Talk:Miami Showband killings/Wehwalt comments

Some comments:


 * Lede: I believe the lede to be too long and involved, especially the first paragraph.  It should not be longer than half its present length.  Do not feel obliged to put everything in the lede!  I will wait until I see what you do with this before reviewing the lede further.
 * ✅, here, here and here Daicaregos (talk) 21:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I admire the speed, but I will look at the article again on Sunday, so the article doesn't get too familiar to me. Remember, it is OK to disagree with me.  Just let me know, so I can be certain I've given you my best argument.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Background
 * Seems more logical to me to have the background section on the Troubles before the one on the band. You may feel otherwise, however.

✅
 * Since the term "Irish", especially when unlinked, is subject to misinterpretation, I would state clearly where in Ireland the band came from up front, you do for a couple of the member but it's all a bit unclear. I think "based in Dublin" would be sufficient if true.

✅
 * Can we get more information on the conflict within the band over touring Northern Ireland? As foreshadowing, it's worth a paragraph if you have the information.  Not all of the band's lineup changes need be detailed if you are short on space, thought I don't think they detract.


 * I have no further information on the conflict within the band regarding tours in Northern Ireland. Just the bit about Ashford already in the article. It was probably just an issue with him, that'ds why he was let go.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The second to last sentence in the subsection (supported by present footnote 6) seems a little hagiographic. They had no interest in politics?  And yet they were Irish?  Perhaps this was the band's position, rather than its members.  Did their lyrics touch at all on the Troubles?  Also, it might be worth mentioning which were Catholic.  Was the fact that it was such a widely-based showband (you might want to explain what a showband is, btw) ever draw media attention, and what did band members have to say about it?  BTW, I read the phrasing to say that the band included both Catholics and Protestants from the Republic, and both Catholics and Protestants from Ulster.  If I'm wrong, then you've led me down the garden path.

✅
 * Political
 * Your reference to the 1974 UK General election, while correctly piped, will look odd to those who know there were two. Add "February".

✅
 * Why is Sunningdale Agreement italicised? I would suggest adding a few words inline about what it was.

✅
 * Massacre
 * To start with, I suggest that your title is POV, or at least people will think so. While "killings" is out because the title should not be reused in section titles if it can be avoided, perhaps you can come up with something stronger than "Deaths" and less strong than "Massacre".

Done!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * According to the NY Times article, they had driven about ten miles from the venue when they were stopped. Since not everyone is going to be familiar with their route or distances, suggest that the distance they traveled be mentioned.

✅ The NY Times article is mistaken about the distance. Bushkill is exactly halfway from Banbridge to Newry, which is a total distance of 14 miles, therefore they were seven miles north of Newry. I mentioned that in the article.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I very much dislike your interrupting the story of what happened to the band for the Jackson subsection. I would move that subsection into the background section, next to the section on the background of the Troubles.

✅ Excellent suggestion, Wehwalt. This way it doesn't break up the flow in the telling of the event.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Why is the registration number of the van relevant? And surely by now there is no need to link "Troubles"?

✅ You're right- it's a bit trivial.
 * The NY Times at least mentions that one motive may have been revenge for the killings of dog fanciers from Ulster who had been returning from a dog show in Cork the previous month. Did this ever pan out?


 * Never heard this theory before. I don't think it's reliable.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Times also mentions that they had had no trouble in touring the island during the previous six years of Troubles, and that they had repeatedly toured the US. Both might be worth a mention.  If true!  Obviously these early articles can get stuff wrong, the Times says that Miller drove home to Belfast, that does not seem to be the case.


 * Millar drove home to Antrim; McAlea was from Belfast!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * " the one commanding gunman" I would change this to "the gunman in command", it reads oddly as is.

✅
 * "presumed he was a British Army officer" Surely "assumed"?  I also find the use of the term "expeditious" odd.  While no doubt the band was anxious to get home, the context seems to indicate that the relief at there being (as they thought) he was less likely to do something, er, "unpredictable".


 * I changed "expeditious" to "trustworthy". What do you think?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the lengthy bracketed phrase is better outside the quotation marks, and should not need brackets. Just merge the explanation of who he thought them to be into the existing sentence.

✅
 * "It was Travers' opinion that" Too formal.  Say "Travers thought that"

✅
 * To make it easier on the reader, who is getting hit with a complicated series of events, I would divide each of the two paragraphs in this subsection.


 * I believe I fixed this.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Explosion
 * "The plan was" How can you be this definite, when apparently there is a dispute as to what the plan was?
 * Consider adding metric equivalents to mileage and weights. Are you familiar with the undefined undefined template?
 * Looking back at the text you've added, where McCoy is described, suggest "accurate" be substituted for "truthful" if it fits the source well. They were trusting in his knowledge of who the gunmen were, no one thought he was lying.  See the difference?

✅
 * If McCoy was drawing a distinction between the UDR and the British Army, even though the UDR may technically have been part of the British Army, I don't think the text needs to say he was inaccurate. He was making a practical distinction without worrying about technical accuracy.   All he was trying to do is say that they weren't UDR, who had a bad reputation I gather (again, I know little about the Troubles, Ireland is not my field of interest) I gather.

✅
 * As an article wide matter, you are feeding the reader an awful lot of info to help him understand what happened next. I suggest two things:  split paragraphs wherever you can possibly do so, and strongly consider moving anything that can possibly be put later in the article.  Really, I'm talking about explanations, here.  If the reader does not initially need them to "get" the events surrounding the explosion and shootings, don't have it this early in the article, it can be explained to him later.  Your job, if you want this as a FA is to get the reader to the heart of the article (the explosion and shooting) as quickly and as smoothly as possible, while ensuring he has the information he needs to understand it.  But some information can wait.  That's my rant for the day, but I think it will make a big difference in terms of how people perceive your prose at FAC.


 * I'm not sure if it's been fixed yet.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:42, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "claimed" This word is very POV, only use it for something which you are telling the readers is utterly discredited, because at this level of writing, that is exactly what you are doing. If you do not mean to do that, consider "alleged" or "suggested".  "Opined" is good for theories, too.

I have retained claimed only for things that are discredited such as Nairac having arranged the attack to eliminate Boyle.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd mention that the two men killed instantly were gunmen.

Done.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd end this section on the word "charred" (optionally, you could end it as soon as you establish that the two men are dead). And move the rest of the information later to a less busy part of the article.  Don't you see, this is action, fast paced action text, do not slow for explanations!


 * Done. I ended the section at charred. The rest about the severed arm, etc. I have moved to Forensics section.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My newspaper account has "Francis O'Toole" rather than "Fran O'Toole". Perhaps put the nickname in parenthesis, only on the first time you mention his name (after that you can freely use the nickname).


 * Done.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No. Do not make the mistake of mentioning things to draw the reader's sympathy to the victims, such as wife, kids, engagement, or good looks.  Cold blooded murder is cold blooded murder, and the circumstances are chilling enough, you do not need to fan the flames.  If you must mention those things, put them someplace else, best in the background subsection which is there for talking about the Miami Showband.  Also, some of that seems unsourced.  Understand that the circumstances are so chilling that they are scaring me (I know several bands and have traveled with one) and you do not need to fan the flames of sympathy.

✅


 * Forensic ...

You leave the scene of the crime and then come back to it. To avoid this, I would move the description of the hospital recovery and McDowell's ID later in the article. And btw, "Dorothy" makes unnecessary the word "woman". ✅
 * Aftermath
 * Why all the detail on McCrea?


 * I have removed it leaving just one sentence saying who he is.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * When were the arrests made, and under what circumstances?


 * Done.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Tell the story in order, arrests, charges, convictions, sentences, imprisonment, and then release.


 * Done.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Allegations
 * I think you should have mentioned the equipment minibus much earlier in the story, if only in passing. I would do so, about the time you have the band leaving the gig.

✅
 * I think this section should be better organized, and have a couple of first sentences in paragraphs explaining what allegations are being dealt with. For example, "A continuing allegation in the case has been the alleged presence of so-and-so at the scene."  Something like that, anyway.  It takes too much digging for the reader to figure out what the allegations are at present.


 * I have changed a few sentences to read this way.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You can't have one side "claiming" stuff and then the other side "confirming" the supposed truth, opposite to the position of the first side. It is much too POV.  Use more neutral terms.


 * I hope I have fixed these.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Memorials
 * "commemoration speech". Perhaps, "tribute"?


 * Done.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You've photographed a sculpture which is likely copyrighted. This may be considered a derivative work.  You should check Commons for information on copyright law in Ireland.  What I would be most interested in is whether Ireland has freedom of panorama or not.  If yes, the image should be fine.  If not, a more complicated analysis will follow.
 * I'll ask.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I checked. Ireland does have freedom of panorama, so this image is ok.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I want you to work on this for a few days and then let me look through it again. There's a lot of good writing and information. Some of it is a bit unfocused and the writing has a tendency to detour like McCrea. Nothing that can't be fixed. I think this will eventually do quite well at FAC, but it isn't ready just yet.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Wehwalt. I hope I have adequately addressed all the issues you have brought up. Could you please provide me with a link to the NY Times article?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It won't do you any good unless you have an account, but here.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks anyway.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Certainly I can tell you what's in it, but it's an early report anyway. It is too long to type out but it did mention the touring the US bit, don't know if that is actually accurate.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is factually accurate. I have done a lot of research on the band and the event and I have never come across anything which says they toured the US. I did read somewhere that they were about to be launched in the USA when the incident happened.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, certainly don't mention it then. I'll do a little side research and see if I can find anything about them in the US, but I'm guessing you are right and there won't be any.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if it is the same or not, but I have an entry in the entertainment listings of the NY Times for September 14, 1970 under "Caberet" TONIGHT SHEPHEARDS Drake Hotel Dickie Roc and the Miami Showband.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, then they did play in the US. But that wouldn't have been the 1975 lineup.
 * I wouldn't mention it. Besides, it is such a cursory mention it could easily have been someone else or a mistake.  And I see no other news mentions for them on Google News Archives from before 1975.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

More comments:

 * Lede
 * I played with it. You don't have to keep it if you don't like it.  Feel free to modify.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks good, but the words the previous evening might be confusing. The gig had taken place on the night of 30 July but had finished after midnight. The band had been fed stew so after 2.00 am on Thursday the 31 July they hit the road arriving at the bogus checkpoint at 2.30.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps put in "the early morning of"?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Perfect.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm really not keen on using "occurred". Would this work: The Miami Showband killings (also called the Miami Showband Massacre), in the early morning of 31 July 1975, left three members of The Miami Showband dead in Northern Ireland at the hands of Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) gunmen.? Daicaregos (talk) 16:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't like the "in Northern Ireland". Perhaps move it earlier in the sentence?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * How about the Miami...was an incident that took place in Northern Ireland early in the morning of 31 July 1975'?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Because the name Miami has automatic American associations, I think it should be established as soon as possible that the event happened in Northern Ireland.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * How about: The Miami Showband killings (also called the Miami Showband Massacre) in the early morning of 31 July 1975 at Buskhill, County Down, Northern Ireland, left three members of The Miami Showband dead at the hands of Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) gunmen.? Daicaregos (talk) 16:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I like it. It gets straight to the point whilst giving all the relevant info.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Just as a 'by the by', five people died that night. Wouldn't it be NPOV to say that rather than just mentioning three? Daicaregos (talk) 16:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You've got a point.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Soooo ... how about: The Miami Showband killings (also called the Miami Showband Massacre) in the early morning of 31 July 1975 at Buskhill, County Down, Northern Ireland, left five people dead at the hands ofUlster Volunteer Force (UVF) gunmen, including three members of The Miami Showband.? Daicaregos (talk) 16:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That works for me. It's nice and concise.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You are lacking a verb.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:16, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "left" is the past tense of "to leave". Daicaregos (talk) 18:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Touche. Missed that.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Would you both be happy to go with this version, or the one below (I would prefer this one, as it's more punchy, but like the use of 'paramilitary' below). Daicaregos (talk) 18:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I prefer the one below. I think it is easier on the reader.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * We can assume Jeanne agrees to, as she wrote it. I'll make the change. Thanks, Daicaregos (talk) 18:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * How about adding was an attack just before in the early morning of 31 July 1975 that left five people dead....?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Its a little unconventional but how about, "Five people died in the Miami Showband killings (also known as the Miami Showband Massacre) in the early morning hours of 31 July 1975, three members of the band and two attackers."--Wehwalt (talk) 17:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The opening line should mention Northern Ireland.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Add it after the date and before the comma.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * How about this:ììThe Miami Showband killings (also known as the Miami Showband massacre) was a paramilitary attack at Buskhill, County Down, Northern Ireland EARLY IN THE MORNING OF 31 jULY 1975. It left five people dead at the hands of Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) gunmen, including three of the band memberd''?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That seems fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * " Two serving UDR soldiers and one former UDR soldier " from the lede. This seems awkward.  Can you shorten it?

✅
 * Background
 * "violent sectarian attacks" Is violent redundant?
 * Attacks may be verbal too. Daicaregos (talk) 21:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * True but I'm not sure it would lose clarity if the word were omitted. Either way.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

✅ Violent is indeed redundant as attacks imply violence--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - I added escalation in sectarian attacks as there were attacks prior to 1975.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "It would be once more" I'm thinking that the previous sentence actually has a multiple subject and that you need to specify which group again.

✅

I don't think I am going to get a reread accomplished today so I'll do it in bits and pieces over the next few days, I'm afraid. The article is making strides thanks to your judgment about which of my suggestions to accept.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:39, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Your suggestions are good ones.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, I need to take one more look at the aftermath section, and that should do it as far as I'm concerned! I'll continue to keep a friendly eye on the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Oh, how does my footnote containing the bulky Ballistics paragraph look?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's fine, but add a reference to it. Probably the same reference you took it from.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I added the ref but I'm unable to incorporate it into the footnote. It comes up as an error.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

✅ I finally figured out how to do it!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

More comments 2
OK, some more. ✅ ✅ ✅ ✅ ✅ ✅ ✅ ✅
 * You need a citation on the sentence about the effect the killings had on the showband scene. I would also move that sentence to the aftermath.  It would be interesting to know if the refusals were due to anger over the killings, or concerns about security.  Also, was there a decrease even among those remaining in the Republic?
 * "O'Toole and McCoy were both married. Each had two children. " Combine to one sentence.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "pulled in at a lay-by". I don't like this because it implies almost randomness about the lay-by, just the next one.  Suggest adding "as directed by the armed men".--Wehwalt (talk) 20:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "McCoy's word, therefore, was " I would make this plural.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "four of the gunmen were indeed" I would strike "indeed".
 * "more than four". I dislike this and suggest "at least x" (either four or five).--Wehwalt (talk) 20:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "All the gunmen, however," I would strike the word "however"; I see no need for it.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "The purported plan" It is unclear what that means.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "that remained intact of their bodies" Suggest strike "intact". Really doesn't convey anything, under the circumstances.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "According to Michael Browne of the Irish Mail on Sunday," Unless there is some dispute about whose arm it was, I really don't think you need to inline cite to this guy.  You should combine the short remainder of the sentence with another one.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Done, although I left the ref as it's the only one that specifies Somerville.
 * What I meant was that you don't have to say who the source is as part of the text.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

✅ ✅ ✅ ✅ ✅ I put the final paragraph into a footnote. How do I add the previous refs to the footnote?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC) ✅
 * "This was the two bombers' only identifiable body part to survive the blast," Perhaps, "The only identifiable body part from the two bombers to survive the blast was an arm ... "--Wehwalt (talk) 22:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * " They were identified by the UVF, " I do not know how it works in British/Irish English, but in the US, "identified" can mean viewing a corpse and saying who it was.  I don't think you mean this.  I think that you should move this information, and the rest of the paragraph, further down in the section and once you have finished describing the crime scene and the remains, proceed with the next paragraph, which establishes the investigation.  Then, you have more flexibility in how to set forth the remaining facts in this section.  I think that will work well for you.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "He said they refused". "said" is a word not favored in formal encyclopedic writing.  Suggest "He subsequently stated".--Wehwalt (talk) 22:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "police a description of a gunman". How about "police a description of McDowell as a gunman who ... " and eliminate the awkward parenthetical.  This is one reason I'd like the reader to have a little clearer focus on McDowell.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The lengthy final paragraph in the ballistics section troubles me. I think a lot of it should be moved either later in the article, or perhaps better into footnotes.  The narrative is really being sidetracked here.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "The statement appeared ..." I would add this as a note to the reference which justifies the quotation from the statement.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "were released under the terms of the 1998 Belfast Agreement." Perhaps better as "were released in 1998 under the terms of the Belfast Agreement" (if that is when they were released).
 * I fixed it but don't know the year they were released.

✅ ✅ ✅
 * "Altnamachin attack" I would move this subsection up to second position in section. It really feels like now the article should be moving out to the long view right here, and this doesn't fit that.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I would make "decline of the showbands" just the first sentence in "later years". It does not need to be a separate subsection.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "Stephen Travers together with Neil Fetherstonhaugh, wrote his autobiography, The Miami Showband Massacre: A Survivor's Search For the Truth in which he recounts the killings. It was published in 2007. The year before, Travers had travelled" Begin "In 2006, Travers travelled ..." and omit all the stuff about the autobiography.
 * Some mention of how Travers came to have that meeting might be interesting to the reader.
 * He never said how the meeting was arranged. I would imagine it was done through a journalist, but I cannot locate anything which confirms this.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

✅ ✅ ✅ ✅ I haven't found much, due to everything being archived, but I added a few items.
 * Move the 2008 Miami Showband reconstitution to be the last sentence of the paragraph dealing with the later history of showbands.
 * Perhaps integrate the information about Crozier's location into the anecdote about him not coming to the door. Merge the remainder of the paragraph into the same paragraph, as the next sentence.
 * Personally, I love ending articles with quotations, about three fourths of my solo FAs end with a quotation. However, you are ending with the same quotation as in the lede, which I think is poor narrative practice.  I would find some other way to end the article.  Having only the materials on hand, as I've said I really know little about this period in history, I would rearrange the paragraphs and end with the quote from An Post, which has almost a wistful quality about it.
 * Consider adding, at some appropriate point in the article, a short section on public, newspaper and editorial reaction in the wake of the killings.
 * That's about it. I haven't looked at such things as referencing practices, I suggest dropping a note on User:Dank's page to ask for a check in advance of FAC, as he will most likely to a check of such things in the early days of the FAC.  I will look at the images and see if there are any problems, but I'm not really an image expert so you might want to talk to someone like User:Jappalang who is.  I'm a better writer than a reviewer, and I honestly never know what is going to happen at FAC, but I think you'll do OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for your excellent and constructive advice.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. On images, I see a couple of questionable ones (the fair use one and the one with the UVF mural) but really you should get an opinion from an image hawk.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The mural comes under Freedom of Panorama which the UK and Ireland both have. Regarding the Fair Use image, surely the rationale I provided meets the requirements?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Does the mural come under FoP even though it is not a permanent display? I think my main problem with the Soundband image is that I'm not sure it aids the reader in understanding the article.  However, certainly do not delete it.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There are loads of murals on Commons. They normally are painted by more than one person. Many of them have been in there present location for years. I think it's important to show the 1975 lineup of the band as it hits home to people that they were just a pop band in flared jeans ambushed by terrorists. Oh, I did a bit of research and came up with the means by which the secret meeting in the church came about.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice! Just curious, how was it the equipment van got out of there first?  Usually the band is ready to leave long before "load out" is compleded!--Wehwalt (talk) 14:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually the equipment van was ahead by a few minutes (I just added this to the article). I believe the band had been fed Irish stew after the performance. That could have delayed them.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah. So it would.  You know, I would put a sentence at the end of the first paragraph of "Explosion" making it clear that the gunmen had been lying in wait for the band in particular.  If that's right.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

✅ Good suggestion. This way the reader knows the band was deliberately targetted and they had fallen into an ambush.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly. An article is a story, and you try wherever possible to answer the natural questions the reader will have.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm glad I found the answer to how the meeting with "the Craftsman" was arranged.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You learn stuff, indeed, from writing.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I learn new things everyday at Wikipedia. That's why I hate it when people knock it.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I would no longer have the patience for formal learning, thus I'm grateful for what Wiki teaches me.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)