Second Opinion only

Original Review

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

Reviewer: GhostRiver (talk · contribs) 17:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello! I'll be reviewing this article to help reduce the good article nomination backlog and to gain points in the WP:WIKICUP. Although quid pro quo is not required, if you fancy returning the favor, I have a list of articles in need of review here. — Ghost River 17:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Great thanks for taking this on Ghostriver - looking forward to working with you again Mujinga (talk) 22:24, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Infobox and lede

With the opening paragraph, I think the first sentence should say it was the UK's largest cash robbery, and then the part about the extra 154 million should be after what they did take
- I prefer the current structure Mujinga (talk) 18:12, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
  - Just read through this article and then saw it was up for review so I thought I’d add my two cents worth. I think it’s definitely worth noting that it’s the largest ever robbery in the opening sentence. It’s the defining point of the event.Xx78900 (talk) 10:06, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
    Hi Xx78900 thanks for dropping by, I've made some replies. If the largest cash robbery bit was to go in the first sentence, how do you see the first paragraph working, something like this?
    
    The Securitas depot robbery was the United Kingdom's largest cash heist. It occurred in Tonbridge, Kent, England, beginning with a kidnapping on the evening of 21 February 2006 and ending in the early hours of 22 February. The criminals left the depot with almost £53 million and left behind another £154 million only because they did not have the means to transport it
    
    The claim would rest on Criminology Theory, Research, and Policy. But that's dated 2006 so then it's hard to say it's still the largest, for some reason it's hard to find a more recent source for that. Mujinga (talk) 11:24, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
They tricked their way inside the depot and armed with weapons including AK-47 assault rifles and a Škorpion submachine gun, they tied up fourteen workers. Awkward syntax with the lead-in between the trickery and the capturing
- yes, rephrased Mujinga (talk) 18:12, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
As of 2016, £32 million had not been recovered and several suspects were still on the run. Source conflicts the second part; most recent ref saying people are still on the run is from 2011
- There's two sources from 2016, one was already there and I've added the other Mujinga (talk) 18:12, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Depot

Comma after "Debden, Epping Forest" per MOS:GEOCOMMA
- rejigged Mujinga (talk) 17:04, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
"which both held new currency"
- done Mujinga (talk) 17:04, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
"and it had built the depot at" → "in a depot constructed at"
- broke up the sentence Mujinga (talk) 17:08, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Split sentence after "in 1980", then "Barclays chose the location because..."
- Oh I broke it earlier, great minds think alike! Mujinga (talk) 17:08, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Should meters be the default template and then yards, the imperial unit, in parentheses?
- The source used yards, for BrEng it's hard to say what is the norm nowadays Mujinga (talk) 17:08, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

- {{EngvarB|date=July 2014}} used on the article. Template tells – for non-specific but not N. American spelling ... Article Talk should say "Use British English"

£20 notes came in red £5,000 Missing a couple of words
- rejigged Mujinga (talk) 18:31, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
"Since the family" → "Since his family"
- I consciously used "the" since it seemed less patriarchal Mujinga (talk) 17:08, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Conspiracy

Any name for the gang?
- funnily enough no - you'd think they'd be the Tonbridge Triad or something Mujinga (talk) 17:14, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
"Albanians Bucpapa and Hysenaj were childhood friends who had met at school in Bajram Curri although they did not mention this in court, at first claiming not to know each other at all." → "The Albanian Bucpapa and Hysenaj were childhood friends who had met at school in Bajram Curri. They did not mention this in court, however, instead claiming not to know each other at all."
- changed Mujinga (talk) 17:14, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Link mixed martial arts
- cage fighter redirects to mixed martial arts but maybe it makes more sense to link "mixed martial arts" Mujinga (talk) 17:14, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
"As well as" → "In addition to"
Is there a better synonym for "signed up"? Enroled? Enlisted?
- reads fine to me, perhaps a BrEng/USeng issue? Mujinga (talk) 17:14, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
  - If this was me I’d personally opt for “registered with”. I think it fits better than the other terms. Xx78900 (talk) 10:11, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
    - again strange, to me it's normal to say you sign up at a job agency, not register with a job agency or enrol or enlist Mujinga (talk) 11:04, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
"end of 2005 was offered work at the depot"
- reads fine to me Mujinga (talk) 17:14, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
  - Definitely agree with GhostRiver in this instance, the ‘was’ would run much better.Xx78900 (talk) 10:11, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
    - strange, if i read it out loud then adding the "was" seems quite jarring Mujinga (talk) 11:02, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
"to buy" → "to purchase"
- buy seems fine to me Mujinga (talk) 17:14, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
"device, planning to give it" → "device with the intention of giving it"
- makes sense, done Mujinga (talk) 17:14, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
"managed to do precisely that" → "did precisely that"
- changed Mujinga (talk) 17:17, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
"which was later used by Hysenaj" → "which Hysenaj later used"
- rejigged Mujinga (talk) 17:17, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
See above about use of metric vs. imperial units
- miles is def more used in UK for driving speed Mujinga (talk) 17:17, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Robbery

"window and asked" → "window, asking"
- yes better like that because of the second "and" Mujinga (talk) 17:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Specify time zone for 01:00
- i think we are geo-located by now Mujinga (talk) 17:23, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Use conversion template for "7.5 tonne"
- to what? Mujinga (talk) 17:23, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
  - I would suggest Kilograms. Is the measurement in Imperial or Metric tonnes?Xx78900 (talk) 10:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
    - do people talk about truck weight in kilograms? i genuinely don't know. source just says "tonnes" Mujinga (talk) 10:58, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Unclear why "airlock" is in quotes here
- it's not actually an airlock, as in there isn't a change in atmospheric pressure between the rooms Mujinga (talk) 17:23, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
  - In this case, would it best not to describe it as an airlock? Or to add an Em dash following ‘airlock’, and explain the resemblance? Definitely feels like something is lacking.Xx78900 (talk) 10:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
    - i'd have to check it might be in quotes in the source as well. i think it's quite common to refer to a two door security setup as as an "airlock" Mujinga (talk) 10:58, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
"The whole" → "The entire"
- whole seems fine to me Mujinga (talk) 17:23, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Lynn Dixon and her son, fearful of being killed, were also put in a cage Awkward phrasing; the first half makes it sound like they are about to actively do something out of fear of being killed, whereas the second half says something was done to them
- agreed, rephrased Mujinga (talk) 17:23, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Investigation and arrests

"by organised crime" → "by organised criminals"
- In the source, the Assistant Chief Constable says "This is organised crime at its top level. This was planned and executed with military precision" Mujinga (talk) 17:27, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
  - Yes but that’s said in a different grammatical case. The concept of organised crime didn’t plan the heist. Xx78900 (talk) 10:23, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
    - but organised crime is a thing, as indeed is British firms (organised crime). "organised criminals" isn't a thing Mujinga (talk) 11:00, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
I've seen the S in South London capitalized; our article isn't helpful on it, as "South" is only used to start a sentence
- it's a debatable one but since Olive Morris uses "S" I'll put "S" here as well :) Mujinga (talk) 17:27, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Comma after "Four days after the heist"
- done Mujinga (talk) 17:27, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
I would also change “Kent Police said” to “Kent Police reported/stated”, as organizations can’t ‘say’ anything.Xx78900 (talk) 10:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why an organization can state something but not say it Mujinga (talk) 11:07, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Also the word ‘loot’ feels strange to me. I would say ‘the stolen money’Xx78900 (talk) 10:45, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not particularly tied to "loot" but "money" occurs four times in that section and "stolen" occurs in the next sentence Mujinga (talk) 11:07, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
When you say ‘company director Ian Bowrem’, are you just providing his profession? Or was it a company linked to the heist?Xx78900 (talk) 10:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- yes the former, the source says that. and without it, then the question would be who is he Mujinga (talk) 11:07, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Trials

Just linking "judge" feels as if it borders on MOS:EASTEREGG; can probably be written out to "High Court Judge"
- I'm not convinced "High Court Judge" reads better and it's tricky because the case was at the Crown Court I think, because of its severity. However, the Crown Court has High Court judges apparently, so I'll make the change Mujinga (talk) 17:30, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Instead of parentheses around "Hysenaj had not picked up the phone ...", use a semicolon
- i prefer the brackets Mujinga (talk) 17:30, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
  - and I prefer an Em dash, though I ultimately think either a dash or a colon would be better suited.
No comma needed after "and one year later"
- done Mujinga (talk) 17:30, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Given the line ‘suggesting he was the inside man’, should there be a line where prosecutors/police deduce that the heist could only have occurred with the cooperation of an inside man? And how did it emerge that it wasn’t him? Xx78900 (talk) 10:49, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- it was the defence suggesting it but i think it's common practice for the police to look for an inside man and in this case it was the phone records linking hysenaj and bucpapa that proved hard to explain Mujinga (talk) 11:15, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Later events

"published a book about the event in 2009"
- rejigged Mujinga (talk) 17:40, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Comma after "Ten years after the robbery"
- done Mujinga (talk) 17:40, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
"would have quickly" → "was likely"
- The former detective superintendent is reported as saying in the source: The money would certainly have been taken out of the country after the heist and would have long since disappeared into the murky world of international criminal finance [..] "The money from Securitas is long gone" so I think it's good to emphasise how it rapidly disappeared Mujinga (talk) 17:40, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
  - I agree with both of ye, and would phrase it “likely would have quickly been” Xx78900 (talk) 10:27, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
"Several people" → "Several individuals"
- reads ok to me Mujinga (talk) 17:40, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
are thought runs afoul of MOS:DATED and needs a "as of" qualifier
- changed to "are suspected by police" Mujinga (talk) 17:40, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
  - I don’t think this change addresses the issue. Xx78900 (talk) 10:28, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
"In another shooting, Paul Allen was severely injured" → "Paul Allen was severely injured in another shooting"
- I prefer it as is Mujinga (talk) 17:40, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

- It actually does not read well.

Similar incidents

"had been targeted previously" → "had previously been targeted"
- rephrased Mujinga (talk) 17:42, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Shouldn't this previous robbery be in the "Depot" section as background information?
- I think it's better here Mujinga (talk) 17:42, 20 March 2022 (UTC) The Background suggestion has merit and worth considering. However, this is not a show-stopper.
  - I think that at least the Securitas heist should be in the Depot section, and possibly all should be moved to a background section tbh. Xx78900 (talk) 10:30, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Reference [33] (Glendinning) doesn't appear to mention either that it was the biggest in history or mention the Tonbridge raid at all
- I've added a source to cover that Mujinga (talk) 17:50, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

References

[25] is marked as a permanent dead link
- agreed, I previously tried to find an archive version but was unable to Mujinga (talk) 17:58, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
[28] is marked as an unreliable source by my scripts
- wow that's funny Metro is marked as unreliable per WP:METRO, I've removed it, luckily it was not doing much heavy lifting Mujinga (talk) 17:58, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

General comments

Images are properly licensed and relevant
No stability concerns in the revision history
Earwig score looks good, WP:LIMITED and all (you can't really rephrase criminal charges)
- cool thanks, the article appears to have had issues with close phrasing in the past so I went through everything to make sure it was gone Mujinga (talk) 17:59, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

That's all I've got! I'll leave comments on the FAC later today, as Fridays are my light teaching days on the block schedule. Please feel free to ping me with questions, and let me know when you're finished! — Ghost River 17:47, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@GhostRiver: Thanks a lot for the careful reading, I believe I've answered everything, see what you think. Mujinga (talk) 18:22, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, Mujinga. A few remaining comments. — Ghost River 17:55, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

The use of page numbers in the references is inconsistent. In the "Depot" section, for instance, I see both "33, 34" and "35-6". Per MOS:PAGERANGE, consecutive pages should always be listed as full numbers with an en dash, so they'd be "33-34" and "35-36", respectively. This does not apply for cases like "31, 33" because those numbers are non-consecutive.
- well that was strangely satisfying to fix Mujinga (talk) 15:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
In "Conspiracy", "As well as being a cage fighter" → "In addition to being a cage fighter" still
- Not seeing the improvement here, but sorry to no directly reply on that before, in my head I had it rolled into the BrEng reply below it Mujinga (talk) 15:14, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
"Signed up" still reads a bit informally
- As before, I think that's a BrEng thing Mujinga (talk) 15:12, 14 April 2022 (UTC) Noted; see EngVarB template advice
"attached it to a belt, then Hysenaj used it" → "attached it to a belt, which Hysenaj then used"
Per MOS:IMAGELOCATION, the map of Kent should probably be right-aligned
- ok Mujinga (talk) 15:12, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
MOS:DATED issue isn't fixed with "are suspected by police"; present-tense statements like this need date qualifiers (i.e. "As of X date")
- changed to were Mujinga (talk) 15:12, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Still don't like the "In another shooting," phrasing
- Is this BrEng vs USEng? Seems fine to me and I'd like to take this to FAC so happy to carry on the conversation there Mujinga (talk) 15:12, 14 April 2022 (UTC) Noted; see EngVarB template advice
The Paul Allen shooting happened three years ago, should probably include an update on his condition, if one exists
- I went to the tabloids and they totally froze my computer with all the adverts! I've updated on the arrests, Allen didn't die but there isn't much else on his condition that I could find Mujinga (talk) 15:12, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

@GhostRiver: I've answered everything, please see what you think when you get a chance Mujinga (talk) 13:03, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

@GhostRiver: Hiya don't want to pressure you but I'd like to finish this off, shall we say if there are no more comments in a week's time then we agree to close the review and I'll move to peer review? Since I'd like to take this to FA I'm not especially fussed about it being a GA and I think I've incorporated a lot of your comments already Mujinga (talk) 13:39, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Second opinion requested

As nominator I'm requesting a second opinion, since the article has been on hold for 57 days and in my opinion the article is nearly there. The reviewer has had issues IRL and has not commented here in a month, whilst they have been making limited edits elsewhere. They are not replying to pings or talk page messages. Mujinga (talk) 08:46, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Second Opinion

Instructions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment

Starts GA Second Opinion. Hopefully get to this in the next few days. Thank you --Whiteguru (talk) 03:09, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Observations

Document statistics

HTML document size: 167 kB
Prose size (including all HTML code): 40 kB
References (including all HTML code): 59 kB
Wiki text: 44 kB
Prose size (text only): 22 kB (3850 words) "readable prose size"
References (text only): 6609 B
Page is >100 kb - see WP:SIZERULE
Page created 23 February 2006
Total number of edits = 784 by 289 editors
Page has 61 watchers
90 Day page views = 18,492 with a daily average of 203 views
20 bot edits on page; no visits by ClueBot NT indicating no apparent vandalism
Majority of edits on this page occurred during 2022
IABot has been on the page twice

Images

File:Securitas Depot, Vale Road, Tonbridge, Kent - geograph.org.uk - 1124839-Optimised.jpg = Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license.
File:Kent UK location map.svg = Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.
File:Hook and Hatchet Pub, Hucking - geograph.org.uk - 1154886.jpg = Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license.
File:Central Criminal Court - geograph.org.uk - 650721.jpg = Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license.
- All images found to be correctly captioned with appropriate use licences and attribution

References

Comments on references noted and sorted satisfactorily.

Overall

All the previous reviewer's commentary and subsequent corrections have been noted
Some observations on the language issue are offered
The issue of Paul Allen's injuries does not read well; however, this is not a show stopper
The matter of the previous heists merits consideration; however, this is not a show stopper - I leave both these matters in the hands of Mujinga who has done yeoman work in responding and corrections.

Good Article Criteria

The article should be clearly written, in good prose, with correct spelling and grammar.
The article should be factually accurate according to reliable sources
The article should broadly cover the topic without unnecessary digressions.
The article should be stable, with no ongoing edit wars.
The article should comply with image use policy.
The article is free of obvious copyright violations.

There being no failures of the Six Good Article Criteria the Second Opinion is complete and the article is raised to GA status. --Whiteguru (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2022 (UTC)