Wikipedia:Peer review/Tottenham outrage/archive1

Tottenham outrage


The events of the Tottenham outrage of January 1909 read like a piece of particularly tawdry prose from a penny dreadful. Two dastardly anarchists undertake a wages snatch and are chased by police and members of the public (including, at various times, football teams and workmen). The dastardly anarchists keep up fire from automatic pistols throughout the subsequent chase; the police are largely unarmed, but they manage to borrow firearms from passing members of the public in four occasions (yes, seriously!) The chase was on foot, by car, grocer's cart, milk float and, bizarrely, by tramcar. In the end the dastardly anarchists commit suicide rather than be taken by the forces of law and order, but the £80 they stole has gone missing... It all sounds like a ripping yarn, except it was all true and cost the lives of one unarmed policeman and a ten-year-old boy caught in the crossfire. This has been re-written from scratch, and a stab at FAC is envisaged, where it would nicely partner a similar event which came shortly afterwards, the Siege of Sidney Street. – SchroCat (talk) 11:56, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Tim
You won't get much from me: very little to grumble at. A most interesting article about an event I knew nothing at all about. That's all from me. Ping me pre-FAC, please.  Tim riley  talk    18:08, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Criminals
 * Opening sentence: the MoS, if I recall correctly, calls for the citation number to come after, not before, the closing bracket.
 * I think it's ok if the reference is supporting just the information within the bracket, rather than all the preceding information. (At least, that's what I was told by someone when I questioned it at their PR or FAC). If others raise the question I'll happily swap it over. - SchroCat (talk) 20:46, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "an revolutionary" – there's either a word missing, or one letter too many in the indefinite article.
 * "President of France" – I think I'd be inclined to link to the man (Armand Fallières) rather than the post.
 * "which had live-in facilities for unmarried officers" – not sure why we need to know this.
 * "Another possible individual connected to the events" – he was I imagine a definite individual but possibly connected.
 * "involved in building resistance groups" – someone (me, for example) determined to misunderstand might wonder why anyone would be involved in a building resistance group. Perhaps "helped (or worked) to build resistance groups"?
 * Last para: "involved" crops up three times, which is perhaps once too often in a short paragraph.
 * Aftermath
 * "...criminal elements entering into Britain" – I think perhaps one enters into an agreement but just enters a country.
 * "widows pension" – missing a possessive apostrophe?
 * "a groups of Latvian revolutionaries undertook" - either "a group...undertook" or "groups...undertook".
 * Impact
 * The Daily Heil being stridently anti-immigrant? Surely not!
 * Many thanks Tim; aside from the first point, the rest of your comments have all been acted on. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 20:46, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments from KJP1
A fascinating historical backwater. So here we go.

Lead
 * "400 rounds were fired by the two criminals" - perhaps "400 rounds of ammunition were fired by the two criminals", for clarity?
 * "Both had been living with Lepidus's brother Paul in Paris in 1907 when he was killed when a bomb he was carrying to assassinate the President of France detonated prematurely" - to avoid the double "when" perhaps, "Both had been living with Lepidus's brother Paul in Paris in 1907 when he was killed by the premature detonation of the bomb he was carrying to assassinate the President of France."
 * "and several of those involved in the pursuit of the killers were awarded it." - perhaps, for the flow, "and it was awarded to several of those involved in the pursuit of the killers."
 * "was attended by a crowd of up to half a million mourners, and included 2,000 policemen." - This reads slightly oddly to me, as if the funeral included the policeman, rather than the crowd. Perhaps, "was attended by a crowd of up to half a million mourners, including 2,000 policemen."
 * "The event exacerbated bad feelings against immigrants in London" - perhaps "ill feelings toward..."

Immigration and demographics in London
 * Is it worth mentioning that Latvia was then part of Tsarist Russia? Perhaps something like, "In the 19th century Tsarist Russia, which then included Latvia, was home to about five million Jews". It might be good to link Latvia to this subsection of the Latvia page, "Latvia in the Russian Empire (1710–1917)", but I can't find the bloody hash to do so.
 * "the terms "socialist" and "anarchist" had been conflated in the British press, who used the terms interchangeably" - out of my depth but should this be "which"?

Criminals
 * "On 1 May 1907 Strygia was killed when a bomb" - I think I'd use his real name rather than his alias - "On 1 May 1907 Paul Lepidus was killed when a bomb".
 * "He refused to give his name when he joined the company and the time sheets his name was put down as "Elephant", - I think we're missing an "in" or something, perhaps, "He refused to give his name when he joined the company and the time sheets recorded his name as "Elephant",..."

Robbery and chase
 * "The police report stated that I think was "in a miraculous and unaccountable way [that] he escaped injury". - Is the "I think was" a hangover from an earlier draft? If it is, and it goes, so should the inserted [that] in the quote.
 * "Two Police Constables (PCs)—Tyler and Newman—at the nearby station heard the shots, left the station and gave chase to the two men, who ran off down Chestnut Road. Part way down the road, George Smith, a passer-by, came to Wilson's aid, and threw Lepidus to the ground. As they wrestled, Helfeld fired at Smith four times; two shots went through his cap—one of which scraped his scalp—another hit him in the collarbone and one missed altogether. As the two gunmen ran down the street.." - Has the chronology gone a little awry here? In the first sentence, the police are chasing Helfeld and Lepidus. In the second, Smith is helping Wilson by throwing Lepidus to the ground. In the third Helfeld shoots Smith. In the fourth, Helfeld and Lepidus run off again. I think it's the "came to Wilson's aid" which is confusing me as it appears to throw the timeline. If it were removed, I think the flow works.
 * "Dixon shot through the door with a double-barrelled shotgun, while Cater and Eagles shot with revolvers. All three entered the room as Lepidus pulled a sheet over his head. Eagles, Dixon and Lepidus all fired, and Lepidus fell back on the bed. The police dragged him outside, where he died a few minutes later." - To me, this section doesn't indicate that Lepidus killed himself. There's no mention of his firing, only the shots of the three policemen. Could it be made a bit clearer? Note - I see it is cleared up in the next section, so ignore.

Aftermath
 * "The memorial was designated a Grade II listed building" - I appreciate they're all technically buildings, but would Grade II listed structure be more accurate? As an aside, I found and uploaded this, but you may well think the pairing with the other memorial is better.
 * "The board was also instructed to examine whether the firearm used by the police—the .450 Webley Revolver—was suitable, and whether sufficient number had been issued." - "The board was also instructed to examine whether the firearm used by the police—the .450 Webley Revolver—was suitable, and whether sufficient numbers (or "a sufficient number") had been issued.

Impact
 * "about the backgrounds of the Helfeld and Lepidus" - superfluous "the".
 * "blaming it for being too open and easy to enter the country" - perhaps "blaming it for being too open and making it too easy to enter the country"?

A very enjoyable read and the echoes in the present-day immigration debate are intriguing. Look forward to commenting again at FAC. KJP1 (talk) 11:52, 26 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Many thanks KJP1! I've adopted all your suggestions (I think). I'll mull over the new image of the Tyler memorial. I like having one to each of the victims, and having them as portrait works, but I'll play around in my sandbox with swapping the existing one out for this one. Thanks again - SchroCat (talk) 15:40, 26 November 2017 (UTC)