Talk:City bonds robbery

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:City bonds robbery/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tayi Arajakate (talk · contribs) 06:52, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Comments

• Hello, Mujinga. I'll be the one reviewing your nomination and will be making further comments in some time. One thing though, before making any other comment, could I ask why you opted for not including an infobox in the article? Tayi Arajakate _Talk 06:52, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

• Hi thanks for taking on the review. I have no particular reason for or against having an infobox. I just checked some other heist articles for example featured article Baker Street robbery, Great Gold Robbery and Hatton Garden safe deposit burglary and they don't have infoboxes. Mujinga (talk) 15:56, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

• Great thanks for the comments, they are really helpful to improve the article. I've answered most but not all, and I've run out of time now, will return in the next few days and ping you when I'm done if that's ok. Mujinga (talk) 10:10, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

• Tayi Arajakate That's everything answered now, see you what you think. Mujinga (talk) 22:35, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

• Mujinga, I had left two comments in the assessment table itself, under the section on original research and illustration which I think you haven't noticed. Otherwise, all the issues are sorted now and good work on the article in general! Tayi Arajakate _Talk 02:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• Ah yes I hadn't spotted those comments. The bit on Marcos I have removed. On images, I would love to have a decent picture of a bearer bond but I haven't found a suitable one at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Bearer_bonds. Thanks for the suggestion of the picture of Wandsworth prison, in my view it wouldn't add much to the article. Hopefully that's a satisfactory answer on those two points. Mujinga (talk) 14:41, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• Mujinga, right there doesn't seem to be any image of Bank of England bearer bonds. I would've preferred more images but that's too borderline. In other words, congratulations, you have helped develop another good article now. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:51, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot for the careful review! Mujinga (talk) 14:55, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• Issues with prose:

• The line "care was taken to make the theft appear accidental, since otherwise the bonds could be cancelled" might be interpreted as the the theft appearing as an accident instead of a theft.

• thanks, yes bits like this get a bit complicated, I've rephrased Mujinga (talk) 09:51, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

• Looks good now. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 08:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

• The highlighted part of the line, "The Bank of England was supplying false information to the media on purpose and the bonds were actually just as good as cash" is a bit vague. Could replace the portion with a specified reason for supplying false information.

• rephrased - by the way, i went back to source to check by keyword searching "Bank of England" - as mentioned below, unfortunately these are ebooks with no page ref Mujinga (talk) 09:56, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

• It's a lot clearly now, although in that respect should remove "However" from the next line to make the flow smoother. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 08:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

• tweaked! Mujinga (talk) 22:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

• The line "At first, police believed that Thomas had been killed in a settling of scores by friends of Summerville, but it soon became clear that Thomas was involved in other activities" could be rephrased in terms of findings of the investigation. The line stating "He quickly died from his injuries" could be expanded a bit to clarify that he died on the way to the hospital.

• tweaked - it wasn't on the way to the hospital, it was whilst his sister called for the ambulance Mujinga (talk) 22:26, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oops, I didn't read that carefully enough. The section looks a lot better now. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 02:29, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• Issues with references:

• Book citations could use some page numbers.

• I think this is probably referring to cases where the book was online as an ebook on gbooks and unfortuantely no page number was used. It should be easy to identify those references as they are marked with "(eBook)" Mujinga (talk) 09:38, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

• Not ideal but okay. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 08:03, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

• Reference 21, unclear where this is sourced from. Needs at least ISBN, ISSN or doi, or some sort of link. If this is an offline source, needs more clarity on what it is. The reference need not to be used as the material it is supposed to support is entirely supported by the other reference.

• It's Computing magazine - I vaguely remember being frustrated at not being able to give more info on this reference but will have to look into it further. It is giving some information since it names the specific company, not sure if that's hugely necessary here so could also rephrase. Mujinga (talk) 10:08, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

• rephrased! Mujinga (talk) 22:33, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

• Reference 28, not necessary but could state Irish Examiner instead of their web address.

• done! Mujinga (talk) 09:39, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

• Need an inline citation for last line of recovery, which is otherwise verifiable under Arrest of John Traynor.

• done! Mujinga (talk) 09:57, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

• The comparison with the Iraqi bank robbery needs to be cited to the Coin World article as well since it's the one making the explicit comparison with the City bonds robbery.

• done Mujinga (talk) 22:17, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Overall: More or less a good article, putting on hold for the time being. On hold Tayi Arajakate _Talk 09:16, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Passing, the article is good. Pass Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:53, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Assessment

1. Comprehension: The article is well written. Pass

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	Some minor issues with clarity and wording, listed in comments. (update) Issues have been cleared.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	The article is compliant with the manual of style for the most part.	Pass

2. Verifiability: The article meets the standards of verifiability. Pass

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	Needs some minor cleanup for making it easier to verify material, issues listed in comments. (update) Issues have been cleared.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	Citations are sufficiently reliable.	Pass
(c) (original research)	One potential instance of original research, the comparisons with the Philippine regime seem to have not been made by any source, it refers to a sum total of a Fernando Marcos's corruption which wouldn't usually be categorised as a robbery. (update) The comparison has been removed, no other issues found.	Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	No copyright issues were located.	Pass

3. Comprehensiveness: The article is adequately focused and broad in its coverage. Pass

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	Without checking for other sources, the citations present in the article suggest that this article covers all major aspects.	Pass
(b) (focused)	The article stays on topic without unnecessary deviations.	Pass

4. Neutrality: No issues regarding point of view were located. Pass

Notes	Result
Representation is proper, sources are varied and adequately summarised with due weightage.	Pass

5. Stability: The article is stable. Pass

Notes	Result
No issues regarding article stability can be located.	Pass

6. Illustration: The article could use some more images, suggestion: image of bearer bonds in the lead and Prison Wardsworth for Traynor. Neutral

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	No copyright issue and attribution provided for existing image.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	Caption and use are accurate.	Pass

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.