Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Iranian Embassy siege/archive1


 * 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 Ucucha 03:12, 23 August 2011.

Iranian Embassy siege

 * Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   17:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

For my third FAC nomination, I've departed from my comfort zone to write something that isn't a biography! The Iranian Embassy siege took place over six days in April/May 1980 and was ended when the SAS—now one of the most famous military units in the world, but then largely unknown to those outside of military circles—stormed the building. The assembled press captured and the images of men dressed entirely in black and armed to the teeth abseiling down the front of the building and broadcast them on live television during prime time on a bank holiday Monday, making the end of the siege a defining moment in British history and for Margaret Thatcher's government. Just 17 minutes later, five of the six terrorists were dead and all but one of their hostages freed and the SAS became a household name and the regiment for any ambitious British Army officer to serve with.

At a little over 5,000 words, this is the longest article I've written so far and, after six weeks of work and a MilHist A-class review, I think it meets the FA criteria. However, all comments—pro or con—are most welcome. Thank you, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   17:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Source review - Siege or Siege!? Otherwise, sources check out, though I didn't do spotchecks. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Thanks, as ever! HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   17:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment Just a few picky things:
 * Lede
 * re-occupied. I would avoid this term and variations on it, as it might be deemed political.
 * I don't see the harm, but I don't see the harm in changing it either so I have. --HJ
 * Background
 * after a trade. Perhaps "land exchange"?  You trade baseball players.  "Swap" would work and is often used under similar circumstances.
 * Middle ground? --HJ
 * Perhaps a map showing the province?
 * Will see what I can do. Open Street Maps was suggested in the ACR, but I lack the software (and the skill) to annotate it. I'll see if I can find someone who can. --HJ
 * suppressed its people and ended its independence. Surely POV?  Simply say "ended its autonomy" or synonym.  Autonomy is not independence.
 * I don't think it's POV. There's no doubt that the Iranian government of the day were pretty brutal in the way they dealt with internal unrest, and the people would certainly have considered themselves "suppressed" given that they had gone from autonomy to being subject to Tehran's laws pretty much on a whim. If "suppressed" is too loaded, though, I'm open to suggestions for less-loaded alternatives. --HJ
 * "crushed " Perhaps the rebellion was crushed, but it's too strong a term to use on the people. And I don't think you should say that the people rebelled.  Perhaps say "Khūzestānis rebelled after World War II, but the revolt was crushed ..."  Honestly, I think defeated is better.
 * Defeated could mean that they were asked nicely to surrender and did so. "Crushed" is the word used in the source. --HJ
 * the group's leader. What group?
 * Fixed. --HJ
 * a plan inspired . I think it has to be "also inspired".
 * I think it was inspired by the events in Tehran, but motivated by those in Al Muhammara. --HJ
 * Using Iraqi passports. It would be interesting to know what sort of visa they had or were given (tourist, etc.)
 * I've no idea. It's not in any of the sources, but a lot of details like that are unknown, beyond the fact that they had a lot of help from Saddam. --HJ
 * " were allegedly" If the sources will support it, suggest "he said".  Allegedly is a bit of a red flag.  That way, if the sources will support it, "they said" later on.
 * Hmm, not sure I agree 100% on the rationale, but done. --HJ
 * "in Africa". Perhaps use these words as a pipe to a suitable portion of the North African campaign?
 * I can't find an appropriate article or section that has anything to say about the SAS, and I think it would be a bit of an Easter egg, anyway. --HJ
 * "could prove". "could sometimes prove".
 * Agreed, and done. --HJ
 * The sentence about the Munich massacre tries to do too much in my view, and has an awfully long wait between its noun and its verb. Suggest recasting it.
 * Ditto. --HJ
 * "in a counter-revolutionary role" Isn't this more an "anti-terrorist" or "anti-hijacking" role?  Also, the word counter-revolutionary carries a lot of baggage on it thanks to Lenin.
 * Re-phrased to avoid that term (quite why they named the unit "Counter Revolutionary" I don't know. I guess political correctness wasn't such a big deal in the '70s). --HJ
 * Siege
 * "journalists established " I would insert "soon".
 * Re-worded. --HJ
 * "Ali Aghar Tabatabal, who was collecting a map for use in a presentation he had been asked to give" Business?  School?
 * Added. --HJ
 * Why were the BBCers trying to go to Iran?
 * Ditto. --HJ
 * Perhaps list the journalists together.
 * Good point done. --HJ
 * "The first police officers were at the scene very quickly " Perhaps "Police arrived at the scene quickly after the attack".  That way you reestablish what was going on after digressing for the hostages..
 * Ditto. --HJ
 * You need to more clearly establish days of the week.
 * Could you clarify? --HJ
 * Yes, you make a major point that the siege ended on Bank Holiday Monday, but that is the only time I see that you mention days of the week. When you mentioned the nursery school, the first thing I thought of was "was it a weekday?  were kids present?" but I had to dig to find out the first one.  The second one is not mentioned in the article.  I would mention, possibly twice, that the takeover took place on a Wednesday
 * I've added that it began on a Wednesday, and that COBR deliberations carried on into Thursday. Does that make it clearer? I only mention that it was a bank holiday, because if they'd done it in the dead of night on a normal weekday, I very much doubt it would have become such a milestone in British history. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?
 * " if it was not done" I would change "done" to "met".
 * Re-worded. --HJ
 * "therefore determined that British law " "Therefore" implies reasons why British law should apply, I don't see any.
 * According to the Vienna Convention, the embassy building is Iranian sovereign territory, so sending British soldiers into it is not exactly the done thing! --HJ
 * I do understand that. My point was perhaps unclear, the article does not state why Thatcher acted as she did.
 * Ah, I see. I've clarified why Thatcher made the decision, and the implications of the Vienna Convention. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?
 * " The ensuing negotiations " between ...
 * Fixed. --HJ
 * You should probably mention the cutting of the phone lines after talking about the Day 2 phone conversation.
 * Done. --HJ
 * " that was easily met," Well, it wouldn't actually be hard to reconnect the telex, it just wasn't a good idea per the police or army.  Suggest rephrase.
 * I imagine the severing of the telex was ordered from 'higher up', so not easily reversed, but do you have a suggestion? --HJ
 * Perhaps "that they could agree to meet" or similar.
 * I went with something similar. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?
 * Presumably the Iranian government had a few things to say and do while all this was going on. I would give them some mention.  Were they cooperative?
 * Not really. They more-or-less washed their hands of it after they dismissed it as an American conspiracy. There was one bit of nuisance-making from the foreign minister, I'll dig that up. --HJ
 * I imagine that is why they had to get the carekeeper rather than getting info from the Iranian Foreign Affairs Ministry.
 * Possibly, though they might have just wanted someone with first-hand knowledge. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?
 * "potential assault" I would say "possible assault" or perhaps just "assault"
 * Why is "possible" better than "potential"? --HJ
 * Neither is very good. I would just say "assault".  The reader knows that it was still up in the air.


 * "Willie Whitelaw". I think that's too informal.
 * It is informal, but it's how he was almost universally referred to—by Thatcher, the sources, and various other things I've read that aren't connected to the siege. Even his article says so. --HJ
 * I don't remember that during the Falklands war, but I was young and perhaps US papers were more formal.


 * "The police negotiators recruited the imam from a local mosque at 18:20," To do what?
 * I don't think even they knew at that point, beyond putting him on the phone with Oan. --HJ


 * "A forensic pathologist estimated " I would stress that this was then and there, not a later autopsy.
 * Indeed. Done. --HJ


 * " Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher" I don't think you need either the link or the first name.
 * Trimmed. --HJ
 * SAS assault


 * "The police signed over control of the operation to the Army at 19:07 " Why repeat the time when it is given so recently?  Perhaps, "After the police signed over control of the operation to the Army, the two SAS ..."
 * It wasn't adding anything, so I just took it out. --HJ


 * " to the skylight." I would think it was "through" the skylight.  If they simply "threw" it, I would not use the word lowered.
 * Done. --HJ


 * Are you saying they never found Lock's concealed sidearm? If so, I think you need more exposition and explanation earlier.
 * Added in earlier. I would surmise they weren't looking for it, since the British bobby is famous for being unarmed, but still, not much of a pat down... --HJ
 * Utterly amazing. You may want to add even more, say about what Lock did with the bloody thing during the siege.  And as for the famous British bobby, my first trip to England, in 1986, I was shocked to see armed police with automatic weapons patrolling the terminals of Heathrow.  You never would have seen that in the US.  Then.
 * I'll see what I can add—I know he kept his full uniform (which in those days was not as practical as it is today) on throughout. Funnily enough, I was surprised that I didn't see police with automatic weapons on my first trip to the US last year. But outside of central London and LHR, you could go your whole life without seeing an armed policeman in the UK. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?


 * " after taking part in the raid" delete, we know this.
 * Agreed. Re-worded. --HJ


 * "hostages killed " "killed hostages".
 * I'm not sure how that's an improvement. --HJ
 * It may be a Britishism, but "hostages killed" will puzzle your American readers, of which there will be some.
 * With the greatest respect to them, "killed hostages" doesn't sound sound like very good grammar to a Brit, or at least not to this one. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?


 * " both claimed " "both stated". Claimed is a red flag word.
 * Done. --HJ


 * " It later emerged that the footage from the back of the embassy, which had been cordoned off by the police since the beginning of the siege, was coming from a wireless camera which had been placed in the window of a flat which overlooked the embassy." This sentence is a problem.  Was the back of the embassy feed going out semi-live?  And was placed by whom?  The police?  The BBC?
 * By ITN. Added. --HJ
 * By today's standards, I think the police and SAS were very tolerant of the media.
 * Oh definitely. There'd be no sneaking round the back these days, but then, somebody would inevitably film it on their mobile phone! HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?


 * "released and" strike as unnecessary.
 * Re-worded. --HJ


 * "Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher" At least delete the first name. Maybe just "Thatcher".
 * Agreed. Done. --HJ
 * Long term impact
 * "enjoyed" perhaps "preferred"?
 * I think enjoyed is the right word—they enjoyed being able to fly out to some remote part of the world, do whatever it is that they do, and fly home again without anybody being any the wiser. --HJ
 * "Margaret Thatcher's personal credibility." "Thatcher" should be sufficient.
 * Agreed and done. --HJ
 * "It was " Two consecutive sentence in the penultimate paragraph start this way.
 * Fixed. --HJ
 * If the SAS had an outstanding role in the Falklands War, perhaps a sentence could be added about that.
 * Not sure that's relevant really. The Falklands was much more "conventional" warfare rather than something that would involve the SAS in its CRW role. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   02:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is true. I saw it as a way to beef up the aftermath section, however it will be fine wihtout it.

Very nice job, looking forward to positively assessing after changes made.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Just a few, you say? ;) Thanks a lot for the review. Apart from a handful, I think I've addressed everything you've mentioned. Much obliged, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   02:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment. So far so good on prose per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped, Iranian_Embassy_siege. These are my edits. Support Seems to meet the criteria. Well done on a topic perhaps obscure today.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Check your dictionary on re-ignite/reignite and sidearm/side arm. - Dank (push to talk) 08:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I suppose it is a little obscure, probably because it was overshadowed by other things—Iran and Iraq went to war with each other and Britain sent nearly the entire Royal Navy to an obscure group of rocks in the South Atlantic! Still, it deserves a decent article, and I appreciate your help . HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   23:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Support. I very much like this article and I think it well meets the FA criteria. I remember watching the SAS storming the embassy on TV; it made every red-blooded male under the age of sixteen want to sign up for some of that straight away. Nice work. Malleus Fatuorum 00:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Malleus, you've been a great help. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   01:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Support  Sorry, I'm still here. :-) Curious how you managed to submit this for both A and FAC review concurrently... Socrates2008 ( Talk ) 10:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Butting in, I think the FAC rules only state that you can't simultaneously have an article at FAC and PR or GAR -- presumably because ACR is a WikiProject-related assessment and hence doesn't count... ;-) Seriously, its ACR was just waiting for closure/promotion when HJ submitted this... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:ALT - unlike the A-class review, this is not optional anymore.
 * Hasn't been part of the FAC criteria for over 2 years; is there some new development I haven't heard of? - Dank (push to talk)
 * Last point under MOS:IMAGES - I've been grilled about this before, so just passing on the love. OK, so it says "should" not "must".
 * Right, feel free to ask for it or make the case for it. Personally, I suck at just about everything involving images, so I have no recommendation.  Sandy and Karanacs have been pretty clear about treating opposes based on lack of alt text as non-actionable. - Dank (push to talk) 12:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If there's a possibility that it may help someone with a disability, and it's simple to do, then why not just do it? Making the edit would involve fewer words than discussing it here; ultimately, I would make the edit myself rather than hold back my support.
 * I don't see much value to alt text that would effectively be "a big white building like thousands of others in London" or "a rectangle with blue and red stripes"—most of the images are decorative, to break up the wall of text, so alt text wouldn't really be helpful. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   16:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You'd only know they were decorative if you could see them.
 * You'd only care if they were decorative if you'd seen what "decorative" meant". Malleus Fatuorum 22:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * ... and on that subject one of our God-like masters needs to add an "alt" parameter to Template:Infobox military conflict. Malleus Fatuorum 00:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * From my basic knowledge of templates, since we have to use the full Foobar.jpg format, we can just append "|alt=" before the ]]. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   00:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * True in this case. It would be nice if there was some consistency in the way that alt text was dealt with across infobox templates, but I guess that's asking for too much. Malleus Fatuorum 00:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "The Iranian Embassy siege took place between 30 April and 5 May 1980" - so it lasted from 1-4 May?
 * Let me know what your dictionary says for the meaning of "between". - Dank (push to talk)
 * "Between" does not include the endpoints under any definition - so "from....to" would be more correct.
 * Wow, Garner's lists the usage under "frequently shunned"! I'll make the edit. - Dank (push to talk) 12:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The non-free image you're using appears to be a screen grab from tv. It's referred to as "The famous image" but an internet search of images brings up many other images of the event.  So I suspect that it's possibly not the image, but the event that is famous.  Also, some of the other images in that search jogged my memory of the event more than this one does.
 * What's your point? There are quite a few iconic scenes from the 17 minutes of footage (the abseilers, the front windows being blown in), but I couldn't justify using multiple non-free images, and many of them are owned by Getty and the like, which is almost always an instant fail on the NFCC. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?
 * "The famous image" gives the impression that this is an unique historic photograph; but it's not, as there were many photos and taken from different angles by different (tv) cameras. So it's not the single, iconic image that everyone associates with the event.
 * It would, but that phrase doesn't appear in the article. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?
 * No, not anymore thanks to Malleus
 * Were they "hostage takers" or "terrorists"?
 * Good point. My personal style is never to use words that even might be loaded; you never know how people are going to interpret your words.  But if HJ wants to keep the word, there's some support both in and outside WP.  HJ? - Dank (push to talk)
 * I used "hostage-takers" up until the point they shot Lavasani, and "terrorists" thereafter—the same approach the police and COBR took at the time, and that the Insight Team book uses. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?
 * The "General" and "specific" references - why have you used such an unusual format when the path is so well trodden?
 * I used it because, in my personal opinion, it's the clearest format I've come across. What's "unusual" about it? HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?
 * Well, it's not a standard format that people are familiar with; there's a reason that conventions are established. I also can't see what the full citation for "Siege!" is.
 * not a standard format that people are familiar with. To what conventions do you refer? As far as I'm aware, the format is not against any part of the MoS. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   15:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not citing Wikipedia policy :-) I'm asking why you've created a new referencing style, when there are a number of well-used and well-recognised formats in use. I've been around here a while now, but have never seen this style used before.  I also checked 50 random FA articles, but couldn't find this style in use in any of them either.  So I'm interested to hear why you have invented a new style rather than follow convention?
 * It was used in Lindsay Lohan when I first started work to bring that article up to GA. I hated it at first, but after a few months of working with it, I quite liked it. I just think it's tidier than having the bibliography under a separate header, as seems to be the most common format. I've no idea who added it to Lohan's article. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   09:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there a free image of the surviving hostage taker?
 * Not that I've found, but I confess I haven't actively looked. I'll see if I can dig anything up, but I'd be surprised. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?
 * Sounds like coverage of this event was Kate Adie's big career break.
 * That's what her article says, but it's unsourced, and I haven't seen her name mentioned in any of the materials I've read through in researching the article. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?
 * Here's a ref if you wish to add this.
 * Thanks. I'll think about it. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   23:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Consider adding a "Further reading" section listing the various books written by members of the SAS team. e.g. Rusty Firmin
 * No opinion. Sometimes reviewers at FAC frown on Further reading sections, not just because their selection of books would have been different, but because those sections are more likely than others to attract POV edits. - Dank (push to talk) 11:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That must be new, I didn't see it in Google Books when I was buying the books for this. I'll see if I can acquire a copy, and I'll cite something to it to avoid the problems Dan mention with "further reading" sections. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   15:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, not new, but it's only a fiver on Amazon, so I just ordered it. Expect the citations to appear sometime next week (hopefully!). HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   13:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Per this discussion, I think we can find a better image than that of the revolver that has recently been inserted.

HJ, standard drill, please let us know if someone has done sourcing spotchecks on a previous FAC of yours, otherwise, has anyone spotchecked here? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 02:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Never mind, just got to the bottom of the page and found your latest :) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Support Clear prose, well laid out, logical article. All the main fronts covered, I haven't checked sources though. Good supporting materials. Well done. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 12:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   13:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Support - I watched these events unfolding and this is an excellent synopsis. The prose is as engaging as superglue and recaptures the drama. I have a few – minor – stylistic criticisms: Thank you for, imho, an important and well-prepared contribution. Graham Colm (talk) 00:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I prefer, "before" instead of "prior to".
 * It's only used in the table, and in that context I think "before" suggests they were released immediately (rather than days, in some cases) before the assault. --HJ
 * "very" is a weak word; it is used twice. How about dumping it on the first occurrence and using "critically" or "seriously" on the second?
 * I've replaced both, though I went with "almost immediately" rather than "critically quickly" (which, to me at least, sounds odd). --HJ
 * It sounds odd because I was referring to "very ill". :-) Graham Colm (talk) 14:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Is "many" better than "(a) large number(s) of"? (There are two uses).
 * Normally, yes, but I don't think it works in either context—"many Metropolitan Police officers" in the infobox, and "Many journalist were at the scene very quickly". I just think "large numbers" flows better. --HJ
 * I see both "charge d'affairs" and "chargé d'affaires". Is there a subtle difference that I am missing?
 * Yes, the difficulty of inserting a "é" rather than "e"! ;) Fixed. --HJ
 * I still see "affairs" and "affaires". Graham Colm (talk) 14:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, fixed. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   14:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This might be confusing, " At some point during the day, the police disabled the embassy's telephone lines, leaving them just the field telephone for outside communication". Is it clear who "them" are?
 * Clarified. --HJ
 * Thank you for your suggestions and for supporting. Glad you enjoyed it. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   14:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Support and one query An excellent article, but I query the macrons in Khūzestān and Rezā Shāh. There are no macrons in BE, and foreign words lose their diacritical marks when written in English, eg "Galápagos" in Spanish, "Galapagos" in English  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  10:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Most do, but diacritics tend to be retained for proper nouns. I also think it's poor form to pipe a link to display Khuzestan when the article is at Khūzestān. Thanks for the support. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   12:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Support - Excellent article and to my eye meets all of the featured criteria. I have nothing to add at all. Coolug (talk) 08:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Support Nothing of significance noted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.