Wikipedia:Peer review/Bankers' Toadies incident/archive1

Bankers' Toadies incident

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm debating whether it's ready, or can be easily made ready, for FAC. Comments on all aspects of the article are of course welcome, but my two major concerns are as follows:

The article is quite short. I believe that it is as comprehensive as it can be with respect to the incident itself, but I'm wondering if additional context would help fill it out and, if so, what sort of additional context.
I believe that some awkward phrasing survives, and would welcome assistance in purging it.

Thanks, Steve Smith (talk) 22:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comments by NVO

Thanks for your comments; I think many of your points are excellent ones. I've responded to a few below. Steve Smith (talk) 11:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The investigation part looks too thin. Basically, it reads: Oct. X the case was made public, Oct. 3 police raided SC HQ, Oct. 27 the case was ready for preliminary hearing. That's all.

Can you name the date when Duggan publicized the case?
What, exactly motivated timely police action? Was there any partisan affiliation between police and the toadies (since we know there was political pressure against prosecution)? Maybe a massive media campaign?

I think it was a combination of the police doing their job and them being part of the establishment, along with the "Toadies" and very much unlike the Social Credit wahoos. I'll see if I can find a way to make that clear.

How did they and/or Griesbach identify Powell as the suspect? Unwin was quite a public figure, he had to fall one way or the other, but Powell?
"Either trial judge William Carlos Ives[12] or a justice of the peace[13] countered by appointing.." is awkward. If sources cannot agree on the subject, may I recommend leaving simply "The judge countered by appointing..." and explaining the ambiguity and uncertainty in a single note.

"Judge" wouldn't work, as a JP cannot be properly called a "judge"; I'll think on this one.

The trial chapter, as I understand it, combines one preliminary hearing and two distinct final trials. If this is correct, perhaps it should be pronounced clearly because right now the three blend together (and there's only one date).
Out of curiosity, what kind of "hard labor" did they face? "Hard labor" and three-month sentence sounds like an improbable combination. NVO (talk) 07:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what's improbable about it; can you clarify? Steve Smith (talk) 11:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's just my understanding of what is hard - like felling trees in Siberia or draining swamps in French Guyana. Simply getting there takes months, and getting out is next to impossible. NVO (talk) 20:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]