Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Death of Blair Peach/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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 5 June 2019 [1].

Death of Blair Peach[edit]

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 08:33, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just over forty years ago Blair Peach attended a demonstration against the National Front where he received a blow on the head that killed him. This was, in all probability, from one of a possible six Special Patrol Group officers. No-one was ever charged with his death and it is unlikely that the actual culprit will ever be formally identified. The case was high-profile at the time, and it has been mentioned numerous times since, normally when there is a death related to police action. This has gone through a thorough re-write recently, and any further comments are most welcome. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 08:33, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by David Fuchs
  • In the lead, In 2009 Ian Tomlinson died after he was struck from behind by a member of the Territorial Support Group, the SPG's successor organisation—it’s not immediately clear in the lead (versus the body) that this similar account led to the release of the report into Peach’s death. I think this should either be made clearer or Tomlinson’s death should be moved into the subsequent paragraph detailing the legacy of the incident. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:10, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks David. I've added a sentence to link the Tomlinson death and release. Does that look OK to you as is? It may be that others would prefer it in the later paragraph, but we'll see. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:01, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 21:44, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per my detailed comments at the peer review.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:01, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, Wehwalt - I'm much obliged to you for your time and comments at PR and again here. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:41, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Noswall59

  • I hope you don't mind, but I've added his parents' names (which I believe are standard in biographical articles/summaries yet missing in his ODNB entry) and the names of his brothers, one of whom (Roy) was a solicitor and led the legal campaign after Blair's death; their mother Janet also sued the Met in 1981, but I've not added that. I am not familiar with your citation template though, so I'm afraid you might need to go through and standardise the references I've added (currently numbered 2, 3 and 4). As a final note, cite 2 is a bit odd; his parents' names are included on his gravestone, a photograph of which is available at the Getty Foundation and I've linked to it; the Foundation explicitly states in the caption that it belongs to "Blair Peach, who died in the Southall, West London, demonstrations against the National Front on April 23rd 1979, by a blow to the head." An unusual source, but I think perfectly acceptable. Cheers and good luck with the nom, —Noswall59 (talk) 12:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Only (watching), but if i may say so, Noswall59, that's all useful stuff, cheers; Apropos nothing, I think SC is out raising money for the Police Benevolent Fund atm. ——SerialNumber54129 13:13, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Noswall59. I've tweaked the text just a little to reflect the sources a bit more closely and turned the citations into the right forms. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:41, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • File:Blair_Peach.jpg: I read the statement re: public domain on the Guardian site as attribution rather than release. Any idea what the original source of this image was? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:13, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Nikkimaria. I don't know, I'm afraid. I went with what the newspaper say it is (the press are normally excellent about ensuring the licencing is correct for images). - SchroCat (talk) 19:34, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That has... very much not been my experience. The same image appears to have been used in contemporary protests (eg [2][3]), though of course without any attribution. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:25, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The use of the image in those protests suggests that it predates the Guardian publication cited, although the original source is unclear. Might the Guardian have more information on where the photo came from originally? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:26, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've emailed the pictures department to ask on what basis they show it as PD. I suspect we may be in for a long wait! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:06, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Tim riley[edit]

I think I shall be supporting, but a few minor points first, as I ducked out of the PR:

  • "The BNP's successor, the National Front" – I see what you mean, of course, but is "successor" quite accurate? In present-day terms, is the Brexit party the "successor" to UKIP? One gang following a moribund predecessor gang, but I think "successor" implies some sort of hand-over.
  • The original BNP (1960–1967) help form the National Front when it imploded, with a large chunk of the party joining with a couple of other far-right knuckle-draggers to form the new organisation. I think there are some reliable sources that use the "successor" tag too. - SchroCat (talk) 19:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After bad press, they were replaced" – "they" being District Support Units? It isn't crystal clear.
  • I don't press the point, but there is a certain amount of in-and-out running in singular-v-plural for groups: e.g. "The SPG was disbanded .. the National Front announced that they would..."
  • Capitals are, I know, a headache for the scrupulous writer, but I do wonder why commissioner of the Metropolitan Police but Director of Public Prosecutions. (I'd capitalise Commissioner, but that's just my view.)
  • I've followed your suggestion. I go round in circles trying to work out what the MoS are saying on whatever day of the week. - SchroCat (talk) 19:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Despite statements by the police and the Labour government" – it seems a touch tendentious to say "the Labour government", as if a Tory one would have been sans peur et sans reproche.

Those are all my points on the prose. The content of the article seems to me balanced, comprehensive and well-referenced. I shall look in again to, I hope and expect, add my support. Tim riley talk 21:26, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Tim. Only the singular-v-plural point to deal with, but I'll go over those shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 19:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tim, I think I've covered these now (although I'm not sure I've made it worse in doing so!) Could you cast your eye over and see if I've brushed it up sufficiently? Ta - SchroCat (talk) 09:33, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you've got all the singular-v-plurals right. Some would write "the family was", but I'm with you in making them plural. While I was checking the current text I noticed (smack handies for not spotting it before) that you are inconsistent with the definite articles of newspaper titles: the Daily Mirror, but The Daily Telegraph and The Times. Not a matter of grave import, but it would be as well to stick to the same form for all. Tim riley talk 10:46, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks Tim - duly tweaked to be consistent. - SchroCat (talk) 11:48, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Happy to support now. I see a source review is wanted. If no-one more expert volunteers I'll have one of my occasional goes at source reviewing, using BB's wise guidance. Tim riley talk 08:24, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks Tim. As always, your comments are extremely helpful. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:32, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Gog the Mild[edit]

  • "the parallels in the deaths proved to be a catalyst in the release of the Cass report to the public." Something can be the catalyst for a single event, but not "a" catalyst - that would imply that it is one of several which is not chemically nor grammatically allowed.
  • "In the late 1950s—a decade after the partition of India—many of those who had been displaced by the events lost land and savings in the movement of people from their homelands into new areas." Umm. Possibly this has lost a word or three somewhere along the way while being copy edited?
    • I've re-written this several times, and deleted them all! How does this current version look? - SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "meant easily obtainable jobs" IMO this would read better as 'meant jobs were easily obtainable'.
  • "Southall" The second and third sentences start with "Many", as does the last clause of the first sentence. Would some variation be possible?
  • "During local elections of the 1960s anti-immigration rhetoric was used by some candidates, successfully in many cases." Can you cite "successfully in many cases"?
    • It was part of the Karapin reference at the end of the next sentence, but split out now for clarity. - SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1978 there were 204 members of the SPG in the Metropolitan Police Service." "in the Metropolitan Police Service" is redundant, the first sentence of the section covers this.
    • yeah-but, no-but... By '78 the SPG model was being used by forces outside the Met, so we need it there for clarity. (If you think a line would be beneficial to say the model was used in other forces, let me know and I'll dig out the sources again. - SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Accusations were made that the police were inappropriately violent towards those demonstrating against a National Front march." Is this connected to the previous sentence? It seems to spring out of nowhere.
  • "After bad press" It may just be me, but that does not read as encyclopedic. If only for want of a verb. Possibly 'After receiving bad press'?
  • "As the number of demonstrators at the town hall rose, the crowd contained what the police considered militant elements." That doesn't really work. Perhaps 'The number of demonstrators at the town hall rose, and included some whom the police considered militant elements'?
  • "The police decided to make a sterile cordon around the town hall" "make" -> 'set up' or similar? 'create'? 'establish'?
  • "a sterile cordon"; "The cordons were". Singular or plural?
    • Both, according to the police report! I've tweaked to put all plural - SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caption: "the green arrows shows Peach's direction of travel while trying to leave the area" "shows" -> 'show'.
  • "between 5:30 and 6:30 pm violence rose" Possibly a personal preference, but can violence 'rise'? 'the violence increased'? the level of violence rose'?
  • Personal or not, I've gone with it anyway. - SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which triggered the reaction from the crowd" "the" -> 'a'. (Or specify what "the" was.)
  • "One house on Park View Road was used as a first aid post; the building was also the headquarters of Peoples Unite" "one" needs to be 'a' and the sentence seems messy. How does something like 'A house on Park View Road, the headquarters of Peoples Unite, was used as a first aid post' sound?
  • " 'peaceful English hamlet' " Why the additional quote marks.
    • That's how they are in the quote (see here). I've moved one of the citations adjacent to make the quote clearer too. - SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At about 7:30 pm Peach, along with four friends decided that they would return to their cars" Needs tweaking. Possibly 'At about 7:30 pm Peach, along with four friends, decided to return to their cars ...'?
  • "radioed to the central control that there was a riot in progress" This seems to need a word after "control"[?]: 'point', 'room', whatever.
    • I think it was just called "Central Control", but I've added "unit" to clarify. - SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There were a group of 100 to 150 protesters" "were" -> 'was'.
  • "Beachcroft Avenue and as the SPG vans of Unit 3 drove to the junction" Delete either "and" or "as".
  • "He was rapidly operated on" "rapidly" -> 'promptly' (or similar).
  • "25 members of the public were also injured, of which Peach was one." "which" -> 'whom'.

More to follow.

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • All done, except where commented on above. Thank you for all these: they are excellent. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:06, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the Labour government" I assume that this refers to the UK Government? It would, IMO, be more appropriate to label it as such. If there is some point to be made as to which political party was in power, could it be made more openly. I note that when Ealing London Borough Council was mentioned earlier in the article, the party or parties in power did not come up.
  • swapped for "incumbent government". - SchroCat (talk) 20:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Instead of holding the trials locally, they were held 25 miles (40 km) away in Barnet." How unusual was this? In the area of the UK where I live, it has long been the case that high profile cases are not tried in the area where they are alleged to have taken place. If it was not unusual then add something such as 'as was normal practice in such cases'. If it was not, then could you cite this.
  • 'High profile' tends to mean a major crime which goes to the regional crown court. These cases were small stuff, so should have been the local magistrates court. I'll dig out the info and add as appropriate. - SchroCat (talk) 20:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "writes that while initially 90% of the defendants" "writes" -> 'wrote'
  • "the eve of Peach's funeral" Redundant, given that the following sentence starts "The following day he was buried"
  • Note g: "A sample list of the weapons found in the lockers of Unit 1-1's members, included" I don't think that the comma is necessary.
  • "including for Officer F and Officer G and Officer I" Should the first "and" not be a comma?
  • "shaved off his moustache which he had that day" "his" -> 'the'
  • "Cass considered that he had identified the likely individual who hit Peach" Is "likely" necessary here?
  • I think so. Cass put a list of six and said "in order of likelihood" or something similar. - SchroCat (talk) 20:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a break.

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:17, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Again, all done except where commented on. I'll dig out the court info shortly Now added. - SchroCat (talk) 20:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Carried down from above[edit]
  • "In the late 1950s—a decade after the partition of India—many of those who had been displaced by the events lost land and savings in the movement of people from their homelands into new areas." How about 'In the late 1950s many of those who had been displaced by the partition of India a decade before emigrated to the UK.' I am honestly not sure whether you are trying to say that they lost land etc during partition or when they moved to "new areas". But I don't see how any of that is relevant. I don't even see how the background of some - you don't quantify - immigrants is relevant, but if you do I can be flexible.
  • The point is that the relocation of 10 million+ people meant that many lost land and property and ended up coming to the UK as a result. - SchroCat (talk) 22:46, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In which case perhaps something like: 'As a result of the population transfers after the 1947 partition of India over fourteen million people were impoverished. From the late 1950' on many of them relocated again in search of more prosperous lives.' Nothing special about those words, but I feel that you are trying to pack a novella into a single sentence, so cutting the information to what a reader really needs to know may help, as might spreading it out over two sentences.
That's better. I've added a slight variant to it here - SchroCat (talk) 09:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "meant easily obtainable jobs" IMO this would read better as 'meant jobs were easily obtainable'. Neither commented on nor actioned.
I am clearly going senile. Apologies.
  • "Southall" The second and third sentences start with "Many", as does the last clause of the first sentence. Would some variation be possible? Neither commented on nor actioned.
  • Ditto - swapped out one of them for "some" - SchroCat (talk) 22:28, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it was just called "Central Control", but I've added "unit" to clarify.
If it had had upper case Cs in the article I wouldn't have queried it. Just saying.
  • Given the MoS's often bizarre approach to capitalisation... either way, it should be clear now. - SchroCat (talk) 22:28, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instead of holding the trials locally, they were held 25 miles (40 km) away in Barnet.
How unusual was this? In the area of the UK where I live, it has long been the case that high profile cases are not tried in the area where they are alleged to have taken place. If it was not unusual then add something such as 'as was normal practice in such cases'. If it was not, then could you cite this.
'High profile' tends to mean a major crime which goes to the regional crown court. These cases were small stuff, so should have been the local magistrates court. I'll dig out the info and add as appropriate.
I see your point. Hopefully you see mine. If we are accusing the British judicial system of attempting to rig the system against the accused - something I am personally willing to believe - we need to nail it down with a couple of very reliable sources IMO.
  • "writes that while initially 90% of the defendants" "writes" -> 'wrote'
Tim riley suggests "writes".
Mr Riley is a renown semi-literate. Ask him if he would care to reconsider his position.
He'll pipe up shortly, but as the text is extant and the opinion not withdrawn, it is still the "current" position of the author. All allowable in grammatical terms. - SchroCat (talk) 23:03, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's an odd convention I suppose, a sort of variation on the historic present, and even those who adhere to it interpret it differently. Some people apply it only to recent-ish publications, and others use it for everything. From a quick search of Google books: "according to what Julius Caesar writes in his Commentaries", "Julius Caesar writes of iron nails", "Julius Caesar writes about the transmigration of the souls in Celtic religion". My own use of the idiom is arbitrary, I'm afraid. I use "write" or "wrote" according to what feels right in each case. In my current overhaul of Orpheus I see I have said "Albert Lasalle, in his history of the Bouffes-Parisiens (1860) wrote that ... In 1999 Thomas Schipperges wrote in the International Journal ... Félix Clément and Pierre Larousse wrote in their Dictionnaire des Opéras (1881) that ..." but "Peter Gammond writes that the public appreciated... Kurt Gänzl writes in The Encyclopedia of the Musical Theatre that... In his 1981 study of Offenbach, Alexander Faris writes, "Orphée..." Of these one "wrote" refers to a living writer, and one "writes" to a dead one. One or two of these "writes/wrote" could perhaps be switched, and in fact I dithered about the choice for M. Lasalle's quotation, but on the whole the choice of tense seems to pick itself according to the context. And note that at the PR nobody has been troubled enough by it to mention the inconsistency. In short, I think either "writes" or "wrote" is acceptable in the sentence in question, and it is a matter of personal stylistic preference. I hope that satisfactorily confuses the issue. – Tim riley talk 07:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Tim. As muddy as a very muddy substance. In brief SC, it would seem that you can go for whichever variant you prefer.
  • "Cass considered that he had identified the likely individual who hit Peach" Is "likely" necessary here?
I think so. Cass put a list of six and said "in order of likelihood" or something similar.
OK. In which case how about 'Cass considered that he had identified the individual whom he considered most likely to have hit Peach.
Now done - SchroCat (talk) 07:34, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not reorder the first paragraph of Special Patrol Group as:
The Special Patrol Group (SPG) was formed in 1961 as a specialist squad within the Metropolitan Police;[a] In 1978 it consisted of 204 members, divided into six units, each of which contained three sergeants and 30 constables. Each unit was commanded by an inspector.[2] It provided a mobile, centrally controlled reserve of uniformed officers which supported local areas, particularly when policing serious crime and civil disturbances.[3] The SPG comprised police officers capable of working as disciplined teams preventing public disorder, targeting areas of serious crime, carrying out stop and searches, or providing a response to terrorist threats.[4][5]
  • Because it wouldn't be correct. In 1978 the SPG comprised 1,347 members, of whom 204 served in the Met, the others elsewhere (including 368 in the RUC). Reading the above makes it appear that there were only 204 members anywhere. I'll tweak the existing para to include info about the number overall. - SchroCat (talk) 07:34, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Joyce 2010, p. 186.
  2. ^ Rollo 1980, pp. 174, 204.
  3. ^ "History of the Metropolitan Police: Special Patrol Group". Metropolitan Police Service.
  4. ^ Brain 2010, p. 13.
  5. ^ Waddington 1994, p. 26.

Notes

  1. ^ The original name was the Special Patrol Group Unit; this was renamed Special Patrol Group in 1965.[1]
Act 2, scene 1[edit]
  • "Cass finished the investigation fully in February 1980" "fully" is redundant.
  • "during that time" You haven't given a time [period], just an end date.
  • "as only the coroner and police lawyers had copies of the report, "it was impossible for anyone ... to obtain a complete picture of the evidence" However well cited, this is clearly incorrect, as the coroner and the police lawyers would have been able to.
  • "the Peach case is an example where "compensation is ... paid in tacit admission that a wrong had been committed." As the quote is not a full sentence, the full stop should be outside the quote marks.
  • "That June the Metropolitan Police commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson announced that Cass's report and supporting documentation would be released. The parallels in the deaths of the two men proved to be the catalyst in the release of the Cass report to the public." IMO it would be beneficial to swap the order of these sentences.
  • "The journalists Mark Hughes and Cahal Milmo see that the action of the SPG "became a symbol of police corruption"." Grammar issues. 'The journalists Mark Hughes and Cahal Milmo considered that the action of the SPG "became a symbol of police corruption".'?
  • What are you saying to change? The sentence already has "that" in there. - SchroCat (talk) 23:01, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. I put the emphasis in the wrong place. I was attempting, ineptly, to suggest that 'considered' might convey your meaning better than "see".
Ah, OK - swapped for "consider" - SchroCat (talk) 09:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sus law" -> 'sus law'.
  • "to commemorate the former NUT member" If you are going to use an abbreviation, you should put it in brackets after the first use of the in full of the term abbreviated.
Which would be either the last line of the lead, or the second paragraph of the main article. Your choice.
The second para is a bit too far away for many to remember, so I've left it as full in the final section, but tweaked so it is not repeated twice in quick succession. - SchroCat (talk) 09:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note g: "Figures for the actual number vary. "actual" is redundant.
  • Sources: Butler and King 1965 and 1966 are too early to have had ISBNs.
Well, well; live and learn. I am astonished and enlightened.
I was a bit surprised by it too. I think it's something that happened with the release of some works as ebooks - not entirely sure, but I was looking for the oclc number when I came across this. - SchroCat (talk) 09:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ideally Gilroy should have the page range of the article or chapter given.
  • Caption: "Ian Tomlinson, just after being struck to the ground by police. His death was the catalyst for the release of the Cass report" There should be a terminal full stop.

Gog the Mild (talk) 22:45, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Covered, except where commented on. Thanks again - although I know I need to cover a couple of points from further up. - SchroCat (talk) 23:01, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gog, Again, many thanks for these comments - I am very grateful indeed. If there are any that I have missed, or you think need more work on, please let me know. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No problem SchroCat. It is an issue I was quite exercised about at the time, and it has brought me to a steady simmer several times since. You have clearly put an enormous amount of work into the article and it was a privilege to be able to contribute my smidgen. (That said, if you happen to feel like dropping by my A class nomination Battle of Cape Ecnomus then please feel free. I learnt this shameless approach from Tim.)
I was about to sign off with a support when I noticed "Cass considered that he had identified the individual whom he considered most likely to have hit Peach" Two times "considered". I have boldly edited the first one to 'decided' so as not to hold things up, but feel free to revert or make a different change.
Good spot. I may tweak to "considered", but either of them are better than the duplicated word. - SchroCat (talk) 11:57, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A magnificent article. Well-written, solidly cited to a wide range of sources, neutral, even in trying circumstances, and comprehensive. Happy to support.

Gog the Mild (talk) 10:21, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's very kind of you, thank you. I am most indebted to you, and will return the reviewing favour shortly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:57, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cass[edit]

I am so sorry, I completely forgot about this. Reading through tonight...(not John Cass, obvs) CassiantoTalk 19:46, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • "During his studies he visited Britain and liked the country." -- Not List or Rutherford, presumably?
  • "From the late 1950s on..." -- do we need "on"?
  • "...many of them relocated again." -- do we need "again"?
  • "Many Sikhs and Hindus left..." -- Many/many
  • "Some of the early arrivals found work at the R. Woolf and Co Rubber factory and by 1965 all the lower level workers were from Poland or the Indian subcontinent." -- I'm really not sure of the conjunction here. I don't think it works with what precedes it.
  • "Racial discrimination in the workplace was common, and 85% of those Asian workers who had been given entry into the UK on the basis of their education or training, were only employed in unskilled or semi-skilled roles." -- and here. An obvious semicolon would work better here, IMO.
  • Did all forces have units called "SPG"? Only the Met have what is called the "TSG", now, with other forces having units using different names. I'm led to believe that some don't have a support group/public order unit at all now and rely solely on level two aid deployments.
    • Most had an SPG, even if they were only 11 officers (like Derbyshire's). The source I have says Glos, Norfolk and Notts were the only English forces without one, and neither did Central Scotland. - SchroCat (talk) 20:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...meeting hall. The day before the meeting..." -- meeting/meeting
  • "Approximately 1,200 police officers were on duty along the five-mile (eight-kilometre) route, at which 19 people were arrested." -- Is it possible to be at a route or on it?
  • "... regardless of what they were doing, and there were subsequent complaints of racist and sexist abuse by the police." -- those police are a precious lot, aren't they. Surely they're used to such abuse? Or were they the ones dishing it out?
    • Bloody snowflakes, the lot of them! - SchroCat (talk) 20:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It reconvened on 25 May 1979 and again was adjourned" -- "It reconvened on 25 May 1979 and was again adjourned" is a bit crisper.
  • "PC Raymond White, PC James Scottow and PC Anthony Richardson" -- could we get away with PCs and then the names?

Stopping for now, more soon. CassiantoTalk 20:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Excellent stuff, cheers. All done, except the one point where I've clarified the extent of the SPG 'model' at the time. - SchroCat (talk) 20:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing with coroners inquest down...

  • "In early 1980 sections of the Cass report..." -- this makes it sound like the report was written sectionally over a period of decades. Is there a way of avoiding this? I know its the American comma, but here I think it would work. Failing that, get rid of "In early 1980" as it soon becomes obvious with "January 1980 and "March 1980".
  • "...but the calls were turned down by the government." -- I should imagine the calls weren't, but the public inquiry was.
  • "...concern at the way Burton conducted the inquest. One concern..." -- concern/concern
  • "...including the BBC, of producing what he described as "biased propaganda" -- The BBC, who'd have thought!
  • "After Stephenson announced the Metropolitan police would publish the Cass report, Murray stated that he believed that he was the officer referred to in the report as "Officer E". -- awkward, especially around the that/that part. "After Stephenson's announcement that the Metropolitan police would publish the Cass report, Murray stated that he believed he was the officer referred to in the report as "Officer E".
  • "In 2010 Andy Hayman, the former assistant commissioner for Specialist Operations at the Metropolitan Police wrote..." -- is there a closing comma missing from the end of Hayman's introduction?

That's my lot. A very balanced article, and a good read, albeit a difficult one at times (emotionally, you understand, and by no-means a slur on your shoddy prose), executed sensitively. Support unconditionally, with regards to my comments. CassiantoTalk 18:29, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Cass. All your suggestions taken on board and duly sorted. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:57, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support on the basis of my peer review comments, and the considerable degree of fine tuning that has occurred during this FAC. A source review will follow. Brianboulton (talk) 10:18, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Brian. You PR comments were very helpful, as always. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:32, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review[edit]

  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Links: all links to sources are working, per the external link checker tool
  • Formats: There is an issue of italicasation of non-print sources in the refs. See 2 (Getty Images); 28 and 34 (Metropolitan Police Service); 44, 67, 111, 120, (BBC); 48 (Birkbeck); 133 (National Union of Teachers); 139 (Shazam). I believe these should be de-italicised. BBC is also italicised in the list of News articles.
  • Quality and reliability: The sources include books, reports, articles and online sites, and appear to be very comprehensive. In my view they meet the required FA criteria for quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 19:18, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks once again Brian. All now de-italicised. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:45, 24 May 2019 (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/Death_of_Blair_Peach/archive1&oldid=900481191"