Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Brighton hotel bombing/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 14 August 2024 [1].

Brighton hotel bombing

[edit]
Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 15:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On 12 October it'll be forty years since the IRA's assassination attempt on the British Prime Minister and her cabinet. This article has been through a complete re-write recently, with the widest range of high-quality sources used. It's has an excellent and highly profitable and constructive PR, with comments from Tim O'Doherty, Ceoil, UndercoverClassicist, HJ Mitchell, RoySmith, MSincccc and Tim riley. I have hopes for a main page appearance on the anniversary, if it can possibly be done. Any thoughts and comments are most welcome. - SchroCat (talk) 15:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What I didn't mention in the PR was that the reason I noticed it at all was that the NY Times crossword had just had THEIRONLADY as an answer. I wonder how many kids these days would even recognize the reference? I'll try to take a look, but I'm trying to get a bunch of other stuff done so can't commit. RoySmith (talk) 15:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MSincccc

[edit]

Support from PMC

[edit]

I will try not to have popcorn thrown at me this time. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Negotiations between the British and Irish governments that had begun in 1980 continued, despite the bombing" rm the comma I think
  • "and the republicans minority" this may be a region-specific grammatical difference, but shouldn't it be "republican minority"?
  • "...imprisoned at the Maze prison, Northern Ireland, went on hunger strike. The strike was to have Special Category Status (SCS) returned to prisoners" suggest combining into one sentence and tweaking the wording, maybe something like "...imprisoned at the Maze prison, Northern Ireland, went on hunger strike to demand/request/something Special Category Status (SCS) be returned to prisoners" (or maybe "to protest the removal of Special Category Status from prisoners")
  • Very judicious use of quotes from Mr. English
  • This article says ASUs were 4 volunteers, the ASU article says 4-10 (and later 5-8). Was it flexible or was it rigidly 4?
    The article’s citation doesn’t support the claim, but I’ve been slightly too exact when the source gave some flexibility, so I’ve added ‘normally’, which is more in line with it. - SchroCat (talk) 20:31, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • " the England Department, the IRA's ASU that operated in England" - so (building on above), the IRA only had 4 guys operating in England? (my knowledge of the Troubles is limited, so forgive me if this is on its face a stupid question)
  • "He was given room 629..." this sentence feels a bit knotted up in itself, and repeats "high level" twice.
  • "A ball was being held in Top Rank ballroom, a nearby venue," could simplify to "being held in nearby Top Rank ballroom", I don't think you need to clarify that a ballroom is a venue
    All done to here. Thanks for the comments - all good stuff here. - SchroCat (talk) 20:31, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing from Reactions onward:

  • taoiseach is italicised the first time but not the second time it turns up
  • "IRA cache found..." I immediately stopped to question how all this was known. I see that it's in the footnote, but I wonder if it might be better in the main text, as stopping to wonder quite took me out of the narrative. (Also, again, possibly a foreigners' question, but why would the ATB leave the cache in place?)
    They didn't leave it in place (or at least the sources don't say they did). Does it give that impression? If so, I'll reword slightly. - SchroCat (talk) 07:18, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I somehow missed that it was found with the timer already absent and made an unwarranted assumption about the chronology. It makes sense now that I read it again properly (I also think having it in the main text instead of the footnote helps that fact be more prominent)
  • "A decision was made..." followed by "It was decided that..." is a bit repetitive. Can it be written around?
  • I suggest reordering the paragraph about Magee meeting Jo Berry a bit. Sentence 1 could be combined with sentence 3, possibly something like "...met at Berry's request; she wanted to understand the conflict from Magee's perspective."

Reading over Roy's comments about the background, and having had similar thoughts in my first pass, I agree that it could be reduced slightly. Some of the details of the other attacks could be trimmed. The location of Mountbatten's death isn't important for the narrative of this bombing. "...was killed by an IRA bomb on his fishing boat" gets us where we need to go. Similarly, the Warrenpoint ambush doesn't really need the detail of "with two bombs: the first aimed at a convoy, the second at reinforcements arriving to deal with the incident". You could trim those details and probably merge the paragraph with the one about about Neave. The Sands paragraph I think should stand as-is, because it directly underpins the motive behind this bombing.

I suspect some of the quotes relating to Thatcher's approach could be reduced or paraphrased without losing much. Finally, some of Magee's early biographical details could be trimmed - the petty crime and childhood moves don't really contribute to the bombing narrative.

All that being said, overall, this is a good summary of a difficult topic that I - as someone with only very basic knowledge of the Troubles - found clear and understandable. As usual, this is a fine piece of work and you should be proud of it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:49, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks PMC. I've done the immediately actionable ones (although there is a question above) and I'll go over again with an eye to trimming. However, I don't think we're doing the best we can for the reader when we cut too much. I think we need to know Mountbatten was off the coast of Ireland when blown up (otherwise people may assume he was in England and ask IRA activity here, rather than on the island of Ireland). Similarly, the two bombs of Warrenpoint point towards a level of sophistication in IRA planning and execution that a reader wouldn't otherwise grasp. The Troubles was a complex series of events, and by cutting too much we run the risk of ending up with a "Catholics and Protestants killing each other" narrative, which is the all-too-common viewpoint of people. That said, I will go over it again to see what I can do. - SchroCat (talk) 07:18, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm...I still think you could trim to "off the coast of Ireland". Similarly, I think the IRA's technical expertise is well established by the time we get to Warrenpoint - they've already bombed two prominent people to death at that point in the narrative, and now they've managed to kill 18 British soldiers in one go. I won't insist though. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:42, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

UC

[edit]

Support following the PR; I've made some very minor copyedits since, at least one of which may be a little controversial. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:19, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Doherty

[edit]

Support- per my PR. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 13:48, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil

[edit]

Support. My main worry at the beginning of the PR was that the reasons behind the hunger strikes were fairly described, even though the bombing itself was a horrific tragedy, and a shameful incident. The article is delicately balanced and fair and am happy to support. Ceoil (talk) 04:12, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would remove both the Morrissey and John O'Farrell quotes as they are both more "wits" rather than serious political commentators with a deep understanding, and undermine the "the bombing was celebrated in some quarters" claim, which is suspect at best and probably should also be taken out. Better, having not gone back on the sources, within some of the NI & ex-pat republican community. Ceoil (talk) 00:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While Morrisey may be a shining wit, both these were examples were splashed in the press of the times and I think should probably be left in. I take your point on perhaps weakening the 'celebrated' quote, but maybe I'll move Morrissey and Farrell up to the "public condemnation was fairly weak" quote instead. - SchroCat (talk) 06:32, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John

[edit]

Oppose MOS:OVERLINK concerns and I'm not happy with the balance of the article. Why, for example, was Infobox civilian attack chosen? Other similar articles use a different one. The event was part of a war and the infobox should reflect that. Happy of course to discuss further. As it stands it does not represent our best work. "Feet" is the plural of "foot" last I heard! John (talk) 14:30, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Oh joy. What overlink concerns (you can't just waive around a term without examples of where and why); ditto the "balance"? The IB pre-dated me and the same one is used on other IRA-related events, although there is no consistency in the choice over numerous similar articles. You last point is a straw man. Discuss if you must, but you need to provide examples, not vague generalisations. - SchroCat (talk) 14:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think John's comment on the infobox is a good point but maybe more for the talk page than here, as it could get emotive as we hash through. I have thoughts but will post them there. Ceoil (talk) 14:55, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure: there are a couple of possible ones that could be used, but as there is no consistency in other IRA-related articles, there are multiple arguments for and against any of them. It's certainly not really a valid point on which to oppose, but nor is overlinking - particularly as the MoS is flexible on the point nowadays. Any oppose that does vague hand-waving, rather than raising specific points is invalid, but that would spoil the point of his stirring, I suppose. - SchroCat (talk) 15:04, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree on the current infobox choice, I'd like to trash it out on talk anyways as it might become an issue down the line. Overlinking, if an issue, is easily fixed. An oppose at this stage is only a position, its not final. Ceoil (talk) 15:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course Ceoil, my intention is to help bring it up to standard, and that's an iterative process. Overlinking as you say is easy to fix, and we can discuss the infobox issue in talk as you suggest. The 'foot/feet' issue is really one for primary education and I think that's a deal breaker for me, but we can even discuss that if the willingness is there. See you in article talk. John (talk) 17:44, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s already ‘up to standard’ and the lack of actionable points is notable. OVERLINKING isn’t an issue at all (again, if you want to try pushing that false line of argument, then you need to highlight examples after you’ve got up to speed with the guidelines). You’re still pushing a false straw man with the feet/foot point. - SchroCat (talk) 17:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I note that the other attempted assassination of a PM undertaken by the IRA in modern times (the Downing Street mortar attack, so probably the most similar of articles) uses the same box as this one. - SchroCat (talk) 15:31, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I note, without necessarily rejoicing, User:John's return to WP to dispense his/her wisdom on the rest of us. I think we can ignore specious objections. Suggest we move on to some more constructive suggestions. Tim riley talk 17:23, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nice to see you too, Tim. On reflection I withdraw the point about the infobox; I'm still uncomfortable with using an infobox that uses "perpetrator" on an article about an attempted assassination during a time of low-level warfare, but I think this is a discussion for another time and another place. I don't really see why this article uses a different one from Killing of Osama bin Laden, for example. This is another example of how infoboxes simplify situations where nuance is required. If I'm not mistaken, the editing community managed to sort out the foot/feet confusion, which just leaves the overlinking to deal with, unless anything else leaps out on further reading. John (talk) 19:35, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have removed a few more links, and am pretty happy justifying those that are left; for example I don't know what unctuous means. Ceoil (talk) 21:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good work. I'm against linking like this:

the assassination of Airey Neave; the assassination of Lord Mountbatten

That's four links where two would be better. Classic WP:SEAOFBLUE. John (talk) 17:17, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a SEAOFBLUE: that's a misrepresentation of what SOB actually is. Please read the guideline before relying on it. SOB refers to links being next to one another, which isn't the case here. - SchroCat (talk) 17:27, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm. Please explain the additional utility to the reader of having the four links rather than the two. I'm not seeing it at all. Fewer, judiciously chosen links are better for the reader. John (talk) 19:13, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unsolicited, but I think the four links are correct there -- in each case, it's reasonable to expect that a large number of readers will want to read more about the person, and more about their assassination, so the links are beneficial. The only other sensible formulation would be "the assassination of Airey Neave and the assassination of Lord Mountbatten", and since the point of WP:SEAOFBLUE is to reduce the readability hit of having large amounts of text in a different colour, I don't see that making that change improves anything for the reduced opportunities it imposes upon the reader. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:30, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment is very welcome but I do not agree with it. This is the same idea as SEAOFBLUE, albeit with a couple of characters between the links. A reader interested in finding out more about the victims will find it readily at the respective assassination articles as there will be a prominent link thereto. It is the assassinations that are directly relevant to this article. One defence to keeping these chainlinks in place is that others may add them in the future. They may, but if we are peer-reviewing to get this as good as it can be, I do not think they belong. It's uncomfortably close to New York City, New York, United States, which we used to see a lot of. Adding multiple links to similar targets close together like this is not helpful to our readers. This is reflected in the guideline MOS:SPECIFICLINK which is well worth a look. John (talk) 23:10, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion is noted, but the benefit to readers outweighs the flexible guidelines of the MOS. This does not breach seaofblue or specificlink. - SchroCat (talk) 04:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a shame, as MoS compliance is still a Featured Article criterion, and this article as it reads is not compliant because of overlinking. Never mind. John (talk) 08:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a shame you're stretching on this point. It doesn't breach the flexible guideline of overlinking, but never mind. - SchroCat (talk) 09:01, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry; been busy. Another thing which jumps out at me; I am uneasy about how the use of "IRA sympathiser" fits with WP:NPOV. I suggest "supporter" on both occasions. We are not supposed to be telling the story from a UK establishment point of view, but from a neutral point of view which best reflects the best sources. John (talk) 16:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in the term "sympathiser" that remotely goes against NPOV; it's just not true to say that this is told 'from a UK establishment point of view'. - SchroCat (talk) 16:14, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not wild about "IRA member" either. They called themselves "volunteers". On a delicate subject like this it's so important to get the language just right. John (talk) 17:10, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They also called themselves "members" too, as do many republican-leaning and neutral sources: the biographies of Magee and Richard O'Rawe use both terms, for example. - SchroCat (talk) 17:27, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • "The Troubles were the conflict in Northern Ireland lasting from the late 1960s until the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, between the then majority population of unionists and the republicans minority." I would delete "then". It is clumsy and superfluous as any majority/minority can change over time.
  • "The strike was to have Special Category Status (SCS) returned to prisoners." The wording implies that you have previously mentioned SCS. I would say when it had been introduced and withdrawn - by Thatcher?
    I've added a footnote with the dates. Not withdrawn by Thatcher, but under a Labour government - SchroCat (talk) 09:45, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Other prisoners also joined in the strike at intervals." I would say "Other IRA prisoners" for clarity. Did loyalist prisoners support the strike?
    I'll go with 'Other republican prisoners', as INLA were involved too. - SchroCat (talk) 09:45, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "she wanted a military victory over the IRA and for "integration"". "wanted...for integration" does not seem grammatical to me.
  • You should explain ASU at first mention.
  • "He was given room 629, on the sixth floor facing the sea, chosen a high-level room as he thought that would be where Thatcher would stay; a high level for additional security, given striking miners might also occupy rooms in the hotel." This seems clumsy and unclear. You first imply that the hotel chose the room, then that he did. "chosen" grammatically appears to refer to the hotel. What is the relevance of striking miners? Would they have been allowed in but only in lower rooms?

Reworked to clarify. He asked for a high room and was given 629; they thought the miners might invade the hotel and occupy it, so thought Thatcher may have taken a higher level room to avoid it. Hopefully that's all clearer now. - SchroCat (talk) 09:45, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "deputy chief whip". Maybe "deputy chief whip".
    I've delinked, as we link Chief Whip in the previous sentence. - SchroCat (talk) 09:45, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "That is the way we must respond such vile acts in this democracy". to such vile acts?
  • "unless a majority of its citizens agreed to join the Republic" "voted to join the Republic"?
  • "These were the successful assassinations on Mustafa Mohammed Ramadan, a Libyan journalist and Mahmoud Abbu Nafa, a Libyan lawyer. There were then assassination attempts on the British general Steuart Pringle; Michael Havers, the Attorney General for England and Wales and Attorney General for Northern Ireland; Shlomo Argov the Israeli ambassador to the UK; and Rahmi Gumrukcuoglu [tr], the Turkish ambassador to the UK." Were these assassinations all by the IRA? Why did they target foreigners? Also, for clarity I would specify "unsuccessful assassination attempts".
    Not IRA assassinations, but the police and security forces were examining a rise in such attempts in general, regardless of perpetrators (although some of these were by the IRA too). - SchroCat (talk) 09:45, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from RoySmith

[edit]
I think all those links are valid, which is why I added them in the first place. I'm fairly sure that if this article sits around for a year, or goes onto the main page without many of the links, people would add them. These individuals and events may be well-enough known to many reviewers, but they won't be to the majority of our readers. There will be people from outside the UK who don't understand what "leader of the Opposition" is, so we have to help them. I tend to underlink articles I work on, so it's an odd call to be accused of overlinking, and I think the ones we have here are justified. - SchroCat (talk) 14:33, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Troubles ... lasting from the late 1960s until the 1998 Good Friday Agreement. The cited source talks about both the start and end of The Troubles being hard to pin down precisely. Your "late 1960s" wording accurately summarizes the source, but your assertion of a specific end date is at odds with how your source describes it.
    • Later in that same sentence republicans minority. That looks odd to me; should it be "republican's" (possessive), or just plain "republican" (singular)? Or maybe this is just a British/American usage thing?
    Both done. (Not a BrEng thing - just a leftover from some editing done overnight). - SchroCat (talk) 14:50, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @SchroCat you still have "until the 1998 Good Friday Agreement" as the finite end of The Troubles. RoySmith (talk) 16:37, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    RoySmith, Oops - changed the footnote (messing it up while I did it, but neglecting the main body!) Both should be in line now. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:51, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • On 27 August 1979—less than four months after Thatcher became prime minister—Mountbatten was killed by a 50-pound (23 kg) gelignite bomb on his fishing boat, off the cost of Mullaghmore, County Sligo, in the Irish Republic, which was near his summer home of Classiebawn Castle. This is an overly complicated sentence. Do we need to know this was near his summer home? Do we need to know how much the bomb weighted or what it was made of?
    Ive trimmed them off a couple of details, but I don’t think it’s a beneficial move. Different readers want different information from an article without needing to click away to a different article. - SchroCat (talk) 20:53, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • not having to wear prison uniform "a prison uniform"? Or British/American again?
    This is okay in BrEng. - SchroCat (talk) 20:53, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "Special Category Status" a proper noun, i.e. does it really need to be capitalized?
    I’ll rerun some searches, but I think nearly all the sources capitalise it. - SchroCat (talk) 20:53, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1971 he returned to Belfast,[22] and joined the IRA in 1972 after attending a shebeen—an illicit drinking den—in the Unity Flats area of Belfast, raided by British soldiers. If I understand it correctly, his decision to join the IRA was driven not by his attending the shebeen per-se, but by his mistreatment from the soldiers who raided it. The current wording makes that unclear.
    • Directly after that, He was beaten and detained for thirty-six hours without charge,[29] and in 2001 said ... I think I'd make that a full stop (or at least a semicolon) after "without charge", then pick up with "In 2001 he said..."
  • Somewhere around the middle of "Patrick Magee" when you talk about how the ASUs came into being, I started thinking, "OK, this is a lot of background, when are we finally going to get to something about the bombing". And then looking down to the next major section head ("Build-up") and thinking, "I guess not for a while". My point being that, for sure, some background is essential. As an American who grew up while most of these events were going on, my understanding of the background is not much deeper than "Catholics and Protestants killing each other". A lot of what you're going over really helps me have a deeper understanding of history, but I think you could trim a lot of this and concentrate on the things that are essential to understanding the bombing itself.
  • Actually much of the background is essential to understanding the bombing. Sure, I could gut the much of the background section, but readers wouldn’t actually get the full picture of why and how it happened. There are lots of people who think the Troubles were "Catholics and Protestants killing each other", but that would only be a tiny part of the picture, and they’d walk away not actually understanding the circumstances properly.
    Thanks for the comments which are very helpful: I’ll go through them thoroughly shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 15:44, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Magee and his comrade realised they were under surveillance and returned to Dublin it's not clear from this if they had a general suspicion that somebody was watching them, or if they specifically believed O'Connor was an informer.
  • I remember saying as much to a comrade, who agreed. was this the same comrade who was going to share the flat with Magee?
    The source (Magee) does not say. - SchroCat (talk) 07:29, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The man visited Magee over the three days I suspect this was supposed to be "... over the NEXT three days"?
  • Carroll considers the timer the considering happened in the past, so "considered".
    Carroll’s opinion and words are current, so it should be ‘considers’. - SchroCat (talk) 19:26, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 428 Roberta Wakeham, the wife of John, the chief whip, was killed I had to read this a couple of times to figure out that it was Roberta, not John, who was killed.
    • This is still overly-complicated. The sentence now reads

      It destroyed room 528, accommodating Eric Taylor—the North-West Area chairman of the Conservative Party—killing his wife Jennifer; in room 428 Roberta Wakeham was killed, she was the wife of John Wakeham, the chief whip; in room 328 it killed Sir Anthony Berry, the deputy chief whip.

      I had to read this carefully, examining all the punctuation in detail, to suss out that "in room 428" modifies "Roberta Wakeham", not "his wife Jennifer". Likewise that "in room 328" goes with "Sir Anthony Berry", not with "John Wakeham". How about one sentence describing what happened in each room?
      It also took me a while to understand that you were not describing the damage to random rooms, but rather methodically working your way down from the top floor. I think you could make this clearer with something along the lines of:

      As the chimney fell through the roof, it destroyed all the rooms ending in 28. First was 528 where Eric Taylor — the North-West Area chairman of the Conservative Party — was staying; his wife Jennifer was killed. 428 had John Wakeham, the chief whip; his wife Roberta was killed. 328 housed Sir Anthony Berry, the deputy chief whip, who was also killed. In 228 was Norman Tebbit and his wife Margaret. Tebbit later recalled...

      I'd leave out entirely the bit about clipping the 29s. You don't say anything further about these rooms, so it's just a distraction in an already compllicated passage.
    OK, I've added more or less that. The only problem I have with it (and it may be one that we have to live with for the sake of clarity), but this is a very male-dominated way of doing it. We give the man's name first on every instance, with the women coming second - and two of those women were killed while their husbands were lucky not to be. (That's not to say the original was better - I had the men first on three of the the descriptions, but having all four seems much worse). - SchroCat (talk) 18:05, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • she, her husband and Butler were all uninjured. At first, I thought she had brought her own Butler with her, and it took a while for me to work out this meant Robin Butler, Baron Butler of Brockwell who was previously mentioned several paragraphs earlier.
  • cut to ribbons, perhaps fatally one has to wonder how one can be non-fatally cut to ribbons, but that's not something you can fix :-)
  • Casualties were lighter than expected whose expectations? The IRA's or the rescue personnel's?
  • Injuries included broken and fractured bones aren't "broken" and "fractured" the same thing?
  • Magee was staying with republican sympathisers in Cork, I would move this up to the last sentence of "Build-up": " He spent the third night in the room and checked out at around 9:00 AM the following day, traveling to Cork to stay with republican sympathizers there".
    But we don't know he did that. There was over three weeks between the two events and all we know is that he was in Cork when the bomb went off. - SchroCat (talk) 07:29, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(I'll pick up with "Reactions" next time).

  • The attack was condemned by world leaders.[90][h] This included denunciation from Garret FitzGerald ... -> "The attack was condemned by world leaders[90][h] including Garret FitzGerald ..."
  • was supported by her domestic political opponents, I'd drop "domestic"; it implies that her international political opponents did not support it.
    • Actually, reading further, it looks like that is indeed the case, so scratch that.
  • The Washington Post highlighted the possibility that the funds for the bombing may have come from the US This makes it sound like it came from the US Government. I suspect it was really from private organizations in the US sympathetic to the IRA; this should be clarified. Also, do you have a better citation than "The Brighton Bombing". The Washington Post. 14 October 1984. p. D6. I'm a WaPo subscriber and can't find anything in the archives that looks like it could be that.
    RoySmith, sorry for the delay on this. It's in the WaPo archives. Oddly, if you try to access it through ProQuest Historical Newspapers in the Wiki Library it doesn't come up, but accessing the WaPo archives directly from your Post account should do it. (I searched for "Americans of conscience must reject this violence" through my WaPo account and it came up). Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:55, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, that's weird. When I log into ProQuest through WPL and click your link, I get to a page that says "Access provided by WIKIPEDIA", shows the correct citation, but also says We're sorry, your institution doesn't have access to this article through ProQuest. And https://www.washingtonpost.com/search/?query=%22Americans+of+conscience+must+reject+this+violence%22 gets me 0 results found for - “"Americans of conscience must reject this violence"”. I'm going to write to WaPo customer support to see if they can figure out what's going on. RoySmith (talk) 14:26, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What's also odd is that I originally got this through ProQuest through Wiki Lib, very recently, but it's not there at all now - in fact I can't find anything from the Post for that time period. Maybe my timing was out and they've recently withdrawn permission, but it's all very odd. - SchroCat (talk) 16:53, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, not to worry. I left a more substantial comment higher up about a passage that I still think needs simplifying. This WaPo reference thing at this point is just a curiousity that I've got stuck in my craw but it's certainly not going to hold anything up. I've also got a request in to the NYPL reference desk to see if they've got it in their archives. RoySmith (talk) 17:18, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the NYPL got back to me (on a Saturday!) with a scan of the editorial, and instructions on how to search ProQuest using my NYPL credentials; when I do that, I do indeed find it. Maybe different ProQuest accounts have different access levels? Anyway, mystery (mostly) solved. RoySmith (talk) 22:25, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Republican prisoners in the H Block celebrated the news I don't know what "the H block" is; this is the first time it's mentioned.
  • police and security services decided to wait until Magee returned to the UK. The British government decided not to tell their Irish counterparts Rephrase; the repetition of "decided to" sounds stilted.
  • Jumping way back to "Patrick Magee", it says He was soon assigned to be one of the IRA's "engineering officers", the organisation's term for a bomb maker. I'm curious what his qualifications were. Did he have some previous experience in explosives, or some related engineering field? Did the IRA just teach their members everything they needed to know from scratch?
    No details were mentioned in the source to say he has any, but I'll go over his autobiography again to see if he highlights why. - SchroCat (talk)
    He had no experience at all. It wasn't a popular role to hold, given how many IRA members died at the hands of their own bomb. - SchroCat (talk) 08:44, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All done down to here, except where I've commented otherwise. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:24, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(next time, "Arrest and trial")

  • The police decided to raid the property since this is a new section, I'd add some context, i.e. ".. raid the Langside property".
  • The rise in such attempts, and the events at Brixton What events? This is the only mention in the article of Brixton.

OK, I'm done.

Thanks very much: all done. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've run out of things to complain about, so happy to add my support to this. Nice article! RoySmith (talk) 22:27, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Beards

[edit]

I remember the bombing and this is a superb account. I was particularly impressed with the section on the explosion, the subsequent devastation and fate of the victims. I timidly made one tiny edit, which is a humble suggestion. I have two more. I think John Wakeham's name should be given in full and perhaps say "almonds" instead of "marzipan"? I am pleased to add my Support. Graham Beards (talk) 10:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Graham, I've made those other two edits too. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:49, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

[edit]

I have only now twigged that I haven't commented here. (Sorry to be late on parade.) I have previously reviewed the article twice, the first time informally and the second time at PR. Such comments – very minor – as I had were expeditiously dealt with, and after a final read-through now I have no further suggestions. Happy to add my support to all the other supports, above. A fine and balanced account of a dreadful story. Tim riley talk 10:26, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Penitentes

[edit]

Another day, another polished nomination from SchroCat. I have not spent very long around FAC but I see a pattern with your work. Happy to support. I have a few comments below, take them or leave them as you like!

  • He was interned (detained without trial) at Long Kesh prison from June 1973 to November 1975. - Is the reason for Magee's detention worthy of inclusion? I was curious while reading through the article but I leave the decision to you.
    The slightly flippantly sounding 'on suspicion of being Irish' is fairly close to the truth here. He was known to be in the IRA and known to be one of their bomb-makers and he was pulled in on a relatively frequent basis for search and questioning, but there was no specific charge they could pin on him. That was much of the point of internment: you didn't need a court or evidence for arrest and imprisonment. - SchroCat (talk) 18:16, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Understood! I wasn't sure if some specific prior bomb plot or similar was the cause and could be briefly alluded to as background, but it's fine as is given the broader context + other editor's requests for brevity. — Penitentes (talk) 18:40, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cache had been found in January 1984 in buried dustbins that contained arms and bomb-making equipment. The haul included submachine guns, handguns, grenades, ArmaLite ammunition, mercury tilt switches and six long-delay timers, numbered between one and seven, with number four missing. All were pre-set for the same length delay. - This passage feels slightly misplaced - it interrupts the narrative of how the police connected a 17 September registration card to Magee. I wonder if it shouldn't go right after: The Anti-Terrorist Branch of the police informed the investigation team of an IRA cache found in Salcey Forest which had a missing timer that was possibly set to twenty-four days, six hours and thirty-six minutes. This might also better explain how the police knew there was a missing timer, and the time it was likely set to. At the moment it's a little jarring to read that they knew it, move on to the identification of the 17 September guests, and then interrupt it with the proof of the timer before resuming with the identification of Magee. I hope this makes sense.
    Do you mean like this? If so, then good, as I think that's better than the original. Either way, if you can let me know, that would be great. - SchroCat (talk) 18:23, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's exactly what I meant. I like it better too. Thanks! — Penitentes (talk) 18:43, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...set with a long delay timer to explode at 1 pm on 29 July. - I notice all other timestamps in the article give the time down to the minute. Is there a reason this is not "1:00 pm"? (I think "long delay" is also missing a hyphen?)
    Done - SchroCat (talk) 18:23, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for me. Great work. — Penitentes (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Penitentes. I've done the bottom two points, but the first one is a bit more difficult to put into words without a lot of extraneous detail on what internment was and how it worked (and a couple of editors above have requested I trim out superfluous detailing, which I've tried hard to do!) Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:23, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with the results on all counts! Thanks for addressing these. — Penitentes (talk) 18:43, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source reviews

[edit]

SchroCat, my comments on source formatting, comments on general text to come soon:

  • Add archive URLs for Dawson 2017 and Everton & Melia 2017? You could also club those two citations using the Harvc template, which would save you from adding two duplicate archive URLs.
  • Add archive URLs for NITLR Act 2023, Brittan 1984, Fitzduff and O'Hagan 2009, Thatcher 1981, Thatcher 1984, Maume 2012, and both links to BBC Genome 2004?
  • Why are there no links for most of the news articles in the sources? Are readers or reviewers who want to do spotchecks expected to look up the articles themselves? Especially when we do have links for some articles here and links for articles without them can all be found? I do believe you will be able to find all these articles on either Newspapers.com or the British Newspaper Archive.

Matarisvan (talk) 14:03, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  1. The book itself is linked, which is sufficient and per the template instructions;
  2. Done
  3. I've never included links for news articles from papers in any of my previous FAs. It's partly because, yes, readers can look them up themselves, but mostly because the point of the citations isn't for spot checking, but to show the source of the information. I could include links, but personally I find it really, really frustrating when clicking on a link to find it behind a firewall, and many of these sources are on neither newspapers.com or the BNA.
Thanks for these suggestions. - SchroCat (talk) 14:40, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SchroCat I think you've dismissed @Matarisvan's comment about links too quickly. I know URLs are not required by WP:FACR, and you are certainly right that spot checkers are not the main audience for citations. But, if you've got a link already, I see no reason not to include it. Some readers will find it useful, and readers are our primary audience.
The point of a citation is not just to support WP:V, but also as a jumping-off point for our readers to do a deeper dive on their own. And, as you've seen with the WaPo snafu, what appeared to be a perfectly legitimate citation turned out to not be useful and only through a certain amount of obstinance on my part was I able to access the source. If there was a link, that would have saved me a bunch of time. And if the problem was, as you suspect, shifting content policies at ProQuest, WP:IABot might have well grabbed a snapshot while it was still available.
We obsess over minor typographic details such as the proper punctuation to use in citations, the inclusion or exclusion of (for example) ISSNs, whether we link publishers, and how we capitalize titles. These items may satisfy the cravings of gnomes for uniformity of presentation, but they do nothing to help our readers. Providing links to sources does help our readers, so I think it deserves at least as much attention. RoySmith (talk) 14:15, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think I dismissed it quickly: it's a point I've mulled over a few times before and always come down on not including the link. There are a few reasons behind that decision, but there not really germane to this particular review; the one point that may be relevant is that I don't have links for all of them. The references are all there and all correct. If people want to use them as a 'jumping off point', the citations are still there and still valid for them to use as a starting point. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts: MOS policies are a little confusing on this issue. WP:CITE#Handling links in citations says "it is helpful to include hyperlinks to source material, when available". WP:SOURCELINKS says "it is not generally important... to link to such a database requiring a subscription or a third-party login". It also says "you may provide the DOI, ISBN, or another uniform identifier, if available" and "If the source only exists online, give the link even if access is restricted". I concur with @RoySmith that links should be added, especially since the news reports in question are around 30-40 years old and finding them through a Google search is quite tough, making spot checks harder. Due to the age of the reports, the simple citation style without links, if it serves as a jumping off point, makes for a jump which takes quite a lot of time. As for the issue that you don't have the links for all of the reports, I reiterate that Newspapers.com, Newspaper Archive and the British Newspaper Archive will have most if not all of them. If you need help then I can find the links for you. Matarisvan (talk) 18:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Matarisvan, The absence is links is entirely within the policies, and the formatting is a pass as far as FAC requirements go. You are supposed to be judging this against the FA citation requirements, not a different standard that isn't covered by the guidelines. All the information that people need to find the source is included in the citations as they currently stand. If you want a new standard that requires links, then please feel free to raise the subject at the right venue, but insisting on it on a single FAC is too out of process for my liking. (And, at the risk of repeating myself: many of these are not on either Newspapers.com or the BNA). It may be helpful if you consider what WP:SOURCELINKS has to say on the matter too ("it generally is not important to cite a database ... or to link to such a database requiring a subscription or a third party's login. The basic bibliographic information you provide should be enough to search for the source in any of these databases that have the source", etc. - SchroCat (talk) 19:10, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From another perspective, WP:SOURCELINKS also has If the source only exists online, give the link even if access is restricted, which at least demonstrates that a paywall is not a conversation-ender regarding including a link. If the only objection to including a link is that it's paywalled, I'd suggest there's probably more value in having the link than not: after all, some readers will have subscriptions (personal or institutional) to e.g. the Times or the Telegraph, and it's not impossible that TWL will add a subscription to some of them in the future, or that the paywall will otherwise be less of an obstacle for at least some readers. Of course, SchroCat is quite right that this isn't a hard line in the FA standards, but then very few things are. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:26, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, the objection to it being behind a paywall isn't the only objection: there are others, including the fact that as not all the sources are accessible online, we'll end up with an inconsistently formatted set of citations. There are others, but as I've said above, this isn't a subject for this particular FAC, given the source reviewer is trying to impose different standards from the norm. The sourcing on this article is as strong as all the others I write and is in the same format that has passed numerous times before. If there is an appetite for changing the standards, it would need a more centralised discussion, rather than trying to impose it on this individual nomination. - SchroCat (talk) 08:09, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
we'll end up with an inconsistently formatted set of citations Let me emphatically state my objection to prioritizing uniformity over utility. RoySmith (talk) 12:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have utility by providing the sources in the first place. If you want to change the standards of consistency of approach that have been expected at FAC for several years, then again, this is not the appropriate forum for that discussion. The source review for this article should be based on the current accepted standards, not some new wishes that people may want to see. - SchroCat (talk) 12:47, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist and @RoySmith, SchroCat's approach to linking is a little confusing, because, of the 9 links they've added in the article for news reports, 3 are behind paywall, namely 2 from The Daily Telegraph and 1 from the NYT. As to the links not being available, Newspapers.com is down rn so I can't check, but once it's up again I will. I found some links myself: Hoggart 2003, Tendler 1986, Tendler 1993. Others are quite tough to find even with targeted Google searches. Btw, @SchroCat, do you have the physical copies of all these newspapers? Most of them don't seem to be available online. Matarisvan (talk) 07:34, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Tendler 1986 has the reports of the times dated 13 May 1986, 16 May 1986 and 4 June 1986 which we have cited here as well. The link is from the Internet Archive and open access so there should be no problem with it as well as the link for Tendler 1993. Matarisvan (talk) 07:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Matarisvan, Let me be clear on this: I do not think links should be added and I will remove them if you add them. Your job here is to review the formatting in the light of the existing guidelines and to judge whether they pass or fail based on whether what is here is in line with the guidelines. Please focus on that and not waste time on out-of-scope unnecessary make-work. - SchroCat (talk) 07:42, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So above, you are fighting to the death to keep useless links which contravene FAC standards, yet here you are fighting to the death to remove links which might help readers to verify material? "I will remove them if you add them" indeed! How about you step back from this and have a good think about just how daft that looks to people who are not you? You are a very good editor but you aren't perfect and you do not own this article. Please think about it. John (talk) 08:56, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can everyone please lower the temperature on this. Thanks. There is no FAC requirement to add either links or archives, so if there is a desire to discuss this aspect further, could it be at a more appropriate venue. The FAC talk page perhaps, or some part of the MoS. Matarisvan, when passing or failing the source review feel free to add a summary of whatever deficits you see in the linking and/or archiving for the closing coordinators consideration. Thanks again to everyone. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:52, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The source formatting review is a fail, since finding links for most of the articles cited here doesn't yield any results, especially so since TWL access to Newspapers.com is down rn. That puts the source review in a precarious position too, because spot checks on the unlinked news reports cannot be done.
    The links fall under the purview of the MOS. My most recent FAC nom was archived immediately when MOS issues were raised, without giving me a chance to respond, also the SYNTH claims had not been substantiated by the reviewers, I had asked them to do so but the nom was archived before they could. Here there are clear instances of the MOS not being followed as noted by UC and John, and partly by RoySmith; but here, the reviewer has not just been given time to respond to the issues raised, but the issues themselves have been declared void for FAC by an FAC coordinator. What is the reason for this differential treatment of the two noms, or say editors? Why are SchroCat's reviews and nominations being treated like acts of God? Also I would have raised this at some talk page but this issue is relevant here and now for this FAC nom. Matarisvan (talk) 19:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: Can the following statements not be classified as provocation or intent to edit war? "I do not think links should be added and I will remove them if you add them". Have the coords either not taken cognizance of this, or they have and are silently allowing it? If the latter, why so? Isn't this un encyclopedic behavior at the very least, even if it is not against any of the FAC criteria? Noms have been closed previously for (comparatively) much smaller issues. At least a warning on the talk page or this page is due here? Matarisvan (talk) 18:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you’re trying to get someone blocked or castigated for something said in frustration because of a sub-standard and out-of-process review? Goodness. Taken with your comment here and the mini rant above about my reviews being treated differently, I really do doubt your intentions with this review after I opposed one of your nominations. (And my FACs are really not treated differently from anyone else’s: I go through the same process as everyone else and am treated no differently during them). - SchroCat (talk) 19:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stop it both of you. Matarisvan, the coordinators are perfectly capable of policing FAC if they feel this necessary. I would be grateful if you could restrict future input on this page to matters clearly related to reviewing the article. SchroCat, you have handled yourself with some grace to this point, there is no need to engage in some sort of race to the bottom. Please direct any future comments on this page at actionable points in reviews. Leaving any comments overnight to review before clicking "Publish" may be the way to go. Thank you. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:13, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Source review comments from Jo-Jo Eumerus

  • Gog the Mild asked me for input; I guess the question is about the links. I don't interpret these MOS pages as requiring links, and while I might ask why there aren't any, it's something that "stylistic preference of mine" is a valid reason for. In this case I must ask why some sources (Guardian, Telegraph) are inconsistently linked, though.

    Regarding spotchecks, one can ask for screenshots or copypasted text to be sent to you, by email or otherwise. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:21, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jo-Jo. They're not inconsistently linked per se: the Guardian and Telegraph are from online news sources, while the others are from paper sources and the {{cite news}} template automatically formats them in different ways. Thanks for clarifying the other points: I'm not sure I've ever seen a review failed in such spectacularly woeful manner - the 'failing because newspapers.com is down' is definitely not a valid reason (particularly as it's not down at the moment)! - SchroCat (talk) 19:39, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Might as well consider other sources, too: Is Aitken 2013 a good source, given how close he was to Thatcher? Tebbit (sp?) also makes me wonder. Nothing else jumps out to me as inappropriate, but note that this isn't a field I am deeply familiar with and a contentious topic too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:03, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those two are used in very limited ways: Aitken only once to offer a view of Thatcher's personal feelings (rather than anything on policy or events). Similarly, Tebbit is only used to discuss what happened to him and his wife, rather than anything political. - SchroCat (talk) 20:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • First, addressing the conversation above, which SchroCat asked me to look at. I wouldn't generally agree with the argument that links need to be excluded for consistency - sometimes some piece of metadata is not available for a particular citation but is for others, and can be included where it is available. For example, some of the newspaper sources here do not have authors; others do, and include them in the citation. That being said, there is no requirement in WIAFA or in MOS for these links to be included, and difficulties in accessing sources are not a barrier to FA status.
  • Not familiar with "Frontline Noir" - could you elaborate on its reliability?
    It’s a small but seemingly reliable publisher based in Scotland. There’s no sign on their site that they accept any form of vanity publishing. - SchroCat (talk) 03:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm. Anything more to go on than not-vanity? Do they do fact-checking of their publications? Any reputational evidence? What about the author? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can find no criticism about the publisher, book or author. I can’t find anything about the author at all, but that’s not unusual or a sign of any problems, particularly as its one use wasn’t supporting anything contentious. Just to be on the safe side, however, I’ve strengthened it by swapping for a stronger source. - SchroCat (talk) 04:19, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are the page numbers given for Ball based on the published version or the version linked? They are not the same.
    Delinked. I’ve used the original publication version for the page numbers, rather than a reprint copy
  • How are Websites being ordered?
    Tweaked - SchroCat (talk) 03:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Titles shouldn't be included in author names (Brittan)
    That’s the default for Hansard
    How so? I see that it's an available parameter, but as far as I can tell there's nothing in the documentation requiring it to be filled. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, Removed. - SchroCat (talk) 04:21, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Year ranges in titles should use endashes
    OK, done (I think!) please let me know which ones I’ve missed, if there are any. - SchroCat (talk) 03:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does one of the Daily Telegraph links include a retrieval date and the other not? Why does the Hansard link have no retrieval date when the other Websites entries do?
    The {{cite Hansard}} template doesn’t accept retrieval dates (I presume it’s based on the fact that, similar to newspapers, the remaining details act as a form of ‘manual doi’ to identify the hard copy origin). - SchroCat (talk) 03:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ;-). Nikkimaria (talk) 03:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah - didn’t know that was possible, given it’s not referred to in the template. Thanks, Nikkimaria. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 05:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria (talk) 00:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Nikkimaria. All addressed appropriately, I hope, but should you have any further comments, I’d be delighted to hear them. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 03:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria and thanks for this. Can I just check that this is a source review pass? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:00, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Drive-by comments

[edit]
  • "over thirty people were injured." 'more than'.
  • "He was found guilty and sent to prison". Perhaps mention a trial and, possibly, when this was?

Gog the Mild (talk) 14:01, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Gog: all sorted. - SchroCat (talk) 14:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harry

[edit]

Profuse apologies for the delay. I know you're working to a deadline so I'll try to be quick; wiki life and real life have both been a bit hectic recently!

  • Just noting that I've read the dispute above and that the standard is that the article provides enough information that the source can be found and the information verified, not that access is easy or online. Similarly, the standard is that the formatting is clear and consistent, not that it is the way any given editor would have laid it out. Editors have wide latitude in how they structure and format articles.
  • I love the extra background on the Troubles; I know you added this at my suggestion from the PR and I really think it adds vital context. But I wouldn't have included events from the 90s/2000s; I think it's better if it just provides a build-up to this event.
    Which events from the 90s/2000s? The bits about Magee and Berry? - SchroCat (talk) 07:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's just until the late 1990s to early 2000s that I found jarring; it's telling the reader about the end before the beginning. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I'll take it out, but I think it gives the context of the dates and where events of the article sit within them. - SchroCat (talk) 17:25, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also think some of the details of the preceding events could be slimmed down. We don't need to know a lot about Airey Neave or Warrenpoint, just their relevance to Brigthon (see the edit I made).
    Not just to Brighton: their impact on Thatcher is key. She was largely ignorant on NI but had a knee-jerk Unionist bias, but it was the events that determined her approach and policies, and it was that approach that led to the assassination attempt. I don't think slimming down these fundamental steps to Brighton is the right way to go, and it's one reason that many of the sources stress the connection. - SchroCat (talk) 07:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you're right, I was using Brighton as shorthand. Their impact is important but we don't need to discuss the events themselves in detail. I don't think we need the sentences between the explanation of SCS and "Thatcher remained unmoved". HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've half cut it, but left in the bit about him being an MP. I think that is an important detail that most readers won't have a clue about. - SchroCat (talk) 17:25, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise, I think we can stand to lose some of the detail on Bobby Sands. We have a biography of him and an FA on the strike so we just need to establish context relevant to Brighton here.
    Thatcher's stance on the strike was the direct cause of the assassination attempt. There is only a very limited amount on Sands, and I think this point deserves the rather limited amount we have on it. - SchroCat (talk) 06:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure "Irish outlook" is such an unusual term that you need to couch it with attribution and quote marks.
    I'm not sure, but OK. - SchroCat (talk) 06:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was decided to make the attempt in 1984 when the conference would be back in Brighton By whom, and do we know why?
    Not in the the sources. One presumes the Army Council, but that's not said. - SchroCat (talk) 06:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The conference began on 9 October 1984 and was scheduled to last four days, with Thatcher's speech on the final day "began on [...] with [...] the final day" doesn't really make sense.
    Yep: done - SchroCat (talk) 06:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor point, but East Sussex Fire and Rescue Service would have been known as East Sussex Fire Brigade at the time.
    OK, done - SchroCat (talk) 06:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fred Bishop of the fire brigade requested ten more fire engines This whole sentence is a little bit awkward. We don't have an initial number of fire engines (ten in addition to what?) and it introduces a non-notable person and relatively obscure rank, which forces the awkward "of the fire brigade". I'm guessing the sources don't focus heavily on the emergency response so I would cut it down to something like "12 fire engines attended" (if the sources do have more detail on the emergency response, I'd be happy to see it added but it's unusual to find that kind of detail on pre-21st century incidents).
    Added that three engines turned up initially. - SchroCat (talk) 07:25, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is footnote f (paying for taxis) important?
    Not 'core' important, which is why it's in a footnote. - SchroCat (talk) 06:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Unlike most of the other footnotes, which provide useful context, I don't think this adds anything to the reader's understanding. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's good for background, but okay. - SchroCat (talk) 17:25, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The singer Morrissey commented "The only sorrow of the Brighton bombing is that Thatcher escaped unscathed. Is there anything more about this sentiment among notable commentators or public opinion? Morrissey is a professional contrarian but I think that view had some sympathy, even among people with no love for the IRA.
    Only the 'public condemnation was fairly weak' comment. I was surprised not to find more: I remember there being more comments along those lines by members of the public, but they're not the ones covered by the history books, unfortunately. - SchroCat (talk) 06:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • when she crossed the border to Eire this is the first and only use of Eire; maybe stick with "the Republic" for clarity
    Good point - done - SchroCat (talk) 06:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Footnote l (assassination attempts in London) is very interesting and possibly the basis for its own article but I feel not relevant here
    I think it is: the UK isn't thought of as an assassination hotspot, but it was at the time, and I think these examples show it wasn't the assassination of UK politicians, but (with the exception of IRA attempts), there were numerous foreign conflicts being fought out here. - SchroCat (talk) 06:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • and this was implemented by Thatcher a few days after the bombing what was? The subject of the sentence is The previously relaxed view...
    Tweaked. - SchroCat (talk) 07:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Measures were brought in to protect the political elite "political elite" feels like a charged term. Maybe "prominent politicians" or similar since the security is mostly for those deemed at risk?
    It's a term that appears in many of the sources, but okay. Not sure "politicians" is the right word for diplomats, etc though. - SchroCat (talk) 07:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there anything more available on increased state security/policing/security at party conferences?
    I haven't seen any in the sources that describe Brighton and its repercussions. I think we run the risk of going into extraneous detail if we focus on this though. - SchroCat (talk) 07:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm surprised there's nothing about enhanced security at the 1985 Tory conference, for example, but I'm happy to let it lie. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been through the Times and a couple of other broadsheets and there's nothing in there at all for 85. For 86 there's some acknowledgement that the costs are higher, but not even any details on the figures ("for security reasons"). - SchroCat (talk) 17:25, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's it from me. Excellent work. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:33, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Harry - all done, except where commented on. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A few re-replies above. Nothing major. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. - SchroCat (talk) 17:25, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy. Support. Well done! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Harry. - SchroCat (talk) 18:28, 14 August 2024 (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/Brighton_hotel_bombing/archive1&oldid=1240356712"