Talk:West Midlands Serious Crime Squad/GA1
GA Review[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Barkeep49 (talk · contribs) 22:00, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Review[edit]
Good Article review progress box
|
- One easy piece before I really have time to get started: the LEAD does not introduce the full article per MOS:INTRO.
- Just a note that I anticipated having access to Kaye when I thought to pick this up, but it seems I won't have access in the same timeframe that I have capacity to do this review. As such I have worked to verify some of what is sourced to it through other means and found no issues, so I am taking on good faith the rest.
- In general I have some concerns over how much Kaye is being relied on for controversial statements or speaking about best practices in Wikipedia's voice. What does Plimmer say? Do we have corroboration from the PCA report? Examples include (but are not limited to):
Reactions to interviews are made under stress and therefore need to be treated with caution, however the manual instead offered interpretations of various reactions as likely signs of guilt
The SCS often relied on confession evidence to the exclusion of other kinds of evidence, despite the fact that it is inherently unreliable. Sometimes this can simply be due to the presence of authority and the expectation to confess
Signed confessions were shown from Dandy's case onwards to have been tampered with, due to forensic ESDA evidence.
- Unfortunately I've been unable to find the PCA report, which is the only other serious source. Plimmer's book is to all intents and purposes a primary source account, an autobiography. I agree that it is uncomfortable to be reliant on more or less one source. I will try to make another effort to find the report, it might be available at the National Archive though I've not tried using it before. Jim Killock (talk) 14:21, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
- Yes Plimmer is an autobiography but I was trying to be open minded about sourcing here given the comment below. However, some of this complaint is more about sourcing of statements about criminology than about West Midlands - hence the first two examples here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:51, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
- Unfortunately I've been unable to find the PCA report, which is the only other serious source. Plimmer's book is to all intents and purposes a primary source account, an autobiography. I agree that it is uncomfortable to be reliant on more or less one source. I will try to make another effort to find the report, it might be available at the National Archive though I've not tried using it before. Jim Killock (talk) 14:21, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
- I have general questions about the use of parliamentary speeches as RS. First they seem like primary, but if we're instead treating them as secondary what makes them reliable? This is distinct from some sort of parliamentary report which would, in my estimation, be reliable.
- I would say that MPs quoted would have done research and evaluation of their own, which makes their commentary at some distance to the original, more like a journalist or other secondary source. They have their own bias, but Hansard can be something between a primary and secondary source when a MP is outlining the product of their own research. There is an absence of commentary on the points raised in Hansard, so it seemed reasonable to use when other material is absent. We have a general lack of sources; for instance the (secondary source) newspaper articles such as they are seem less reliable as sources, lacking detail and analysis. Court judgments are in a similar position: they might be properly regarded as primary sources, but in fact lay out the facts much better and more reliably than secondary source newsprint articles quoting from them. Where Wikipedia's policies stand on this is another matter though, I hope they have a little flexibility around these issues. Jim Killock (talk) 14:06, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
- So fair point about MPs being secondary sources. However, my concern about them being RS is that there is no editing process - that is it's essentially self-published and further because of parliamentary privilege even if they get facts libelously wrong there is limited legal recourse. The court judgements are definitely primary sources but can, and often are, used in ways that comply with our policy and to some extent are the official record of something can have reliability in and of itself on that end. This strikes me as fundamentally different than parliamentary sources. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:51, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
- I would say that MPs quoted would have done research and evaluation of their own, which makes their commentary at some distance to the original, more like a journalist or other secondary source. They have their own bias, but Hansard can be something between a primary and secondary source when a MP is outlining the product of their own research. There is an absence of commentary on the points raised in Hansard, so it seemed reasonable to use when other material is absent. We have a general lack of sources; for instance the (secondary source) newspaper articles such as they are seem less reliable as sources, lacking detail and analysis. Court judgments are in a similar position: they might be properly regarded as primary sources, but in fact lay out the facts much better and more reliably than secondary source newsprint articles quoting from them. Where Wikipedia's policies stand on this is another matter though, I hope they have a little flexibility around these issues. Jim Killock (talk) 14:06, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
History[edit]
- Re:1960 report I understand that it was quality not quantity but since numbers are given is there context for those numbers? Is that a lot? A little?
- As someone who knows nothing about the Birmingham pub bombings it could definitely use a link to our article in the first mention and not just under Birmingham six. Some context about what they are in this first mention also seems helpful.
- Is there any sense of how the Thursday Gang operation gave license to officers?
techniques which are hardly unusual among hardened criminals committing serious crimes
feels a bit like OR and would need a cite for the judgement (perhaps it's Kaye but if so needs its own citation). Else it can maybe just be removed and stand on its own with the next sentence (which should get its own cite anyhow)- Which colleagues resented the squad in the 80s?
- The paragraph which starts
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
needs a citation
- The three very short paragraphs in the 80s sections are not ideal. Can they be arranged and put together in someway?
- The first paragraph of Rising concerns needs a cite. Also I'm not clear what the concerns about the Bridgewater Four have to do with this
there were concerns about the safety
Who had these concerns?seen to be unreliable witnesses
by who?- The sentence with
"when complaints about the squad started to emerge"
needs a cite because it has a quote - Any reason you think Shaw but not Dear worthy of a redlink?
- Along that line Clare Short was an MP so she's definitely notable enough for an article
- You never introduce what the PCA Report is nor when it started.
Issues and malpractice[edit]
- What is an elite ethos and is that normally good or bad (I kind of know this answer but think it needs to be clear for our readers)
- Does Kaye back-up that it was all male and probably wholly white? If not who does. This demographic stuff needs a source imo.
- We again have multiple short paragraphs that could maybe be combined.
- We also have entire paragraphs without any citations.
- Should this be confession?
so likely to be very familiar with police procedure and the effect of such convictions
Failed Prosecutions[edit]
- I assume that the referal to the CPS went nowhere in the Dandy case?
- Dandy also feels like it should be one big paragraph
- PC needs to be spelled out and noted as an abbreviation in its first use e.g. Police Constable (PC) Tony Salt (think that's the first use of PC)
Mullin states that Berry made four statements, which gradually increased the number and involvement of one to three black men in the incident, one of whom was said to have dreadlocks
isn't clear on how it happeneddespite the strength of the evidence that they were innocent.
is not neutrally worded and should probably be deleted.
Overturned Convictions[edit]
- I have concerns about inclusion criteria here. Some of them, like the Birmingham Six, obviously need to be included. But others, to jump to the other end of the section, like Foran seem included more because you could find sourcing. As such I've mostly held off reading this deeply until we settle on what's going to be here in the end.
- Rather than being a see also List of failed and overturned convictions involving the West Midlands Serious Crime Squad should have a Template:main link at the start of the section
- The one case that seems underplayed given its importance is the Birmingham Six. Is there a reason, given everything that this recieves so much shorter coverage in this article than other examples of overturned convictions?
Overturned convictions at the Regional Crime Squad[edit]
- As I noted earlier I'm not sure how this falls in the scope of this article.
Discussion[edit]
- Glad we can do this JimKillock. I should be able to start my detailed read through in the next couple of days. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:00, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- Wow did I learn a lot about the misconduct that occurred. Truly sad to read about lives derailed and victims denied justice. I've finished my first detailed read through of the article and left comments above. I am placing this on hold for now. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:12, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.