Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/A-class review/Norman Stronge

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result was fail.

Norman Stronge

Was nominated last year, seems to have been significantly improved since then. Closest article to A class in WP:UNIONISM and an article important to that project which should be improved to featured status by members.Traditional unionist (talk) 16:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Family" section is completely unreferenced. It might be seen as being nitpicking, but every paragraph would benefit from at least one reference citation. John Carter (talk) 00:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully someone will get onto that shortly.Traditional unionist (talk) 13:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done By shortly, I must have ment three minuites, for tis how long it took!Traditional unionist (talk) 13:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Seems to be well written and referenced. As near to a 'perfect' article as is possible. Biofoundationsoflanguage (talk) 17:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - a very well referenced article, seems worthy of being an A-class article. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 19:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much unreferenced unattributed POV and speclation. Who says the IRA unit were armed with machine guns and hand grenades? The Stronges received their OBEs with handguns, so why aren't they mentioned as well? "The Stronge family was incensed at the inadequacy of border security" - says who? "Atkins was to leave Northern Ireland later that year to be replaced by Jim Prior" - unless there's a direct connection between the death of the Stronges and Atkins leaving, it shouldn't be mentioned. "James is still listed as succeeding to the Baronetcy" - needs to be mentioned that the claim is disputed. Why is Seamus Shannon's name mentioned? He was acquitted of all charges, per WP:BLP his name shouldn't really be mentioned. Once these are addressed, I'd be happy to support. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will reference those now. I think Shannon should be mentioned, he was a suspect. Also, what's do you mean by the OBEs bit? --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 13:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OBE - "one behind the ear". Few more points, in addition to the ones that have yet to be addressed:

"The Stronge family's home was then burnt to the ground as a result of two bomb explosions" - not as such. Moloney (p. 324) says the IRA were armed with incendiary devices, which are different to explosive devices. As you can imagine, one is designed to cause an explosion whereas the other is designed to cause a fire.
"On seeing the explosions at the house (and a flare Stronge lit in an attempt to alert the authorities), the Royal Ulster Constabulary and British Army troops arrived at the scene and established a road-block at the gate lodge." - no mention of the British Army in the source quoted. The incident is also covered in Urban (p. 223) who states the RUC sent several officers in an armoured plated vehcile, who came under automatic fire and were pinned down and unable to prevent the IRA unit's escape. No mention of the British Army. Similarly The UDA by McDonald and Cusack (p. 118) states the IRA fired several hundred shots at two RUC officers in an armoured car. Again, no mention of the British Army.
"The Stronge family was incensed at the inadequacy of border security." - different points this time...needs to be mentioned somewhere (either before or at that point) that the abbey was located close to the border, otherwise it's lacking context slightly. Also the Turtle Bunbury source says the IRA escaped across the border, worth mentioning for more context.

As for Shannon, the incident is worth mentioning but he shouldn't be named per WP:BLP. He was cleared of all charges, and he's definitely not a well-known IRA member (or even necessarily an IRA member at all), as this and this show. Per privacy of names there's no loss of context in removing his name (but keeping the other information), so it's preferable to do so considering his name isn't widely disseminated. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have more sources at your disposal than I, so please help...somehow I doubt you will... --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 11:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very true. Perhaps if you'd reviewed any of my most recent contributions you'd note they are very sparse in nature, and I have said more than once I am currently without internet access at home. So you can either fix the problems I have listed now(after all, I've told you what the sources say) or wait until I have internet access at home. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, the article unravels near the end and decends into POV.--Vintagekits (talk) 11:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would reqest some more input from uninviolved editors please!Traditional unionist (talk) 00:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and those who are involved and aware of problems to fix them, rather than list them! --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 00:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The prose is very choppy, with very short, sharp sentences. DrKiernan (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Choppy structure, as per the above. Also, would appreciate more citations in the Midgely and CAC affairs. The phrase "caused a difficulty" introducing the latter could be improved as well. John Carter (talk) 20:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.