Talk:Binion Hoard/GA1

GA Review

Passed. Vaticidalprophet 09:22, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

Reviewer: Vaticidalprophet (talk · contribs) 19:47, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting one! Introductory notes:

There's a number of minor copyedits that need making; if you don't object, I'd prefer to make them myself rather than write a long list of quibbles about things like capitalizing proper nouns, but I can work either way.

@Vaticidalprophet: Thank you for taking on a review. I have no problem with that. Bruxton (talk) 21:28, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that stood out to me in terms of breadth/covering the main aspects of the topic: do we know why Binion collected so much silver?

Vaticidalprophet 19:47, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will see if there is any source which gives a concrete reason. I have written a few articles about hoards and the reason was clear for LaVere Redfield. Being that Binion owned a casino at a time when real silver dollars were used in slots, he had access. LaVere Redfield also spent much time in casinos and got many dollars there. Bruxton (talk) 21:28, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Going section by section:

Lead

Two people were arrested and convicted of his murder. In all, a total of six people were arrested for going into Binion's safe and taking silver from his property. This is a little awkward, and makes it difficult to tell at a glance whether that six is inclusive of the two murderers. Something like "an additional four were arrested for going into his safe", then seguing into how all six were charged with theft?

I reworked the lead and consolidated the paragraphs. You were right that it was a bit hard to follow so I hope that the prose is now improved. Bruxton (talk) 14:46, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above section is highly repetitive with the second paragraph. There might be a way to consolidate them and expand on the subject better with less repetition.

See above. Bruxton (talk) 14:46, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is relevant to later in the article as well, but -- how did Spectrum acquire the coins? There's a gap here that makes reader-me pause a lot, because we go quickly from "stolen property" to "acquired and sold by a presumably legitimate company".

I added two references and began to expand the sections in regard to the timeline. I do know that there was a probate hearing from the reporting in the LA Times article. I will need to find more information about the outcome and what was most probably a judge ordered sale. Bruxton (talk) 14:46, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have found sources to say Ted "Binion's estate" sold the coins and I have added that information. I find that I am prone to getting wrapped up in the article and sometimes I add information that can be spun off into another article. I found this happening when I wrote the article St. James Davis chimpanzee attack. Bruxton (talk) 22:28, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have fleshed out the section about the sale of the hoard. Bruxton (talk) 16:19, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Background

I see from Binion's Gambling Hall and Hotel that Ted was not the original Binion to own it. Given that this section is the place for such context in the first place, it could use some more detail on how the casino was passed down through the Binion family and their relationship to it.\

I added to the section and timeline of ownership. Bruxton (talk) 15:35, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Binion had to move his silver out of the casino -- because he sold it? Was this to keep it secret from her, or as a general condition of the sale, or just personally? Or was there some other reason?

I provided context here. He was banned from the casino after the loss of his license. Bruxton (talk) 15:11, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The investigative journalist Cathy Scott wrote a book titled, Death in the Desert: The Ted Binion Homicide Case -- this should be restructured. Something like "Cathy Scott, an investigative journalist who wrote Death in the Desert: The Ted Binion Homicide Case, reported in an interview...".

I rewrote the sentence. Bruxton (talk) 15:11, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added subsections to the long history section. I am curious to see what you think of them. Bruxton (talk) 20:31, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sections for the conviction, Supreme Court, and retrial are all very short -- it might be better to consolidate them. Otherwise, seems fine. I'll look through the expanded Background section and the history sections soon. Vaticidalprophet 22:46, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. Vaticidalprophet 08:49, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Background (expanded)

I don't think the additional link to "Binion's Horseshoe" is needed, as it's a redirect that isn't to a specific subsection.

Done Removed link Bruxton (talk) 14:59, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have made some copyedits.
he was known to smoke tar heroin and take pills -- does the source specify particular substances? A lot of things come in pill form.

Done anti-anxiety pills particularly Xanax Bruxton (talk) 14:59, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Gaming commission Should this be "Gaming Commission" (guessing so) or "gaming commission"?

Done Capitalized. Bruxton (talk) 14:59, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The license ban was permanent, and Ted Binion made plans to move his silver from the casino vaults [...] After the loss of his gaming license, Binion had to move his silver out of the casino is repetitive -- only the latter is needed, IMO, because it directly sets the tone for the new paragraph.

Done removed repetitive sentence. Bruxton (talk) 14:59, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Binion's death

Authorities determined that he had died from a lethal cocktail of drugs, including Xanax, heroin, and a tranquilizer -- the source says he took heroin and the tranquilizer Xanax, rather than both and an unspecified third tranquilizer.

Done Right. Mistake on my part - the article called Xanax a tranquilizer. I removed the word and reworded the sentence. Bruxton (talk) 15:13, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Did not suffer any trauma" uses the source's phrasing a little too closely -- it would be clearer to say that he hadn't died violently. I note from the source that the police at this point weren't treating his death as suspicious, which isn't very clear in the article.

Done I think I made it clear and also changed the wording. Bruxton (talk) 15:13, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is Binion being "fed" the pills a direct quote? It's a phrasing I'd expect more in a news article than a reference work. Similarly, "eating" heroin is while technically accurate not a common phrasing (our article goes variably with "oral/by mouth", and "oral" is most common in the medical and research literature).

Done I changed the language to force-fed - the language in the article was "stuffed down his throat" which was. Not sure how to phrase the sentence, but authorities used this as circumstantial evidence saying he never ingested heroin. Bruxton (talk) 15:06, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The phrasing is also somewhat awkward on Doris's and the drug dealer's statements. It would be better to consolidate these to a "both his ex-wife and his drug dealer stated he exclusively smoked heroin and did not take it orally" single sentence.

Done changed to Both his ex-wife and his drug dealer stated he exclusively smoked heroin and did not take it orally. Bruxton (talk) 15:06, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arrests and convictions

He and three others were arrested at 3am. Just for an abundance of clarity, 3am the same day?

Done added "3am that same day" Bruxton (talk) 16:11, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need to mention what particular store they were arrested at? (Is this the same chain as Smith's Food and Drug?)

Done removed the specific store. Bruxton (talk) 16:11, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Made some copyedits again here, and to the prior section. Some of these are a little more subjective than the previous ones -- there's a lot of repetition of specific dates after they're first mentioned, that paradoxically makes the timeline slightly harder to follow than just "on [date]...later that same day".

Bruxton (talk) 16:11, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Murder case retrial

There's a slight hanging thread still here. Did Murphy and Tabish/their lawyers push for a retrial? Was there a media controversy? It sounds like something along those lines must've happened, but we jump suddenly from "they were sentenced" to "they had a retrial three years later".

Done I added a few sentences to describe their appeal. Bruxton (talk) 16:29, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Baden seems to be a rather contentious figure, going by his article. Is there anything about that relating to this specific case that could be added?

Done Will add to the section his background and controversial testimony Bruxton (talk) 16:29, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sale of the hoard + Legacy

Ted Binion's estate also said that an unknown number of double eagle $20 gold pieces, a collection of antique coins and currency from the Civil War era -- sentence ends early.

Done thanks for catching this, I finished the sentence. Bruxton (talk) 16:41, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need the link to 'investigative journalist'? It's a self-explanatory term, and it creates a SEAOFBLUE with Scott's name.

Done removed the link. Bruxton (talk) 16:41, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That should be all. I've made various copyedits throughout to avoid a slew of minor prose comments. This is a fascinating read, though there are still some queries regarding sourcing and content. I hope to promote it once those are resolved. Vaticidalprophet 03:06, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaticidalprophet: Thank you for the review. I have completed the items in the list. I have also added other details. I believe that the article is looking far more complete after the review. Bruxton (talk) 18:00, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.