Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Baker Street robbery/archive1

Baker Street robbery

 * Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 14:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

The Baker Street robbery is an event that has a separate identity to the reality of what happened. So many rumours circulate (the government issued a D-Notice to gag the press; one of the safety deposit boxes contained compromising photographs of Princess Margaret and the actor and criminal John Bindon; photos of a Conservative cabinet minister abusing children were found; no-one was arrested and no money was recovered). All utter tosh, but they squeezed a film out of it and when the Hatton Garden safe deposit burglary took place, immeditate parallels were made. All constructive comments are warmly welcome. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 14:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Lacks alt text.
 * Could we add "Baker Street burglary" to the redirects?
 * The Lloyds Bank link goes to the header page. Could the chapter and page numbers be given in the cite?

Support by Gog the Mild
I made a number of suggestions at Peer review/Baker Street robbery/archive1.


 * "A gang of burglars had tunnelled 40 feet" Suggest deleting "had".
 * "The conversations they had were overheard" Optional: → 'Their conversations were overheard'.
 * "Gavin, Tucker and Stephens were imprisoned for twelve year" Were they, or were they sentenced to 12 years?
 * A picky point: should "Background" point out that the location is London, for the hard of geography?
 * "Bank practice of the time was for staff to leave customers in private while visiting the vault; as soon as Tucker was alone, he would measure the room using the span of his arms and an umbrella he brought with him; he was aided in getting exact measurements by the regularly sized floor tiles, each of which was nine inches (23 cm) square." A slightly long sentence.
 * "Another of Gavin's friends, Mickey "Skinny" Gervaise, a burglar alarm expert, was brought on board, as were two men who have never been identified: "Little Legs" and "TH"; Lashmar reports that TH was a contact of Detective Inspector Alec Eist, whom he describes as "by reputation the most corrupt Yard officer of the 1950s to mid-1970s"." Consider splitting? (After "TH".)
 * In 1971, Chicken Inn was closed at weekends, at the same time as workers were digging up the road. You sure? (It's not my recollection of how the '70s worked.)
 * Here's a spot of OR for you: in 1971 I was living in a flat off Baker Street and the damn' road was everlastingly being dug up. I don't recall their knocking off at weekends.  Tim riley  talk   12:30, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I am happy to accept the recollections of the honorable gentleman. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:13, 22 October 2019 (UTC)


 * "Up to 120 detectives worked on the case" Is "detectives" a synonym here for 'police officers'?
 * I checked again, and it's a quote from the officer who led the investigation Det Chief Sup Chalk, whi says 120 detectives. - SchroCat (talk) 13:34, 22 October 2019 (UTC)


 * "Police soon tracked down the name of Wolfe" Can one "track down" a name? Possibly. Maybe it only looks a little odd to me.
 * "Towards the end of October 1971 police surveillance saw Tucker hand over" "police surveillance" can't see anything, only the people doing the surveilling can. (I am channelling Tim here.)
 * "The claim is dismissed by Duncan Campbell who writes "no D-Notice was even requested, far less granted";[65] the journalist Graeme McLagen observes that there was the embargo on the Sunday—while the burglary was still in progress—but that the events were widely reported over the following days" Suggest breaking the sentence after "granted""

Excellent work. Just as good on a rereading. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:53, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * All done, except two - the digging and the detectives . Many thanks for your futher comments: they are again much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 13:34, 22 October 2019 (UTC)


 * That all looks good. Could you comment on the three points above "Gog the Mild"? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:02, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Missed those: all done now. - SchroCat (talk) 15:13, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley
I gave SchroCat my comments offline and viva voce at peer review stage (as I was on a Wiki-break) and I was happy with the article as it emerged from PR. A handful of comments after a further perusal:
 * Lead
 * "Only £231,000 was recovered" – were recovered? Not sure about this, but I just mention it.
 * I think "was" is right here: "were" jars with me. - SchroCat (talk) 13:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Background
 * "Dr. Watson" – unusual to see the otiose full stop in BrE these days.
 * Prelude
 * "Reg Tucker, a salesman of second-hand cars, with no criminal record" – this reads awkwardly (and is my fault for going on about it at PR stage.) I think you'd be better with something nearer your first thoughts, on the lines of "Reg Tucker, a second-hand-car salesman, who had no criminal record". (One could argue about including the second comma in that suggestion.)
 * Investigation
 * I deny all responsibility for Gog’s comment, above, about surveillance, but I think he's right.
 * My only other additional thought is that it might be useful to spell it out that the judge effectively killed the March 1973 lawsuit off once and for all. Those of us unfamiliar with the vagaries of the British courts may wonder how a judge can kick a case into touch by adjourning it without explanation.
 * I'll have to find something that backs it up, otherwise it would just be OR (even though obvious to anyone with a grasp of British jurisprudence!. - SchroCat (talk) 13:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

These small points don't prevent my supporting the promotion of the article to FA. It seems to me comprehensive, balanced, well sourced and an excellent read. I am surprised how well you have managed to illustrate it. Plainly of FA standard, in my view. –  Tim riley  talk   12:30, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Many thanks once again: all done except the first and last points, and I'll look for the second one. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

 * How irregular. A few comments:
 * "The property also had a basement that, the group calculated, was at the same level as the bank vault.[18]" I might cut "also". You haven't said anything about the property itself to that point.
 * "Road works nearby meant the trembler alarms in the vault floor were turned off after several false alarms. " Is this over a single period, or some longer period.
 * Unfortunately the sources are a bit unclear on that point. - SchroCat (talk) 15:10, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * "Gavin dug until he reached the basement of the Chicken Inn, and then continued under their basement, using their floor as the roof of the tunnel.[5] " Well, he didn't actually reach the basement, he tried to avoid it.
 * Were they charged with burglary? It's difficult to say from what's there.
 * The main news reports (Times and Guardian) but put it as "charged with breaking into the bank and stealing the contents of the security boxes", which is what we have (in the court case setion). Do you want it clarified or made more obvious with a mention in the lead? - SchroCat (talk) 15:10, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No, if that's what the sources say, that's fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:00, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * "The journalist Graeme McLagen observes that there was the embargo on the Sunday" I'm not quite sure what that means.
 * "were found by the gang and left behind for the police to find," found/find
 * That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:26, 25 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Many thanks . One question in there and one I can't do, but the rest are all tweaked. Thanks very much for looking over this. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:10, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Seems to be all set.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:00, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

SN54129
Sup SC. I see you the article doesn't comment on the link between the Baker Street Robbery and the assassination of Martin Luther King? —— SerialNumber  54129  18:15, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It appears to be about the only thing that hasn't ever been connected to it... and JFK, I suppose. - SchroCat (talk) 18:51, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Was a joke. But suggest linking Alec Eist? ——  SerialNumber  54129  19:06, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Cheers SN (and I guessed it was a joke!). I could have sworn I checked if we had an article, but obviously not (mind you, I've done so many searches of his erstwhile colleagues for another article, that they all blur into one in the end!) Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:47, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Bet you were up all night with that one, . Phnarr phnarr! :) It's okay, not a reflection on your eyes or your sanity: when you last looked, Eist didn't have an article :) Take care,  ——  SerialNumber  54129  18:01, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Nice work! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:54, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Sources review
To make the pickiest of nits, the New Statesman is not actually a "newspaper". And the newspapers could be linked at first mention in the list of sources. Otherwise, links to sources all working, there are no other format issues I can find to niggle about, and the sources, collectively, are of appropriate quality/reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 17:21, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Brian, Apologies and belated thanks for your review, as always. I've tweaked the "Newspapers" to "News sources", which should adequately cover the Statesman reference. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:02, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Support by Ceoil
A very nice, pacey read. Had intended to only give a 1st look skim read before breakfast this morning, but read it straight through. No quibbles. Ceoil (talk) 16:15, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Support from Cassianto
Nothing from me, other than to say that this an absolute peach. Congratulations.  Cassianto Talk  23:06, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Cheers - thanks very much. - SchroCat (talk) 10:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Coordinator notes
Is there an image review I'm not seeing? I see reference to alt text above but I'm unsure if that's meant to be a comprehensive review. -- Laser brain  (talk)  13:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I thought it was, but on relfection, you're probably right., are you able to do this? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Image review


 * Suggest scaling up the lead diagram and the map


 * File:Baker_Street_burglary_tunnel.svg: one of the source links has been deleted and the other is this article - suggest adding an external source that supports the data presented


 * File:Detritus_left_in_wake_of_Baker_Street_burglary.jpg: suggest expanding the purpose of use statement. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Many thanks: these now covered. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:29, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

-- Laser brain  (talk)  16:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)