Talk:Miami Showband killings/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 00:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: one found and fixed, I hope that is the best target.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 00:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I aim to post a substantive review within the next 24 hours. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
	1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Well written, I made some minor formatting changes.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Accords sufficiently with key elements of the Manual of Style
	2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Although apparently well referenced, the referencing style is unclear and inconsistent. Where a source, e.g the Barron report 2003 is used more than one, it should be listed in the Bibliography. Then, and only then, summary references such as "67. The Barron Report (2003), p.260" can be used. References such as "Dillon. The Dirty War. p.219. Google Books. Retrieved 13 April 2011" are inadequate. If this is a book, we need the full names of author publisher, year of publication and iSBN number. Google books is not a publisher. It is somewhere one can see parts of a book (sometimes). Ref #34 links to a website of a campaign group (which is not neccessarily a reliable source), which presents archived copies if Irish government reports. This needs to be made clear and the reports themselves linked to as appropriate, with page numbers for the cited statements. Are these reports not available from official sites? This would be preferable. Again the referencing is unclear further down the Barron Report 2003 is linked to by just "The Barron Report (2003), p.260". Is this the same report? "61. ^ a b c Interim Report, p.159" is inadequate. "31. ^ The Miami band lined up against the van. Then they were coldly murdered. The Independent.ie. by Liam Collins. 17 July 2005. Retrieved 16-12-10." If this is meant to conatin a URl to the soutrce, it didn't work. If there is an online source, then link directly to it. If it is an offline book or newspaper then make that clear. Presently the referencing is messy and unclear. Many references are just links with no details of title, author, publisher, date of publication, etc. Also links to Jstor or similar (e.g #79) need full details of publisher, journal title, page number, doi or ocli number, etc. I sugggest a thorough read of WP:CITE and then applying it. Currently this is a definite fail on the extremely poor presentation of references. Done
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	~~Sites such as Shared Troubles, Justice for the Forgotten, Carrick on Suir info do not appear to be RS~~ Done
	2c. it contains no original research.	No OR
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The article appears to cover the details well
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No unnecessary trivia
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The artcile is neutral in presentation
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Surpisingly stable for an article with the background of "the troubles"
	6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	File:Miami showband.jpg (this needs a separate rationale for its use in the manin Miami Showband article); File:11 UDR Inspection.JPG I have nominated this as a possibly unfree file; File:Fountain (04).JPG at the resolution used in the article the tricolour is barely visible. I appreciate how you are trying to illustrate the background section, but this just doesn't work; File:Newtownhamilton PVCP -2.JPG, another scan which I have nominated as possibly unfree; I note that the uploader of the two scans has had a number of other images deleted. Done
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Use and captions are fine
	7. Overall assessment.	OK, on hold for ~~sevne~~ fourteen days (that's 29 April) for above issues to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply] Everything seems to be in order now, so I am happy to list this. Congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 20:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The source Justice for the Forgotten contains the full text of the Barron Report 2003; Shared Troubles is taken from Travers' autobiography. The Carrick-on-Suir ref I have removed. The statement is actually better suited to the main article than here.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, ;et me know when you and Daicaregos are done. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, how are you doing. Shall I take another look yet? Jezhotwells (talk) 00:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please. Daicaregos (talk) 12:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I believe it's ready for another look. Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are constant references to the mens UDR association, indeed the article suggests that UDR Sergeant etc etc were convicted of the murders. The men were not acting in any UDR capacity and also were expelled from the organisation so how can we say that UDR soldiers were convicted without clarifying that the men were expelled and it is also technically incorrect to state that the men were UDR at the times of their conviction which the article seems to suggest Kernel Saunters (talk) 21:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The firm rejection of Nairac's involvement from several sources is not in the article so it looks unbalanced Kernel Saunters (talk) 21:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I should able to take a look at this later tomorrow - Sunday. Have driven 600 miles today so need my sleep! Jezhotwells (talk) 22:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. Kernel Saunters, regarding the UDR men convicted of the crime, only one of them - John James Somerville - was in fact a former member (as stated on page 159 in the Barron Report 2006, p. 3 on the Sub-Committee Barron Report 2006, and on page 48 in the Cassel Report); Crozier and McDowell were at the time of the attack, serving members of the UDR as stated in my sources to the BBC, Cassel Report (pp.52, 67, 110), various Barron Reports, Peter Taylor's Loyalists, etc. I have since corrected the article to show that JJ Somerville was a former member of the regiment, but left in the fact that McDowell and Crozier were serving UDR members as the article's sources all state. The military checkpoint was indeed bogus (the article says this); however as Crozier himself admitted, they set up all trappings of a bona fide military checkpoint and all the gunmen were wearing UDR uniform. McDowell admitted to having lost his UDR beret which was found at the scene by police. Even Brian McCoy, who had relatives in Northern Ireland's security forces and a brother-in-law who was a former B-Special, was fooled into accepting it was a genuine, legal checkpoint. Nowhere in the article does it say that the soldiers were acting on instructions from their battalion superiors or 11th UDR had knowledge of its taking place. The qustion does remain (and I didn't put it in the article) is how they could have set up an illegal checkpoint on the main north-south road when the area was constantly patrolled by regular Army and the UDR (in an official capacity). Another thing I must point out is that at the time the attack occurred, the UVF was not an illegal organisation, as its proscription had been lifted by Merlyn Rees in April 1974. Therefore, it would not have been a crime then for UDR members to also be in the UVF. According to Martin Dillon, one former UDR commander (McCord) tolerated joint UDR/UDA or UVF membership. As for Nairac, I disagree that the article is unbalanced. I have presented Fred Holroyd's allegation that he organised the attack with Robin Jackson, but counterbalanced it with Martin Dillon's firm claim that Nairac had not been present at Buskhill. I also stated that Dillon alleged the attack was conceived and organised by a certain "Mr. A". I have also added that when Stephen Travers was shown a photograph of Nairac, he could not make a positive identification. Kernel Saunters, how does this not present a NPOV?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:41, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Nairac issue is resolved - WRT the UDR stuff, my comments were more on the tone. The article in the convictions section merely reports them as UDR soldiers missing the point about the attack being a UVF attack NOT a UDR attack. To a casual reader it reads like the UDR killed some civilians. It did not - UVF men some of whom were paramilitary carried out the attack. Also it is not easy to identify all those who carried out the attack, you need to work it out looking at the dead and then at the convictions section Kernel Saunters (talk) 11:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have since added a blockquote with Dillon's words as to why he believes Nairac was not present at the attack. I think the article is now properly balanced.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this gives that section a more rounded feel Kernel Saunters (talk) 11:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I fixed the Convictions section. The opening sentence now begins that the three convicted gunmen were UVF members who were also BA UDR..... OK. I think it's now more balanced. As regards the gunmen who carried out the attack, well there were the two dead bombers, Boyle and Wesley Somerville, plus the three convicted men. Those five are the only postive IDs we have, although Robin Jackson as leader of the Mid-Ulster UVF has been implicated in the attack. It is obvious (but would be OR to link them in the article) that Dillon's "Mr A" is Jackson, but seeing as he was alive and kicking back when The Dirty War came out as Dillon himself admits, he ccould not be named for legal purposes. So that makes six men (remember Jackson had been expelled from the UDR several years before for reasons which remain unknown). Jackson's brother-in-law Samuel Fulton Neil provided one of the getaway cars, but no evidence exists that he was present at the scene of the attack. That leaves the mysterious Englishman, who has never been identified. The other men (Dillon gives a total of 10 at the checkpoint) were never caught or named. Crozier himself said the lives of his family would be endangered were he to give their names. McDowell was traced through his glasses, but it is alleged that Neil informed on Crozier, hence Jackson (allegedly) shooting him dead in January 1976.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]