that the man, who survived but suffered five bullet wounds and a broken skull, is not the escaped criminal David Martin but a 26-year-old film editor named Stephen Waldorf. There was considerable outcry in the public and the press. Two police officers were charged with (but acquitted of) attempted murder and the British government rapidly initiated reforms to police firearms policy.

I've essentially rewritten the article from scratch over a few months as part of a project on British police shootings and the development of police firearms policy. It's had a peer review, where @Tim riley, SchroCat, and Mujinga: offered some valuable suggestions, and now I think it's ready for its bronze star but I'm always happy to hear more feedback. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:40, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Whoop, whoop, this is the sound of the police. I was in Madam Tussauds with my nan when this happened! Now, how about a map? SN54129 13:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't even conceived! ;) Do you think a map would be helpful? A bit like my reply to SchroCat's comment in the PR that the article doesn't focus much on Wadorf—it wouldn't really have mattered if his John Smith and he was shot in Dulwich because it's the action of the police officers and the reforms that followed that make the incident noteworthy. Still, I can try and dig up a map if you think it would be useful. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh :) I was thinking os one showing their respective routes, and where the police joined in, but perhaps we don't have that level of detail? SN54129 12:08, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

Spotchecks not done

Hi Nikki, Worpole fixed. The bibliography is all cite book and cite journal; the only non-templated bit is Waddington's chapter, which is the same way I referenced a chapter on Bennerley Viaduct, or have I missed something? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:50, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason to not use a template for that as well? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:22, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do the templates allow for that? I hate template syntax; I just hate typing out citations by hand even more! @Nikkimaria HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Squires, Peter (2023). "Armed Responses and Critical Shots: Learning Lessons from Police-Involved Shootings in England and Wales". In Clare Farmer; Richard Evans (eds.). Policing & Firearms: New Perspectives and Insights. London: Springer. ISBN 9783031130137. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit

No licensing issues found (t · c) buidhe 16:05, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

edit

If we're trading in ages, I was 31 at the time, so a little more respect from you youngsters, if you please! I could find very little to carp about at the peer review, and after a further perusal I can find no more, except to repeat that in my view the images at the top of the article should be put in reverse order so that Waldorf − the subject of the article − has his picture before that of David Martin. I don't press the point and am entirely happy to support. Tim riley talk 15:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by SC

edit

I was also happy at PR and another readthrough shows this is a strong article that meets all the criteria of the FAC. An excellent piece of work. - SchroCat (talk) 15:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Support by SN

edit

I suspect I'm the only one that didn't have to pay to get into M. Tussaud's then  :) fine article. Think I agree with Tim re. pic placement, except I might suggest arranging them vertically rather than horizontally. Cheers! SN54129 15:37, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from Chris

edit
  • "When the car stopped in traffic, Detective Constable Finch" - as this is his first mention, should his forename be given?
  • "a third officer, Detective Constable Jardine" - and here?
  • "He had served a nine-year prison sentence, starting in 1973 for a series of frauds and burglaries" - I would say this should be either "He had served a nine-year prison sentence, starting in 1973, for a series of frauds and burglaries" or "He had served a nine-year prison sentence starting in 1973 for a series of frauds and burglaries" but not what is there currently
  • "Martin escaped his cell and escaped" - maybe change the second "escaped" to "fled"?
  • I note that the police officers' forenames also aren't given in the body and they are only referred to as "DC [name]". This seems oddly deferential. I would suggest that their full names be given the first time they are mentioned (assuming we have reliable sources for them).
  • "An article in The Independent ten years after the incident, described it" - don't think that comma is needed
  • That's what I got. Oh, and as it appears mandatory to declare it, I was ten years old at the time. By the look of things I watched Tales of the Gold Monkey after my tea that evening :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Chris, thanks very much for having a look. I've addressed all your comments excep the one about the officers' names. I've deliberately excluded their first names per WP:BLPNAME, much as with Martin's girlfriend and the car's driver. I don't think it's right that the top Google hit for somebody's name should be a Wikipedia article about a single event they were involved in, especially 40 years later. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:10, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - a valid point about BLPNAME -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:14, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Unlimitedlead

edit

I shall never reveal my age, but I can disclose that this event took place at least ten years before I was even conceived. Comments to follow soon, I suppose Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:52, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The shooting caused a public outcry..." Perhaps this is British English or a personal shortcoming, but the grammar sounds strange to me. I would say "caused public outcry" instead.
  • Do we know Detective Constable Finch's real first name?
    • See my reply to Chris above; I've deliberately excluded per WP:BLPNAME. I included the surnames because it would be too complicated to explain the sequence of events without som way to refer to them.
  • "Finch, an armed officer, incorrectly believed that Waldorf was Martin and that he had been recognised" This long sentence can be condensed to be more concise. You could try something like: "Finch, an armed officer, incorrectly discerned Waldorf to be Martin."
    • The sentence isn't very long, and Finch's justification for shooting was the thought "Martin" (who turned out to be Waldorf) had recognised him.
  • Also do we know Detective Constable Jardine's first name?
  • "The shooting caused an outcry..." Ditto with my first comment.
  • "(Martin was known to carry two guns)" You have already said this previously.
    • Removed.
  • "The investigation found that the officers had fired a total of 14 shots" I would add "subsequent" before investigation for clarity.
    • I'm not sure tit's necessary (you can't have an invetigation into shots fired until after they've been fired) but it doesn't hurt anything so done.
  • Link parliament to Parliament of the United Kingdom?
    • I would consider that overlinking but I'm more conservative in my linking than most editors.
  • What are AFOs? This needs to be stated.
    • Not sure what you mean? In the lead we have a smaller number of better-trained officers, to be known as authorised firearms officers and in the body the term "authorised firearms officer" (AFO) became the standard national designation for a for a police officer trained in the use of firearms and both link to the Wikipedia article on the term. Does it need more explanation than that?
  • "In a 2023 book chapter..." I think the book should be named, rather than vaguely referring to it as "a 2023 book".
    • I haven't named any of the other books I've quoted from, just the authors and their expertise, so I don't think it's necessary to name this one.
  • Peter Waddington is linked twice in the Bibliography section.
    • Not sure that's a problem but he's the only one so unlinked.
  • Do we know more about Stephen Waldorf's life? What did he do after the incident?
    • He gave a few interviews (which is mentioned in the article) but other than that he wasn't notable before the incident and he was't notable after it. It almost wouldn't have mattered who the police shot in this case; the incident is known for the mistken identity and the reforms that followed it.

That's all... Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:29, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Unlimitedlead thanks ofr your comments! Nice to see I'm not the youngest one here! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:35, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for getting back to me. I will support this nomination.Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

caeciliusinhorto

edit

As with Tim's and schro's comments from your peer review, I'm struggling to find much to pick you up on for the writing of the article – my minor quibbles:

  • "which caused damage to his abdomen and liver" – "which caused damage to" seems unnecessarily wordy to me; any reason not to prefer "which damaged" or even "damaging"?
  • "Waldorf was taken to St Stephen's Hospital, as was the other passenger (Martin's girlfriend) who was grazed by a bullet" - I think this phrasing is in response to mujinga's query about the passengers in your PR, but this reads awkwardly to me; I would have suggested simply removing the parenthetical, but in deference to mujinga's confusion perhaps "... to St Stephen's Hospital, as was Martin's girlfriend who was grazed by a bullet"? (Alternatively, you could rework these sentences a little more to something like:

Waldorf suffered five bullet wounds—damaging his abdomen and liver—as well as a fractured skull and injuries to one hand caused by the pistol whipping. Martin's girlfriend was also grazed by a bullet. Both were taken to St. Stephen's Hospital.

  • "Finch was returned to uniform" – I had to think about this a little to realise that it probably meant Finch was previously a plainclothes officer; this isn't actually established anywhere in the article however.

Haven't done any source checking yet, but I should be able to get access to a few of them. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:39, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Caeciliusinhorto-public/Caeciliusinhorto Apologies for the delay. I believe I've addressed all your concerns but happy to talk about it if not. Let me know if you need any help with source checking; the two journal articles are both accessible via TWL and I own physical copies of all the books. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:20, 4 April 2023 (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/Shooting_of_Stephen_Waldorf/archive1&oldid=1151425194"