This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject British crime, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.British crimeWikipedia:WikiProject British crimeTemplate:WikiProject British crimeBritish crime articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sussex, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sussex on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SussexWikipedia:WikiProject SussexTemplate:WikiProject SussexSussex-related articles
Just a few points that sprang to mind while going over it:
The lead doesn't give the impression that the aim of the police raid was apprehending McCrudden – it looks like it was only drugs related
surveillance in October 1997: any idea how long it was in place?
"at approximately 0430": shouldn't that be 04:30?
The suspension of the officers: as far as I'm aware, it's standard procedure to suspend firearms officers if they have been involved in a shooting: it may be worth adding a line about that.
It may be worth a line or two about how a second inquiry came about. Who made the decision and why sort of thing.
"The police admitted false imprisonment negligence in relation to the planning" needs a bit of a tweak to make sense
Move the drugs tip-off info into the prelude? It would seem to make more sense to have that all in the build up
Mention that there were six flats – it reads as if the three of them alone shared the building, rather than other tenants
You repeat the positions and first names of 'Sussex's chief constable, Paul Whitehouse, his deputy, Mark Jordan' a few times, which can be trimmed
Overall I think this covers all the main points I would hope to see, with only the details above that point to anything missing (I know nothing about the case, and so my impression is only based on what I've read here). It's an interesting one overall and nicely pulled together. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 22:34, 6 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not all of these need to be covered for GA, (which this is broadly at already) but these may help for any next steps
"Armed officers had been sent to raid the flat based on reports that Ashley kept a firearm and a quantity of cocaine there, and to arrest Ashley and another man in connection with a stabbing, but no firearm or significant quantity of drugs was found, the other man was not present, and it later emerged that Ashley was not implicated in the stabbing." This is a bit of a monster sentence! Full stop after "connection with a stabbing" and restart? The second Ashley (in "and to arrest Ashley") can be "him" too
"House of Lords (the United Kingdom's highest court)" -> "House of Lords (then the United Kingdom's highest court)," as some smartarse like me will ask about the Supreme Court without realising the dates concerned.
Three images: two PD with good licences; one non-PD relevant for the topic, licence is complete and well rounded
7. Overall assessment.
Hi Gavin. Thank you very much for the review. I believe I've addressed all your comments except for "Liverpudlian", which I think would be less clear to an international audience. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's fair enough. The rest looks good enough for GA. I hope it does well at FAC, and doesn't attract the attention of at least one of the individuals who is making the process rather unpleasant at the moment! - SchroCat (talk) 06:13, 28 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.