Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Siege of Sidney Street/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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11:26, 4 March 2016.

Siege of Sidney Street

 * Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 16:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

The Siege of Sidney Street was the culmination of a two-and-a-half week investigation by the two police forces of London, following a bungled burglary by Latvian agitators. Three policemen were murdered in the burglary, and two more were badly injured (it is still the blackest event in British police history). The siege itself was made all the more interesting by the fact it was captured on the cameras of Pathé News, and the presence of the Home Secretary, Winston Churchill. This article had a great PR, with some hugely helpful and constructive comments throughout. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 16:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Support A very happy PR customer, I think having such a high quality article on this sort of event exemplifies the strength of wikipedia. No doubt it'll be the best and most concise overall article about it you'll find. Clearly meets the criteria.♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Support – I have read this again today and think that it has vastly improved since the PR. I feel this meets all the necessary criteria to be considered featured content.  Cassianto Talk   18:14, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * many thanks to you both for your first class reviews. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 21:11, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done
 * FN2: would like to see a specific time reference here if possible, and network shouldn't be italicized
 * Check alphabetization of Sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:46, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Many thanks Nikkimaria, much appreciated. I've not got a time, unfortunately, but the remainder has been sorted. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 21:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Image review': I did an IR during PR, and all the issues I saw were fixed. Nothing new added, by the looks of it. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:53, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Many thanks, much appreciated. I confirm that no new images have been added since you signed off at the PR. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Support My, the party is getting started early. I had my usual at the peer review, and a quick glance over shows that no one's taken a sledgehammer to it since. Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:30, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Many thanks Wehwalt - very much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:27, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments Support by EddieHugh
 * "John Rosen—real name John Zelin or Tzelin—who came to London in 1909 from Riga and worked as a barber." (Not a complete sentence.)
 * The formatting went wrong. EddieHugh (talk) 21:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * "before arriving in London in June 1910.[21][6]" (Swap 21 & 6 around.)
 * "were armed only with a short wooden truncheon. When they faced armed opponents" ("armed" twice, but the message is that the balance of firepower was unequal, so clarify or alter one "armed"?)
 * "Webley and bulldog revolvers, shotguns and small-bore rifles fitted with .22 Morris-tube barrels, the latter of which" ("latter" → "last")
 * "Sokoloff and Peters were present and, in all likelihood, were two of those that shot the policemen" (What policemen? This is the first mention outside the lead.)
 * "Rumbelow also considers that present at the events—either as lookouts or in unknown capacities, were" (Two dashes or two commas, instead of one of each.)
 * "So as not to rouse the man's concerns, Piper asked the man "is the missus in?" The man" (3 "the man"s in 13 words is excessive.)
 * "Police Constable (PC)" ("PC" is used again only in a caption, but "constable" is used again twice... drop "(PC)"?)
 * Now something needs to be done about the caption. EddieHugh (talk) 21:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * "who watched the two properties" (Which ones? It's getting unclear, as so many have been mentioned.)
 * "Bentley knocked at number 11," (Who's Bentley? This is his first appearance.)
 * "a group of three man" ("man" → "men")
 * "Choate was also taken there where he was operated on" (A comma between "there" and "where"?)
 * "at 5:30 am" (Times start shifting between having "am"/"pm" and not at this point.)
 * I've only used them where there is some clarification needed: those without should be fairly clear from the context (I hope!) - SchroCat (talk) 19:27, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * "reported one of his lodgers, Nina Vassilleva after she had told him" (Add comma after name).
 * "two S-shaped cuts, both two inches long were on his cheeks" (Again, two commas must be used to offset the additional information.)
 * "His biographers, Paul Addison and Roy Jenkins both consider" (Again.)
 * "I did not send for the Artillery or the Engineers." (The Artillery are mentioned later; did the Engineers turn up?)
 * Not entirely clear from the sources. - SchroCat (talk) 19:27, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * "they soon located one of the bodies—that of Sokoloff—which was extracted" (Simpler as "they soon located Sokoloff's body, which was extracted", or "they soon located and extracted Sokoloff's body"?)
 * "the first siege to ever be captured on film" ("ever" is redundant.)
 * "The proceedings consisted 24 individual hearings" (+ "of".)
 * "although this was later overturned on appeal" (clarify whether the sentence or the conviction is being referred to.)
 * "Her eventual fate or date of death is not known" (More natural as "Her eventual fate and date of death are not known"?)
 * "The Man Who Knew Too Much, [141]" (Cut space before ref.)
 * "by F Oughton" cf. "H.S. Harris" and "US" (Choose with or without full stop throughout.)
 * "The plaques called Peter the Painter an "anti-hero"" (What plaques?)
 * "In December 2010, on the centenary" (Drop the comma this time, to be consistent.)
 * No, it's correct here, as there is a sub-clause that follows. - SchroCat (talk) 19:27, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * "The Jew in London. A study of racial character and present-day conditions" cf. "Greater London Murders: 33 True Stories of Revenge, Jealousy, Greed & Lust" (Capitalisation in Sources needs to be standardised.)
 * Not done by first update. There are some in References, too. EddieHugh (talk) 21:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * "a series of events that began in December 1910 with an attempted jewellery robbery at Houndsditch in the City of London by a gang of immigrant Latvians, that led to the murder of three policemen," (The second "that" threw me: I was expecting a continuation of the series of events rather than more detail on the first one. Would "which" instead of the second "that" be easier to read?)
 * "Police were informed" ("The police"?)
 * "Toward the end" (Isn't "towards" British English?)
 * As is "toward", although archaic, according to my 1968 edition of Fowler, and if it were archaic for him, then it's positively antediluvian now! the "s" now added. - SchroCat (talk) 19:27, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * treat yourself to the new edition of Fowler, revised by Jeremy Butterfield. It's a joy to browse in and as reliable an adviser as the original and Gowers versions and a damned sight better than the fatuous Burchfield's 1996 attempt. (Apologies for dragging a kipper across this FAC and I'll shut up now.)  Tim riley  talk    20:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

And a couple of broader things. A map for each incident's location would be ideal for following where the various people went. I know that it's topical now, but is there sufficient evidence to conclude that the events (the robbery in particular) were done for revolutionary reasons? Based on this article, there doesn't seem to be, which means that the early stressing of immigration and crimes by radicals might be overdone: apart from language problems and the short paragraph on the Alien Bill, this aspect fades away. A lively read overall. EddieHugh (talk) 16:28, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Maps: possibly, although space precludes adding too many more images, and we have the one overall map with the two locations showing. I had mulled over adding more, but went against it in the end. Revolutionary reasons: at the end of the day, these were Russian/Latvian agitators and revolutionaries and "appropriation" was a strategy they frequently used. As no-one admitted responsibility, and the actual identity of those involved is unconfirmed by the courts or those involved, the motives were never uncovered. The modern sources all point towards it, but they admit there is scant evidence for a connection. Having said that, they reflect what the feeling was, expressed in what the press (quality and popular) were saying at the time - often in the most anti-semitic terms.


 * Many thanks for your very detailed thoughts and comments here. I've done all, except for the small number where I've commented otherwise. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:27, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Maps: that's fine; it was more of an 'ideally' than a need. Reasons: also fine; it could make an interesting linguistic study in a few decades' time. 3 things not quite dealt with are indented and signed above. Spotted another 2 things:


 * "In recent years" (Time period related to an unspecified present is best avoided.)
 * "Piper later described him as being approximately 5 feet 7 inches (1.70 m), pale and fair-haired." (I was expecting this to be relevant later on: cut as irrelevant detail, or leave in for the mystery?) EddieHugh (talk) 21:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * All now sorted, with the capitalisation done, and the few tweaks sorted. I've left Piper's description in there, as it gives a little 'colour' to the background. Thanks again - SchroCat (talk) 13:25, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There's now the punctuation of "and worked as a barber.[24] while another member". Thanks for the patience. Moved to Support above. EddieHugh (talk) 16:31, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Tweaked - and thanks for your patience and comments: it's looking much tighter than it did before. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:37, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Support – Another peer reviewer looking in. Excellent then, excellent now. Meets the FA criteria, in my view.  Tim riley  talk    16:57, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Many thanks Tim - much appreciated! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:27, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Support: I had a great deal to say at peer review, where much useful article building was done. That leaves me with very little to say here, beyond that it's a very interesting story that deserves to be better known. As a matter of curiosity, we have near my home a one-man decorating business that styles himself "Peter the Painter". It couldn't be, could it...? Of course, he'd be about 140 now, so unlikely. But I'll be wary of employing him. Brianboulton (talk) 17:11, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Many thanks Brian: much appreciated. Avoid topics of politics with your decorators is one lesson to learn here! - SchroCat (talk) 20:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Support and comments: my own patrilineal ancestry and last name go back to a Russian who arrived in London's East End as a young boy around 1900, so I'm sure he would have a thing or two to say about this! He was a bit of a ne'er-do-well, I've always been told, so perhaps he was even tangentially involved... family lore has it that "Asher" ("Ашер" in Russian) was just one of several aliases. Anyway, I enjoyed this article very much, and have just a few quibbles, none of which detract with my support:
 * You have initials like "H.S. Harris" and "J.P. Eddy" with stops and no space. I would put a space in per MOS:INITIALS and perhaps lose the full stops as well, but this latter suggestion is a personal stylistic preference.
 * we link Dictionary of National Biography more than once
 * "he saw a man acting suspiciously" doing what? perhaps reword to something like "Piper reported that as he was leaving Exchange Buildings to return to Houndsditch he saw a man acting suspiciously", so we're clearer that the "man acting suspiciously" is Piper's opinion
 * I think plainclothes is one word in a police context
 * The OED have this as two words (although "plainclothesman" is one, curiously) - SchroCat (talk) 20:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


 * This image of the Mauser C96 shows the firearm with a wooden stock, which the gangsters here probably would not have had attached. I suggest switching for an image without the stock (this one maybe), or alternatively adding to the caption that this photo shows the firearm with a stock attached.
 * Quite right: they used a metal frame stock (I saw the actual one a month or so back and an evil-looking bugger it is too). - SchroCat (talk) 20:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


 * We say the police had no Russian-speakers on the force, then two paragraphs later they're putting out Russian-language posters. Not an actionable point (presumably they got someone in from outside to write the Russian posters), just an observation.
 * "About 90 detectives actively searched the East End" not sure you need "actively" (not sure you can passively search something). Perhaps "vigorously" or similar?
 * "King George V was represented by Edward Wallington, his Groom in Waiting, and Churchill, as Home Secretary, was present, as was the Lord Mayor of London." A lot of commas here, especially in the second half. Perhaps consider redrawing
 * "many local businesses closed as a mark of respect; The nearby" capital letter after semi-colon
 * "The police officer—Sergeant Leeson—later made a full recovery." can lose "later"
 * "Twenty one volunteer marksmen" not Twenty-one?
 * "Liberal party" I'd cap up Party and link both words: "Liberal Party"
 * Perhaps pipe Maxim gun to "Maxim machine gun", as many may not know what this is
 * "Sokoloff put his head out of the window; he was shot by one of the soldiers and he fell back inside" in the head, presumably? do we know if the shot killed him?
 * Possibly. The autopsy said the body had at least one round in him, but it was charred to beyond the point they could accurately say whether that was the cause of death. - SchroCat (talk) 20:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

And that's me lot. Thanks again for the great read; whether you choose to act on the above or not I'm happy to support the nomination. Cheers and have a great end to the weekend, —  Cliftonian   (talk)  18:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * All done, except where commented on (and the overly-commaed sentence which I need to do shortly. Thanks very much indeed for yout thoughts: as insightful as always. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 11:26, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.