Hello! I'll be reviewing this article to help reduce the good article nomination backlog and to gain points in the WP:WIKICUP. Although quid pro quo is not required, if you fancy returning the favor, I have a list of articles in need of review here. — GhostRiver17:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With the opening paragraph, I think the first sentence should say it was the UK's largest cash robbery, and then the part about the extra 154 million should be after what they did take
Just read through this article and then saw it was up for review so I thought I’d add my two cents worth. I think it’s definitely worth noting that it’s the largest ever robbery in the opening sentence. It’s the defining point of the event.Xx78900 (talk) 10:06, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Xx78900 thanks for dropping by, I've made some replies. If the largest cash robbery bit was to go in the first sentence, how do you see the first paragraph working, something like this?
The Securitas depot robbery was the United Kingdom's largest cash heist. It occurred in Tonbridge, Kent, England, beginning with a kidnapping on the evening of 21 February 2006 and ending in the early hours of 22 February. The criminals left the depot with almost £53 million and left behind another £154 million only because they did not have the means to transport it
The claim would rest on Criminology Theory, Research, and Policy. But that's dated 2006 so then it's hard to say it's still the largest, for some reason it's hard to find a more recent source for that. Mujinga (talk) 11:24, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They tricked their way inside the depot and armed with weapons including AK-47 assault rifles and a Škorpion submachine gun, they tied up fourteen workers. Awkward syntax with the lead-in between the trickery and the capturing
As of 2016, £32 million had not been recovered and several suspects were still on the run. Source conflicts the second part; most recent ref saying people are still on the run is from 2011
{{EngvarB|date=July 2014}} used on the article. Template tells – for non-specific but not N. American spelling ... Article Talk should say "Use British English"
£20 notes came in red £5,000 Missing a couple of words
"Albanians Bucpapa and Hysenaj were childhood friends who had met at school in Bajram Curri although they did not mention this in court, at first claiming not to know each other at all." → "The Albanian Bucpapa and Hysenaj were childhood friends who had met at school in Bajram Curri. They did not mention this in court, however, instead claiming not to know each other at all."
In this case, would it best not to describe it as an airlock? Or to add an Em dash following ‘airlock’, and explain the resemblance? Definitely feels like something is lacking.Xx78900 (talk) 10:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
i'd have to check it might be in quotes in the source as well. i think it's quite common to refer to a two door security setup as as an "airlock" Mujinga (talk) 10:58, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lynn Dixon and her son, fearful of being killed, were also put in a cage Awkward phrasing; the first half makes it sound like they are about to actively do something out of fear of being killed, whereas the second half says something was done to them
In the source, the Assistant Chief Constable says "This is organised crime at its top level. This was planned and executed with military precision" Mujinga (talk) 17:27, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not particularly tied to "loot" but "money" occurs four times in that section and "stolen" occurs in the next sentence Mujinga (talk) 11:07, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When you say ‘company director Ian Bowrem’, are you just providing his profession? Or was it a company linked to the heist?Xx78900 (talk) 10:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just linking "judge" feels as if it borders on MOS:EASTEREGG; can probably be written out to "High Court Judge"
I'm not convinced "High Court Judge" reads better and it's tricky because the case was at the Crown Court I think, because of its severity. However, the Crown Court has High Court judges apparently, so I'll make the change Mujinga (talk) 17:30, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of parentheses around "Hysenaj had not picked up the phone ...", use a semicolon
Given the line ‘suggesting he was the inside man’, should there be a line where prosecutors/police deduce that the heist could only have occurred with the cooperation of an inside man? And how did it emerge that it wasn’t him? Xx78900 (talk) 10:49, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
it was the defence suggesting it but i think it's common practice for the police to look for an inside man and in this case it was the phone records linking hysenaj and bucpapa that proved hard to explain Mujinga (talk) 11:15, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The former detective superintendent is reported as saying in the source: The money would certainly have been taken out of the country after the heist and would have long since disappeared into the murky world of international criminal finance [..] "The money from Securitas is long gone" so I think it's good to emphasise how it rapidly disappeared Mujinga (talk) 17:40, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't this previous robbery be in the "Depot" section as background information?
I think it's better here Mujinga (talk) 17:42, 20 March 2022 (UTC)The Background suggestion has merit and worth considering. However, this is not a show-stopper.[reply]
I think that at least the Securitas heist should be in the Depot section, and possibly all should be moved to a background section tbh. Xx78900 (talk) 10:30, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reference [33] (Glendinning) doesn't appear to mention either that it was the biggest in history or mention the Tonbridge raid at all
Earwig score looks good, WP:LIMITED and all (you can't really rephrase criminal charges)
cool thanks, the article appears to have had issues with close phrasing in the past so I went through everything to make sure it was gone Mujinga (talk) 17:59, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's all I've got! I'll leave comments on the FAC later today, as Fridays are my light teaching days on the block schedule. Please feel free to ping me with questions, and let me know when you're finished! — GhostRiver17:47, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The use of page numbers in the references is inconsistent. In the "Depot" section, for instance, I see both "33, 34" and "35-6". Per MOS:PAGERANGE, consecutive pages should always be listed as full numbers with an en dash, so they'd be "33-34" and "35-36", respectively. This does not apply for cases like "31, 33" because those numbers are non-consecutive.
In "Conspiracy", "As well as being a cage fighter" → "In addition to being a cage fighter" still
Not seeing the improvement here, but sorry to no directly reply on that before, in my head I had it rolled into the BrEng reply below it Mujinga (talk) 15:14, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Still don't like the "In another shooting," phrasing
Is this BrEng vs USEng? Seems fine to me and I'd like to take this to FAC so happy to carry on the conversation there Mujinga (talk) 15:12, 14 April 2022 (UTC)Noted; see EngVarB template advice[reply]
The Paul Allen shooting happened three years ago, should probably include an update on his condition, if one exists
I went to the tabloids and they totally froze my computer with all the adverts! I've updated on the arrests, Allen didn't die but there isn't much else on his condition that I could find Mujinga (talk) 15:12, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GhostRiver: Hiya don't want to pressure you but I'd like to finish this off, shall we say if there are no more comments in a week's time then we agree to close the review and I'll move to peer review? Since I'd like to take this to FA I'm not especially fussed about it being a GA and I think I've incorporated a lot of your comments already Mujinga (talk) 13:39, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As nominator I'm requesting a second opinion, since the article has been on hold for 57 days and in my opinion the article is nearly there. The reviewer has had issues IRL and has not commented here in a month, whilst they have been making limited edits elsewhere. They are not replying to pings or talk page messages. Mujinga (talk) 08:46, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All the previous reviewer's commentary and subsequent corrections have been noted
Some observations on the language issue are offered
The issue of Paul Allen's injuries does not read well; however, this is not a show stopper
The matter of the previous heists merits consideration; however, this is not a show stopper - I leave both these matters in the hands of Mujinga who has done yeoman work in responding and corrections.