Wikipedia:Peer review/Siege of Sidney Street/archive1

Siege of Sidney Street
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 has gone through a recent re-write and the aim is for a stab at FA, unless reviewers think otherwise. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 22:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Cassianto
Marvellous stuff! I have conducted some fixes, feel free to revert any of them. Paragraph three in the "The Houndsditch murders, December 1910" section is huge compared to the others. Could this be split? More comments to follow...  Cassianto Talk   00:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


 * "The structure of the building—with a narrow, winding stairwell up which police would have to pass—along with the law and their operating procedure which meant they were unable to open fire without being fired upon first, meant any approach to the gang members was too perilous to attempt. " -- Overly long and tails off when the dashes are introduced. Maybe a punctuation error.   Cassianto Talk   00:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Yep - reads like gibberish! Re-worked and split: does this look better now? - SchroCat (talk) 10:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Much better. Apparently, I've been banned from here this weekend, so I'll continue this once normality resumes.   Cassianto Talk   18:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Who said: "tens of thousands of Jews ... mostly poor, semi-skilled and unskilled"?
 * Not important as it's not a great quote, so I've paraphrased it instead. – SchroCat (talk) 17:41, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * "The concentration of Jewish immigrants into some areas was up to 100%, and a study undertaken in 1900 showed that Houndsditch and Whitechapel were both identified as a "well-defined intensely Jewish district", according to a 1900 study." Sorry, with study? Not sure of the conjunction either, perhaps a semi-colon?
 * Tweaked it a little, but let me think about the connector. – SchroCat (talk) 17:41, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Dr. Blofeld

 * Lede
 * "The siege lasted for about six hours. Toward the end of the siege, " -rep of "siege".
 * " deal with an armed siege. It was also the first siege" -can you reword to avoid "also" and rep of "siege" here?
 * "At the subsequent trial of those arrested for the Houndsditch jewellery robbery, all but one of the accused was acquitted; the sole prosecution was later overturned on appeal." -dates?
 * "The events were later fictionalised for screen and novels." -doesn't really tell me much, can you elaborate a bit with the most notable examples?
 * All done - SchroCat (talk) 09:57, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Immigration
 * "with "tens of thousands of Jews ... mostly poor, semi-skilled and unskilled"" -quoting who?
 * " both defined as a "well-defined intensely Jewish district".[" -rep of defined and not keen on the unattributed quote so soon after the other, can you paraphrase? you could just say "and a study undertaken in 1900 showed that Houndsditch and Whitechapel were both predominantly Jewish".
 * "various revolutionary factions existed in the area." -for context it would be good if you could briefly provide some examples, I think I would expect another line or two with a bit more detail for readers who want to know a bit more about the background and related events. "various revolutionary factions existed in the area. The tactic used by the Russian revolutionaries—the expropriation or theft of private property to fund radical activities—was also used in London, including an attempt by two anarchists to rob a payroll van in North London. The events, in which two died and twenty were injured, became known as the Tottenham Outrage.[7] " -this seems a bit backwards. What you could do is follow on from the varios factions part and then immediately mention he Tottenham Outrage and what happened.
 * Still to do a little later. - SchroCat (talk) 20:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Is Robert Winder a historian?
 * All done, bar one - which I'll sort out later - SchroCat (talk) 09:57, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Latvin gang
 * Link Stepney?
 * "The group were probable revolutionaries, who had been radicalised from their experiences in Russia and all had extreme left-wing political views, and" -don't like the overuse of "and" year, perhaps split the sentence after Russia.
 * Can we find another word to avoid rep of probable/ly?- it's used three times in just a few sentences.
 * "Yourka Dubof was another who had been an agitator in Russia, and had fled to England after being flogged by Cossacks.[1" -perhaps you have the year that he arrived in England?
 * Sadly not. Their backgrounds are all a little vague in details. All the other points here done. - SchroCat (talk) 09:57, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Policing
 * Rep of "under"
 * Tweaked - SchroCat (talk) 09:57, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Houndsditch murders
 * "At the beginning of December 1910 one of the gang members, Joe Levi, visited Exchange Buildings, a small cul-de-sac that backed onto the properties of Houndsditch, and rented number 11; a week later Svaars rented number 9 for a month, saying he needed it for storage" -a bit long, perhaps new sentence before rented.
 * Especially following on from the semicolon in the previous sentence I don't like the use of the colon in ""The gang had a problem with the property they most wanted, number 10, which was directly behind their target: 119 Houndsditch, the jewellers shop owned by Mr H.S. Harris. " Can you find a way to avoid it?
 * I count three uses of suspicion/ous, including "became suspicious immediately. So as not to rouse the man's suspicions", rewording needed
 * "; they soon realised that someone was watching them from the stairs—" -can you avoid using a further slash after a semicolon?
 * "—who was hit twelve times—but Gardstein was also wounded in the process;" -eeks, those slashes the "but", the "also" and the semicolon in quick succession really jar with me.
 * " J.P. Eddy considered" -change in tense here, I presume he is deceased and it's intentional?
 * All done, I think - SchroCat (talk) 10:16, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Investigation
 * "; it was also ascertained that Fedorf had also been witnessed at the events" -the semicolon and double also don't work here, I think I'd start a new sentence and say something like "It was further ascertained that Fedorf had been witnessed at the events"
 * "on late" - late on?
 * "A meeting took place on the afternoon of 2 January with Wensley, the Commissioner of the City Police—Sir William Nott-Bower—and high-ranking members of the Metropolitan force to decide the next steps.[81]" -I think you can avoid the slashes here with slight rephrasing.
 * All done - SchroCat (talk) 10:16, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Events of 3 Jan
 * "The structure of the building—with a narrow, winding stairwell up which police would have to pass—along with the law and their operating procedure which meant they were unable to open fire without being fired upon first, meant any approach to the gang members was too perilous to attempt." a bit awkward again - the slashes seem out of place, can be reworded and avoided.
 * Yep - Cass had the same problem reading this. Already done - SchroCat (talk)


 * "Churchill stated" -did you intentionally avoid the colon?
 * I did, but added it now. I can never remember what punctuation to add before block quotes - as I wouldn't have punctuated in an inline quote. - SchroCat (talk) 10:16, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Aftermath
 * " although there were problems with the proceedings because of the language difficulties, and the chaotic personal lives of the accused.[121] The case resulted in acquittals for all except Vassilleva, who was convicted of conspiracy in the burglary. She was sentenced to two years' imprisonment, although " -rep of "although"


 * Legacy
 * "led criticism" -led to criticism?
 * "led criticism in the press, and on 12 January 1911 a number of alternatives were tested. It led " -rep of "led"
 * "1938 purge."" -there's a stray apostrophe here.
 * "Smoller left the country in 1911 and travelled to Paris, after which he disappeared; Milstein later left " -rep of "left"
 * "; three weeks later," -new sentence would be fine here.

-In good shape, always intrigues me the sort of articles you take on at times, very valuable really as they're often ones that nobody else is going to urgently work on and improve!♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:35, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

All done (bar the one near the top which needs a little more work): many thanks Doc. I'm intrigued about my choices too! Tim asked about it yesterday and I have no idea how I make the selection, except that I particularly like these small events in history (like the Great Stink, Royal baccarat scandal, Burning of Parliament, etc) some of which have long-standing impacts on our cultural mindsets. Having lived not too far away from Sidney Street, and worked a 10-minute walk away from Houndsditch, it's still something that has a cultural impact in the East End - as seen by the particularly crass and idiotic actions of TH council in naming the two towers! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, I think it's very important that wikipedia develops articles on these sorts of things, it makes us that bit more special as a resource. When it's an article which will surprise a local historian or whatever that wikipedia has such a good article on it it can potentially inspire others too.♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments from BB
First instalment of my usual close prose reading. Apologies if I'm repeating what others have already picked up.
 * Lead
 * "a gunfight in the East End of London between police and army forces..." could mislead the careless reader. Maybe "...between a combined police and army force, and..." etc?
 * You refer to "the Latvian gang" as if this was an established body. Shouldn't it be "a Latvian gang", or perhaps "a gang of immigrant Latvians"?
 * "The leader of the gang, George Gardstein, was accidentally wounded by his accomplices, and died of his injuries the following day." It's not clear from this when Gardstein was injured – readers may assume Sidney Street. I think I'd remove some of the detail and extend the previous sentence thus "... which led to the murder of three policemen, the wounding of two others, and the accidental death of George Gardstein, the leader of the Latvian gang."
 * "...identified Gardstein's accomplices, who were arrested within two weeks" – they weren't all arrested, as the next sentence makes clear. Perhaps "most of whom were arrested"?
 * "Armed with inferior and ineffective firearms, the police sought assistance from the military, assisted by members of the Scots Guards." A few issues here: do we need "inferior" and "ineffective"? Also, "Armed with ... firearms" clunks a bit – could "firearms" be "weapons"? And "assistance from ... assisted by" doesn't read too well, either. Come to think of it, as the Scots Guards are part of the military, you could lose the last seven words.
 * "the first siege in Britain to be caught on camera, as the events were caught by the cameras of Pathé News." Needs rephrasing to avoid the awkward repetition.
 * "the sole prosecution was later overturned on appeal" – I assume you mean "conviction" not prosecution.
 * Immigration and demographics in London
 * "around 150,000 arrived in the United Kingdom" – could we have a rough time range for this? They didn't all arrive at once!
 * "numbers of poor Jewish immigrants—mostly poor and semi-skilled or unskilled" – remove the first "poor"
 * "The concentration of Jewish immigrants into some areas was up to 100%" – when you think about it, that statement is meaningless; any concentration of immigrants, anywhere, will be "up to" 100%. I assume you mean that in some areas the Jewish immigrants represented "almost 100%" of the population, and I suggest you amend accordingly.
 * "the politically freer London" is somewhat inelegant. I'm struggling to find alternatives: "the less less oppressive ambience of London"?
 * "From the turn of the century, gang warfare had broken out..." – "persisted", I think.
 * "Russian revolutionaries": probably "revolutionary groups in Russia", for clarity
 * "The events" → "This event"
 * "comments on the press" → "comments in the press"
 * Latvian émigré gang
 * "would meet" – suggest "met regularly"
 * wikilink "diaspora"
 * "both while a member of the army, and then when he was working in the dockyards". Hmm. I'd try: "while in the army and later as a dockyard worker".
 * You describe Bernard Porter as Peter the Painter's "biographer", which is stretching it a bit, given that the relatively short ODNB article contains the disclaimer about reliability.  You could say "Bernard Porter, in a brief ODNB sketch, writes that..."

More to come. Brianboulton (talk) 22:24, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * All done to here: many thanks Brian, and I look forward to the remainder of your thoughts. - SchroCat (talk) 10:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Three more sections:
 * Policing in the capital
 * "...within the boundary of the city". Although you have linked "city", the general (esp. non-British) reader will be confused. I suggest: "within the historic City boundaries"
 * "were unarmed, with the exception of a short wooden truncheon" → "were armed only with a short wooden truncheon"
 * What is meant by "for use on a miniature range"?
 * The Houndsditch murders
 * "He rented number 11; a week later Svaars rented number 9..." – you need to say  "No. 11 Exchange Buildings", to make it clear what they were renting. Also,  you say the gang had a problem with  number 10; it would be simpler to say they were "unable to rent number 10, which was directly behind their target..." etc
 * Do the figures £20,000 etc refer to cash, or the value of jewellery?
 * Non-Brits won't know what "PC" means
 * "locale" – "locality" or "area" would be better.
 * "Tucker was hit twice" This is the first mention of Tucker in the text, so he should be properly introduced. Give his rank, and say where he came from, e.g. Bishopsgate police station.
 * To do - SchroCat (talk) 09:15, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Now done. - SchroCat (talk) 10:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * "The other members of the gang ran to his assistance..." Use name not pronoun to avoid confusion
 * Is it possible to clarify gang numbers in para 4? At present we have "As the gang exited the property", "The other members of the gang". "the members of the gang", "the two men", "a group of three man and a woman" – an odd mixture of vague and precise numbers.
 * Not really. The overall figures and identities have always been vague becauase the gang remained quiet, were killed, or pleaded not guilty and never spoke of it. There are some small bits from (e.g) witness statements etc which mean we have only small bits we knowto be true. - SchroCat (talk) 09:15, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, but we still need a bit more clarity. I've done a little ce to the paragraph – check it out, amend if necessary. I've incorporated the words "which included Peters", as you refer to him by name when the group arrives at Grove Street. Perhaps you should begin the paragraph by saying that the exact numbers and identities of gang members are uncertain, for the riseasons given here. Brianboulton (talk) 13:54, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * , does this work for you? I've moved the end para further up and added Rumbelow's list of names in there, while retaining the doubt of many (including Rumbelow himself) as to the exact identities involved. - SchroCat (talk) 10:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The repositioning certainly helps, but there are still a couple of problems. The first is that you say: "and, in all likelihood, were two of those that shot the policemen". This is jumping the gun (sorry, no pun intended) on the narrative, so maybe omit those words? Secondly, several of the names are first mentions: Smoller, Hoffman, Federoff, Rosen, Vassileva. They should have full names, not just surnames. We know Vassileva is "Nina", but the others? If first names were not reported, you can say "named in the press as "Smoller"..." etc, which will be tiresome but better than nothing. I'll try and suggest some appropriate wordings when we know the position on names. By the way, you have "Sokoloff" and "Sokolov" in the paragraph. Brianboulton (talk) 11:39, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Brian. I've been adding details of most of those you list into the "Latvian émigré gang" section. The only one missing from that (because there is limited information on him) was Federoff, who Ihave now named and given him a role in the affair. Sokolov has now been tweaked too. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:02, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Good on yer. I've added a bit of polishing. I'm still not sure about jumping the gun, but it's much better now. Brianboulton (talk) 15:02, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * "Svaar's" should be "Svaars'".
 * "Other policemen arrived on the scene..." meaning Houndsditch I assume
 * " Bernard Porter ... considers that Sokolow and Peters were probably present..." Earlier in the narrative you have definitely fingered Peters: "As they left Gardstein on the bed, Peters left his Dreyse pistol under the mattress..."
 * I'd say that Donald Rumbelow was "a former policemen" rather than "the former policeman", and I'd like to know his credentials for having an opinion on this matter.
 * Investigation
 * "as fast as she could" – a touch melodramatic perhaps?
 * "Many of the papers recovered linked the murderers to the East End..." – were they not "suspects" rather than "murderers" at this stage?
 * "Wensley, a member of the Metropolitan police with extensive knowledge of the Whitechapel area..." There's no need to restate Wensley's police credentials. Thus: "Wensley, who had extensive knowledge..."
 * "to pay their respects..." closely followed by "as a mark of respect".
 * "In addition to Fedorf, Peters and Dubof, also..." You don't need "also" after "in addition to".
 * First mention of "Sokoloff": Who he?
 * To do - SchroCat (talk) 09:15, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Alternative name for Sokolow: now consistent throughout. - SchroCat (talk) 10:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * "which they were" – redundant words

One more session and I should be done. Brianboulton (talk) 21:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks again Brian. All done, bar two, for which I need to revsit the sources. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:15, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

My final musings:


 * Events of 3 January
 * "Wensley woke the residents on the ground floor of number 100 itself, and asked the lodger to bring Gershon down under the pretext of helping look after her unwell husband. The lodger agreed, and Gershon was grabbed by police as she reached the front hall; she was taken to the City of London police headquarters." That extract is rather muddled and confusing. In the previous section Betty Gershon was described as a "lodger" at 100 Sidney Street; now we have Wensley asking "the lodger" to fetch Gershon – obviously a different lodger, but confusingly described  as "the lodger". Then, "under the pretext of helping look after her unwell husband" is ambiguously worded. I suggest simplifying the whole extract: "Wensley woke the ground floor tenants at number 100 and asked them to fetch Gershon, claiming that she was needed by bher sick husband. When Gershon appeared she was grabbed by the police and taken to the City of London police headquarters."
 * "Number 100 was now empty of all residents..." – only if the aforementioned ground floor tenants were evacuated, which you don't say.
 * "before any action was taken" → "before taking any action".
 * "Svaars and Sokolow opened fire at the police". I'd insert "appeared at the window"
 * "21 volunteer marksmen..." I believe there'a an MOS edict against beginning sentences with numerics?
 * What was the nature of "the Liberal immigration policy" to which the crowed supposedly referred?
 * The Churchill quote contradicts what you have stated earlier, that AC Wodehouse "telephoned the Home Office and obtained permission from Churchill to bring in a detachment of Scots Guards." Ought not the earlier statement be qualified in some way, to avoid the impression that Churchill was lying?
 * "turned up at the scene" → "arrived" ("turned up" is too informal, "at the scene" unnecessarily repetitive)
 * Aftermath
 * "When the newsreels were screened in cinemas, Churchill was booed, and shouts of "shoot him" from viewers". "And" should be "with" or it's not a grammatical sentence. And I think its "the audience" in cinemas, rather than the TV-related "viewers".
 * "An inquest were held in January into the events at Houndsditch and Sidney Street" – I think "inquests" are specifically about deaths, not "events"
 * "in the course of the their attempt to burgle the jewellers". There's an extra word in there. Personally I'd simplify to "in the course of the burglary attempt".
 * "The committal proceedings spread from December 1910 to March 1911..." You have not said who was the subject of these proceedings; was it the same lot whose case was adjourned until 6 January? What happened with that adjournment?
 * To do - SchroCat (talk) 09:39, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Now done - SchroCat (talk) 10:52, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * "Fedorf" has become "Federoff"
 * Who was "Hoffman", first mentioned here?
 * Likewise "Rosen"?
 * To do both - SchroCat (talk) 09:39, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Now done - SchroCat (talk) 10:52, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Check wording "feloniously harbouring felon guilty of murder" – it appears to need an "a".
 * Legacy
 * "several alternatives were tested" – alternative weapons?
 * "It resulted..." "It" not defined; possibly "These trials resulted..."
 * "Smoller" – another new name. We have no record of when he, or Rosen, or Hoffman, were detained.
 * To do - SchroCat (talk) 09:39, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * "Peter the Painter was only involved in a minor capacity in the events..." – it seems that he was not involved at all.
 * To do (a note further up to show he was to fence the goods) - SchroCat (talk) 09:39, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * "in honour of the Pearson"?

One last point: I'm still bothered by the statement earlier in the article that "Peters left his Dreyse pistol under the mattress to make it seem the wounded man was the one who had killed Tucker." This seems like a guilty act; bearing in mind that Peters was later acquitted, whose testimony was it that Peters did this? Shouldn't the information be reported as an allegation, rather than a statement of fact?
 * To do - SchroCat (talk) 09:39, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

All done now. Brianboulton (talk) 16:22, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks Brian. All the straightforward prose work done: I'll revisit the sources shortly and pick up on those I've noted above. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:39, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley
Not much from me to add to the remarks of the distinguished contributors above. The facts are marshalled expertly and the prose is highly readable. I had to scratch about to find something to moan about, but have managed: And that's my lot. Ping me when FAC looms, please.  Tim riley  talk    20:50, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Lead
 * "two tower blocks on Sidney Street" – this would be Sidney Street, St Louis, I take it? Otherwise the English "in Sidney Street" is what is wanted here. (Likewise "on Hounsditch", "on Whitechapel Road", "on Gold Street" and (image caption) "on Sidney Street" later.) The quote from the ILN in the caption for the picture of the Scots Guards shows the native form of the phrase. I know the Americanism invades us apace, but let us keep it at bay as long as we can.
 * Background
 * The MoS tells us not to link the names of the major religions, and I'd unlink "Jews".
 * 100%" - something amiss here, with the stray quotes. And the MoS bids us write out "per cent" rather than use the % symbol in texts.
 * A leading article in The Times – perhaps link to "Editorial" for the benefit of those beyond these shores who don't know the traditional term.
 * Latvian émigré gang
 * Caption – the OED hyphenates post-mortem
 * The Houndsditch murders, December 1910
 * "each armed with their wooden truncheons" – clash of singular and plural: either "all armed with their wooden truncheons" or "each armed with his wooden truncheon"
 * "a passer-by, who they threatened at pistol-point" – is it too annoyingly pedantic of me to suggest an accusative "whom" here?
 * Events of 3 January
 * The OED doesn't hyphenate "over-turned"
 * Aftermath
 * "The bill did not make it into law" – perhaps a touch informal? Possibly something like "The bill was not enacted" or "The bill did not become law"?
 * Legacy
 * "It resulted in the replacement of the Metropolitan police to replace the Webley revolver" – this has gone off the rails a bit. Something like "As a result the Metropolitan police replaced the Webley revolver…"?
 * "the fictional inspiration between two novels" – the "between" puzzled me a bit. A different preposition, e.g. "for", would seem more expected.
 * Many thanks Tim, I'm very much obliged to you for the comments and the sharp eye. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:50, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

 * I really have very little. Well-plowed ground and rich to begin with.


 * "of the Metropolitan force.[28][29] Both forces" at last! Something to criticise! force/forces
 * "When they faced armed opponents—as was the case in Sidney Street—they were issued with Webley and bulldog revolvers, shotguns, and rifles fitted with .22 Morris-tube barrels for use on small indoor shooting galleries" this seems a bit confused, the armed opponents have nothing to do with indoor shooting galleries (I hope!) but they seem connected in the sentence.
 * "the journalist J.P. Eddy suggests that Svaars was among present" presumably "those" before present
 * The paragraph seems confused about the presence of Peter the Painter. You seem to say in authorial voice that he was there, but a source says otherwise, you indicate.  That's how I read this, anyway. I suspect not as intended.
 * "and warned him of the noises" not warned, the noises were no threat to Piper.
 * Well done. Compelling read.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:22, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Many thanks Wehwalt, your comments are very much appreciated and I hope I've done the, justice. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 08:06, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Image review

 * File:Siege of Sidney Street – Churchill.jpg - Should be fine on Commons. Definitely free in US
 * File:The Jew in London – A study of racial character and present-day conditions (cropped and annotated).jpg - Fine
 * File:George Gardstein.jpeg - What proof of previous publication do we have? If this was first published in the source (unlikely, but still...) then under US law it would still be copyrighted.
 * It was on the wanted poster issued at the time. I've uploaded that too and connected the files. – SchroCat (talk) 07:35, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that works. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * File:Peter the Painter.jpg - Fine
 * File:Scene of the 1910 Houndsditch robbery.JPG - Fine
 * File:Sergeants Tucker and Bentley and PC Choate.jpg - These were listed individually in the newspaper though, right? Were all three in the same edition?
 * Yes, all three were in that edition (and in most other papers of the time too). – SchroCat (talk) 07:39, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * File:Dreyse m1907.JPG - Looks fine
 * File:Mauser C96 M1916 Red 9 7.JPG - Looks fine
 * File:Police finding the body of George Gardstein, December 1910.jpg - Fine
 * File:Memorial service for Tucker and Bentley and Choate, 23 December 1910.jpg - Fine
 * File:Yakov Peters2.jpg - Source? Year of publication? Copyright status in the US?
 * I've taken this out (shame to lose it, as he was the probable murderer of at least one), but I don't read Russian, so have no idea what the entry at Commons says! – SchroCat (talk) 07:43, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * File:Siege of Sidney Street 4d.JPG - Should be fine on Commons. Definitely free in US
 * File:Sidney street churchill.jpg - Source? Year of publication? Status in the US?
 * Replaced with File:Winston Churchill at the Siege of Sidney Street, 3 January 1911.jpeg, which I found when searching for a source. The photo was put onto memento postcards and sold at the time. – SchroCat (talk) 08:37, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * File:Britain Before the First World War Q81835.jpg - Fine
 * File:Sidney street detectives.jpg - Copyright status in the US? (PD-anon-1923 for this one)
 * File:Sidney-Street-Plaque (14268613465) cropped.jpg - Fine — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:09, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Cheers Chris, I think I've sorted these all out. I've added two new files to commons (and replaced one on the article), but these should be okay. (Famous last words!) much appreciated as always. – SchroCat (talk) 08:47, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The two you mention here look good. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)