Talk:Shooting of James Ashley

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleShooting of James Ashley is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 15, 2023.
Article milestones
August 8, 2005Articles for deletionKept
May 1, 2007Articles for deletionKept
May 28, 2020Good article nomineeListed
June 22, 2020Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Dumping ground[edit]

*Officers face action over shooting (internal disciplinary proceedings against the supt and inspectors, Dec 2001)

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?

Informal PR[edit]

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]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Death of James Ashley/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SchroCat (talk · contribs) 14:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reserving this for myself: I'll make a start shortly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. See below.
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.

That's it from me on the prose front.

1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). All information is cited to reliable and appropriate sources
2c. it contains no original research. All information is cited to reliable sources
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. Earwig shows only matches on names/titles and where material has been quoted appropriately
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Covers the cause, the effents and the long ramifications well
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. Good on all three
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. 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]

Requested move 3 July 2020[edit]

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.

The result of the move request was: Move all (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 00:53, 11 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

– The usual convention for articles on Wikipedia that are about deaths by shooting is "Shooting of" (unless they are clearly murder and are called "Murder of"). This is consistent across many articles – see the consistent naming pattern of the large number of articles in Category:People shot dead by law enforcement officers in the United States, Category:People shot dead by law enforcement officers in Canada, Category:People shot dead by law enforcement officers in Australia, Category:People shot dead by law enforcement officers in Germany, Category:People shot dead by law enforcement officers in Thailand, and similar categories for most other countries. This has been supported by recent consensus in several RM discussions, including the recent multi-article RMs at Talk:Shooting of Roni Levi, Talk:Shooting of Sammy Yatim , Talk:Shooting of Breonna Taylor, and Talk:Shooting of Atatiana Jefferson, and also single-page RM discussions at Talk:Shooting of Chaiyaphum Pasae, Talk:Shooting of Benno Ohnesorg, and Talk:Shooting of Yoshihiro Hattori. This change would apply the same convention for Category:People shot dead by law enforcement officers in the United Kingdom. —BarrelProof (talk) 07:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.