Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Death of Mark Saunders/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 10 April 2021 [1].

Death of Mark Saunders

[edit]
Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another in my occasional series of articles on British police shootings. This one is interesting because (unlike most such incidents), the person shot was not a career criminal or an armed robber pointing a gun at somebody's head, but an upper-middle-class lawyer with a drink problem and a legally owned shotgun. This incident didn't attract as much academic attention as some of the others, but The Guardian covered the investigation and the inquest in detail from start to finish. I think these are important stories to tell, and I'd like to think this article tells this one fairly. As always, all feedback will be gratefully received! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Thryduulf

[edit]
  • Why is there no birth or age information in the infobox?
  • "He worked on several high-profile and complex cases, and wrote and lectured on his area of expertise." could be rewritten to reduce the number of "and"s.
    • Done.
  • "He had long suffered with alcoholism, and on one occasion neighbours found him sitting outside his flat in a distressed state, and had been diagnosed with depression." I think this should be two sentences, although simply splitting would result in a fragment so maybe add something more about the depression if there is anything?
    • Done.
  • "At the peak of the incident, 59 armed officers were at the scene." The number needs some context - e.g. how does it compare with other incidents? Has anyone commented that this was/was not a lot?
    • There was some suggestion in the media that it was a lot but not from experts. I included it more for context. It clearly developed into a significant operation, as opposed to just a handful of officers.
  • "The Saunders family applied for judicial review of the IPCC investigation,..." When? (i.e. at what point in proceedings?)
    • Added.
  • "The inquest did not resume fully until September 2010..." Why the year's delay after the CPS decision?
    • No idea. None of the sources say anything about it. It's not unusual for inquests to be adjourned for a long time.
  • Given how extraordinary the second sentence of the Inquest section is, I think it would be best if the citations following it were about that only, rather than also supporting the first sentence, i.e. move the sources supporting the first sentence to the end of that sentence.
    • Done.
  • "though the inquest heard that the decision to fire rests with each individual officer." This feels like it should come before discussion of who fired and why rather than as part of a sentence about why the third officer mentioned didn't.
    • Done.
  • "The inspector and the silver commander..." this is the first mention of a silver commander. I know "gold commander" is linked earlier and the article that redirects to explains the command structure, but it may be worth a separate link - especially as it is strongly implied the silver commander wasn't on the scene (it seems unbelievable that anyone on scene could be unaware of the powerful lights) but it feels odd for this to be the case (although reading the relevant article it seems it varies).
    • Linked (had to create a couple of redirects). He was at a police command post nearby, which I believe is fairly normal for a silver commander.
  • "De Menezes was shot dead in a case of mistaken identity in 2005..." don't need to repeat the date (given in the previous sentence) but a mention of the location might be due.
    • Done.
  • Have there been any subsequent events where learnings from this incident played a role? If so, mention them in the Impact section (or a new subsequent events section if it would overwhelm what's currently there). Thryduulf (talk) 15:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Shotgun image is missing alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I struggle with alt text. Do you have a suggestion for what I could say that isn't conveyed by the caption?
      • As someone who doesn't spend a lot of time among guns, I don't think I would understand what "open position" means without being able to see it. Could we say something about the relative position of the parts, the angling, something like that? (I don't want to propose something concrete mostly because I'm not confident I actually know what the parts are all called). Nikkimaria (talk) 22:06, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Spotchecks not done

Comments from Willbb234

[edit]

Hi there. This is my first FAC review. I've read all that I can on the instructions, but may still make some mistakes so please give any constructive criticism if necessary.

  • Wikilink for London? I don't think there's any danger of WP:SEAOFBLUE.
    • I'm ambivalent on this, but done.
  • I think it would be better if the date was sooner in the sentence, perhaps after "was shot dead by police".
    • Done.
  • "Saunders fired at their vehicle" with what? No previous mention of a gun and what gun did he use?
    • The shotgun is mentioned in the previous sentence.
  • The lede could do with a mention of the general time of the incident such as 'in the evening' or maybe even a specific time.
    • Done.
  • Would you be able to use a full image of Saunders? The top of his head is cut-off.
    • It's the only photo available and the one widely used in the media. I agree it's not great but it's better than nothing.
  • Perhaps a mention of what guns the police were using so the reader understands the comparison of firepower.
    • I'm reluctant to go too far into this because I don't want to turn it into a gun fetish piece, but I've added some details.
  • He spent three years as a reservist in the Territorial Army, and legally owned a shotgun. it is unclear whether these two statements are linked.
    • No, they're not. re-worded.
  • Saunders told a taxi driver "I'm going to die", I'm a little confused, because isn't he supposed to be in his house? Or did he talk to the driver before he got home?
    • Clarified.
  • On 6 May 2008, shortly before 17:00, Saunders fired several shots from his shotgun through a first-floor window and into the square, is there any reason given in the sources for why he did this? If not, it might be worth saying so.
    • That's the great mystery. He was drunk, but there's no way to know what possessed him to start firing his shotgun out of a kitchen window.
  • Per WP:TIMEZONE, you might want to add BST to the time.
    • Done.
  • Is the friend at the scene the same whom he messaged?
    • Yes. Can you think of a way to make this clear without naming the friend (which I've deliberately avoided)?
  • Seven police officers fired eleven shots and Saunders went silent. 'went silent' may be confused as a euphemism, especially as he hadn't been talking much anyway.
    • Perhaps. Replaced with "collapsed".
  • Three days after the shooting, Friday 9 May 2008, don't think day of the week is needed here.
    • Gone.
  • Among the witnesses were 12 police firearms officers a little vague. Presumably none of the officers shot? How involved were they?
    • That's just a summary of the people who gave evidence. I would guess that it was all the armed officers who were directly involved, including those who fired. I've clarified it a little bit.
  • It's hard to get a feeling of the geography of the area especially when you say that an officer was "on the opposite side of the street" so an image of Markham Square would help.
    • Stretching my technical skills to the limit, I've added a map of the are from OSM.

More to come. Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 18:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The IPCC commissioned experts from other police forces to review the Metropolitan Police's handling of the siege, two of whom gave evidence at the inquest how many experts? Also, why did only two give evidence and what was the involvement of the rest of the experts?
    • Not known. I would imagine they got experts from other police forces to review various aspects of the operation, which was the IPCC's standard practice but only those two had relevant evidence to give.
  • "put emotion to one side to decide the issues dispassionately" but to "beware also of the advantage of hindsight" I'm not sure 'but' is the best word here as the two statements are not contrary to each other.
    • Changed to "and".
  • As for the details about Knapman writing to the Home Secretary and commissioner, is there anymore on this, such as responses to the letters or any comments from these people?
    • There's nothing in the sources. Under the Corners Rules, the coroner is entitled to make recommendations to anybody he feels is in a position to prevent a similar death but they're not required to respond, though there's some detail about improved police procedures in the impact section.
  • The incident was compared in the media to several other police shootings, including that of Jean Charles de Menezes (2005) and the Hackney siege (2002–2003) it might be good to state which media sites or papers made these comparisons.
    • Not sure this is necessary. I've tried to pick out general themes rather than have a blow-by-blow.
  • "Some journalists" is a little bit MOS:WEASELy
    • As above, I've picked out key themes, though it's notable that these comments came from journalists, not academics or police officers.
  • The Impact section contains quite a bit about general commentary and media coverage on the matter, rather than the impact. Consider splitting?
    • Splitting the section would create two short sections, which doesn't seem desirable. "Impact" seemed to fit, but I'm open to other names for the section.

I think I'll sit a source review out and observe as I fear I may get something wrong! Good read, especially as I didn't even know about this shooting beforehand. Kind regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 20:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Willbb234: I'm glad you found it interesting. Thank you for your comments. For a first-time FAC review, you've provided some very useful feedback. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:59, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@HJ Mitchell: hello there. I came across WP:DEATHS and I remembered this article. I don't think "Death of..." is a suitable title for this article per the reasons outlined on the flow chart on the page linked. Let me know what you think. Kind regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 23:43, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Willbb234, thanks for your continues interest. I'd never come across that page before. I'm certainly not averse to moving the article to a different title, but I thought quite carefully about how to name it before settling on this one. As that page points out, Wikipedia lacks a consistent naming scheme for such articles; several British police shootings were recently moved to "shooting of" (eg Shooting of James Ashley), which I feel is imprecise and introduces further inconsistency with violent deaths not caused by shooting (eg Death of Ian Tomlinson) and WP:DEATHS would seem to prefer "killing of" (as at Killing of George Floyd) but that feels to me like a loaded term that implies some level of wrongdoing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Willbb234, that was an entirely respectable review. I wouldn't have guessed that it was your first. Do you feel able to support or oppose promotion of this article. Ie, so far as you can see, does it meet those criteria which you have examined? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:14, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so after taking another look, I'm happy that this meets the criteria. It covers the subject well and the sources are largely to reputable mainstream (British) sources. I'll support. Kind regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 18:21, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • "The day of his death, he returned home from work early—before his wife, who worked at the same chambers—and began drinking large quantities of red wine.[2][5][6] In the hours before the shooting, Saunders told the taxi driver who took him home, "I'm going to die", and sent a text message to a friend". The chronology seems unclear here. The Guardian report says that he returned home at 4.30. If this is correct I think it is worth specifying, especially as it means that he began shooting almost immediately. You refer to the hours before the shooting, presumably meaning the fatal shooting by the police, not his shooting, but this is not made clear. I suggest a chronological account - returned home at 4.30 and told taxi driver going to die, almost immediately started drinking and shooting and sent friend text message.
    • Good point. A hazard of trying to create a coherent narrative from piecemeal sources. Hopefully now fixed.
  • "the lights were introduced after complaints from the firearms officers that they could not adequately see Saunders" Perhaps worth mentioning the time of sunset on that day or at least that it was dark by that time.
    • Added a little bit in the "shooting" section and tweaked this sentence as it's now the second mention if the lights.
  • baton round is linked to bean bag round but the source says rubber bullets.
    • Corrected.
  • I am not sure whether there is a rule, but the citations usually come before the bibliography and I think it is helpful to the reader to stick to that. Also, you have duplicate headings: 'References', If you want to have a heading and sub-heading, the sub-heading should be 'Citations'.
    • I'm aware that it's more "conventional" but I've always thought the list of works consulted is more interesting than the footnotes (though admittedly more so when an article is based almost entirely on book sources). You're absolutely right about the header though; not sure how that crept in but it's fixed now!
  • A first rate article. Just a few queries. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:40, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much for dropping by, Dudley. Let me know if you think any more work needed on the chronology. Also, if you have a strong opinion on the title question raised above, I'd be interested to hear it. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:05, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - and I am happy with the title. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

[edit]

Four weeks in and no supports yet. Possibly time to call in some favours if this is to avoid being archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:39, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hope it wouldn't be frowned upon if I pinged the reviewers from my previous FACs on police shootings (Chandler's Ford shooting and Death of James Ashley), @Nick-D, Mike Christie, Mujinga, and Sarastro1: and of course yourself Gog. If any of you have time to read through another one and offer some feedback (pro or con), I'd be very grateful. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Harry, normally I’d be happy to help but I’m busy IRL at the moment and haven’t been editing much. If I get some time I’ll take a look but I don’t expect to. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologise, Mike! I know the feeling. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not only not frowned upon, but positively encouraged. This is on my long list Harry, but to be frank I am not sure that I will get round to it. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:25, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Nick-D

[edit]

Responding to the ping above, and noting that I know exactly zero about this incident, I'd like to offer the following comments:

  • The first para of the lead says that Saunders was shot when he waved the gun out a window, but the second para seems to say he was shot when the police entered the flat. I'd suggest tweaking the wording to clarify here.
    • Clarified.
  • "comparing it unfavourably to other incidents" - not sure about this wording. Something like 'contrasting it with how the police had successfully resolved other incidents' might work better.
    • Done, but minus "successful" as the other incidents mentioned also resulted in the subject's death.
  • "Saunders began drinking large quantities of red wine and sent a text message to a friend..." - did his friend doing anything here? (like call the police on Saunders' behalf?)
    • He went to the scene. Added.
  • "but the police refused to allow them to speak to Saunders" - which police? The trained negotiators, or non-specialists? (my understanding is that police negotiators have strategies they use in these cases)
    • The negotiators; added. Presumably it would have been approved by the gold commander, but the negotiators explained their thinking at the inquest.
  • Some background on police protocols for handling armed standoffs would be helpful in framing the discussion of this incident. For instance, what were the roles of the gold, silver and bronze commanders and what was the role of the negotiators, and how effective was this approach usually? (I was interested to learn a few years ago that Australian police often handle multiple armed standoffs daily across the country, the great majority of which are resolved peacefully, which suggests that such incidents can be successfully managed)
    • I'm not sure where I can go with this. There's some explanation of what the gold/silver/bronze commanders did in this incident in the article, and the titles are linked, which redirect to Gold–silver–bronze command structure for an overview of how the roles function in theory.
  • Have the 2010 reforms noted in the last para proved successful?
    • I haven't seen anything in the sources about it. But then I don't think there's been a comparable incident since then; these thing are quite rare and usually end quickly and peacefully without attracting much attention (the Hackney siege, mentioned in the article, was six years earlier and it's the closest comparison I've seen).
  • Saunders must have been horrifically drunk based on the amount he is described as having consumed. Can the impact this had on police strategies be fleshed out further? (for instance, what is the usual approach to dealing with armed and very drunk people?). I was interested to see that one of the issues the jury was asked to consider was whether the police appropriately considered the vulnerable state Saunders was in due to being drunk. Was the suggestion that the police should have pulled back a bit and waited for him to sober up, or at least avoid destabilising further him when he was in a condition where would have struggled to act rationally? There was an incident in my home town a few years ago where the police shot and crippled a man who came at them on a deserted suburban street with a sword while having a psychotic incident. While the subsequent inquiry judged the shooting justified, it also recommended that police be trained to retreat and give armed people in a distressed state time to recover whenever this could be safely done, which is now part of their strategy along with better integrating mental health crisis teams into the command structure for such incidents, so this might be a global issue police face. Nick-D (talk) 09:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're right, it's certainly a global issue and it's difficult to predict how confrontations between police and extremely disturbed individuals will end but it's often violent. This piece is good on the competing priorities the police have to contend with and I've added a little bit from that. See what you think. Very much appreciate you having a look, Nick! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:30, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those changes all look good, noting limitations with sourcing, and I'm pleased to support this nomination. Nick-D (talk) 05:09, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Oppose Comments from mujinga

[edit]

Thanks for the ping, it's an interesting article about a tragic event I vaguely remember. To my eyes this article needs a bit of work, I only skimmed the other comments so there might be some repetition. I'll oppose on that current state but I think it can be worked through.

  • Lead
  • London doesnt need linking (I know someone else asked for it though)
  • I don't think there's any harm in it if it avoids having to append "England", lest somebody think we were talking about Ontario Although a Mark Saunders was police chief in Toronto, which pollutes search results!.
  • sure
  • Background
  • Keeping four references to the end of the paragraph makes it a lot of work to factcheck. I would expect claims such as age to be directly referenced for this reason and also because the reference might get sheared off with future edits.
  • I prefer grouping references at the end of the paragraph, or at least grouped by theme, for readability. The little blue numbers are vital but they're distracting in mid-prose. I don't think things like age are so astonishing that they need to be referenced there and then (unlike the prison sentence for corruption mentioned above), which seems borne out by Wikipedia:When to cite (which is linked from WP:FA?).
  • "Saunders began ..." - Are three refs needed on this sentence?
  • From memory, these are all citing different things. I think I had two there but added another one which picked up on the film reference.
  • Saunders began drinking large quantities of red wine and sent a text message to a friend which read "this is the end, my only friend, the end"—a quote from the song "The End" by The Doors used in the soundtrack to the film Apocalypse Now. The friend travelled to Saunders' house but found the area cordoned off by the police"
  • when i check: "large quantities of red wine" - nothing in bbc or independent, times mentions him "drinking from a large glass of red wine" / text to friend - independent / 'the end' reference - independent / friend travelled - not mentioned / area cordoned off - not mentioned
  • so there are currently three refs namely independent, bbc and times. independent is doing most of it, bbc nothing, times could be used to cite the wine but there's better references and the secodn sentence isn't sourced as far as i can see.
  • the problem i think for me with clustering three references is it takes so long here to check all the claims that I can't be bothered to do that later on now. Shooting of James Ashley for comparison does use references at the end of the paragraph but usually only one or two which makes checking easier.
  • Shooting
  • Surely this section should start with him going home and telling the taxi driver he was going to die?
  • Reasonable minds may differ, but I think it's fitting that the section called "shooting" starts with the firing of the first shots.
  • i disagree there but there isn't a right answer
  • Image caption says "identified by the yellow dots in the windscreen" that's a claim that needs to be referenced
  • Meh. I'm sure I could dig up a ref for this, but it's not important here so gone. Wil see if I can track down a free photo of one of the ARVs that was actually at the scene.
  • shame because it's an interestng fact
  • Investigation
  • shot to abdomen not in source
  • Source says "main lower body artery".
  • you are saying "head, heart, liver, and abdomen" and the source is saying "head, heart and liver" and "main lower body artery"
  • Inquest
  • Paul Knapman could be mentioned earlier since he adjourned the initial session
  • Done.
  • "It could also have caused Saunders to step or fall further into the property, requiring police officers to enter the property" - 2x property
  • Tweaked.
  • "Saunders was aiming his shotgun towards officers who were stood on a ledge on an adjacent building. AZ14, who was stood close" - 2 x stood
  • Also tweaked.
  • Conclusion
  • Again referencing issues, I would want a direct quote from Knapman to have a citation on it, both for ease of checking and in case the ref at the end of the paragraph gets disconnected later
  • This is something I often pick up on when I review FACs, but I can't see any direct quotes lacking references? Maybe I've just spent too long staring at it?
  • Knapman instructed the jurors to "put emotion to one side to decide the issues dispassionately" and "beware also of the advantage of hindsight" is what I what was referring
  • Impact
  • "De Menezes was shot dead in a case of mistaken identity and similar criticisms were raised of the Metropolitan Police's command and control of that incident and the post-incident management, including the practice of officers conferring" - too many "ands"
  • Eliminated a few.
  • need to explain where Hackney is for international readers
  • Done.
  • "particularly career criminals" - seems like original research
  • I thought that was verbatim from the source. Turns out I was wrong, but I'll double check to see if I got it from one of the others. Regardless, the closest comparison is with Eli Hall in Hackney, who was indeed a career criminal, and the point is that the shooting of renowned barrister in his £2.2 million Chelsea flat attracted a lot more attention than the shooting of a Jamaican drug dealer in a bedsit in Hackney.
  • is the Andrew Hammond shooting worth mentioning since it occurred around the same time and also was discussed as suicide by cop as mentioned in this book
  • That's an interest titbit, thank you. I managed to find a source that neatly ties together Saunders, Hammond, and De Menezes and I've added a few sentences. I was aware of that incident but not of anything that linked it to the Saunders shooting, so thank you for that. It's a useful bit of context.
  • Overall
  • Sorry I've just had a few other things which all happened at once which rather affected my focus. I wanted to say something about how having read into the sources I feel that there is more that can be said about why Saunders ended up in this situation. For example, this Independent article says he had stopped drinking in March, had taken cocaine recently and had been prescribed Prozac. There were other text messages and this refers to other problems.
  • I deliberately omitted the cocaine use because the sources explicitly say he hadn't used it on the day of his death. Anti-depressants (but not Prozac specifically) are mentioned in the article. What I don't want to do is turn this into a tabloidy human interest story, but I've added a couple of sentences.
  • overall i still feel that the whole picture is not yet being presented here. i take the point of not wanting to give a tabloid account but i think things like:
  • cautioned for being drunk and disorderly in 2005 (times)
  • alcoholics anonymous (times)
  • teetotal for three months (times)
  • his father's reaction (lost the ref)
  • the blank text to his wife (independent)
  • the three text messages to the friend who was best man at his wedding (only one is mentioned currently) (independent)

... are all worth mentioning

  • Regarding the shootings, I read somewhere (lost now) that Saunders shot out a neighbour's daughter's window and the neighbour (who he had never met) was concerned by what would have happened if the daughter was there. Was there argument with the wife, this seems unclear. His father said it was an "absolute mystery".
  • The article says "Several pellets struck buildings opposite"; yes, it struck a child's bedroom window but there's absolutely no suggestion he was aiming for anything in particular and "think of the children" (who weren't even there) is again getting a bit too tabloidy. There was no argument with the wife. There was some suggestion in early reports that she left shortly before the shooting but that appears to be incorrect; she was still at work when he began drinking himself into a stuper.
  • For a few last general comments that don't fit anywhere else, I also wonder if a shotgun is actually dangerous at that range, but the police did say they felt their lives were in danger. And the article is pretty much all newspaper reports, there's Smith and Punch and I suppose the problem is not much else has been written, I didn't find more on a quick search. Mujinga (talk) 13:33, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It had enough range to cross to gardens and a street and embed pellets in the masonry of an overlooking building, and some police officers were considerably closer than that; I wouldn't want to be looking down the barrel of it. You're right, it heavily relies on news reports (though I've tried to balance it out among the quality press and not rely too heavily on any one publication). Smith has quite a bit of detail; Punch is mostly about the politics and the theory of police use of firearms (interesting book, though). As you say, there isn't anything else. There's the briefest of passing mentions in one journal article, and it's not covered in any of the other books I have on policing and related subjects. Probably because, unlike Ashley or De Menezes or some other incidents, there was no great controversy, and the chain of events (tragic as it is) is easier to understand. Thanks very much for having a look, Mujinga, some good food for thought in there. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:35, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mujinga: I believe I've addressed these now. I've tightened the background and added some of the details you suggest from The Times, added a ref for the Knapman quote, and changed "abdomen" to "lower body" to better reflect the source. I take your point on the comparison to Ashley, but I had the luxury there of building the entire article around a handful of detailed sources, whereas this incident doesn't have that depth of coverage (partly because it's more recent, partly because there wasn't the misconduct and controversy there was with Ashley). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:23, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one I can see the changes. I do appreciate how you are respecting BLP concerns as well by not naming the peripherally involved people. I'll strike my oppose but I do still think there's some work to do:

  • somehow guardian isn't italicized in ref46 and there's "pp." on its own
  • i still think the times/bbc/independent aren't sourcing what you wrote per my comments above
  • the lead could better summarise the article as it is now, for example:
    • the IPCC investigation isn't mentioned
    • if "open position" is linked below it could be linked here as well
    • the impact summary could be updated with newly added info
    • "Some journalists criticised the shooting as being too hasty, contrasting it with the handling of other incidents" i guess that summarises "Some journalists suggested that the police showed a lack of patience in dealing with Saunders when compared to the Hackney siege" but then in the impact section it would be good to name the journalists and/or the papers rather than saying "some"
    • "dedicated" in "dedicated senior officers" seems unnecessary Mujinga (talk) 15:31, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Just noting that I haven't forgotten this. I'll be back to it properly on Wednesday. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @Mujinga: Could you have another look when you have time? I've added another couple of details; the details we're discussing seem to be largely covered by The Independent. I've added a bit more to the lead, and tweaked the impact section a little to directly name publications and re-structured it slightly for logical flow. I'd love to know what you think. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hiya I see some improvements so nice one for that, I still don't think this article is as comprehensive as for example Shooting of James Ashley and it worries me that an independent article is a better summary of the events. From the last comments, guardian is fixed, IPCC not mentioned, "open position" fixed, the lead still needs work in my opinion, "some journalists" not fixed, "dedicated" fixed. This is starting to become a slog so I'll leave it here and let other people have their say. Good luck with it! Mujinga (talk) 10:49, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mujinga: Sorry it's become a slog. That's probably partly because my availability is limited and I'm trying to squeeze this in when I can. I do value your input, though I don't think it's possible for this article to be as comprehensive as Ashley, for example. Ashley's death spawned criminal charges against several police officers, a civil case that reached the UK's highest court, and is a case study in several books across several disciplines. While this incident is still worthy of coverage, it hasn't attracted nearly as much academic attention. I've added the IPCC investigation to the lead but I'm not sure what else could go in there without making it excessively long and simply repeating the body. I get your point about "some journalists" but The Guardian just says "some"; it's not my interpretation, but I added publication names in the body to make that clear. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:14, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mujinga, just checking as a coordinator if there will be anything further coming from you. You have done sterling work on this so far, and if not that is fine - I would just like to confirm. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:36, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks both for the kind remarks. I'm someone who would typically much rather support than oppose and whilst I'm happy to have struck the oppose since changes have been made, I still have reservations about supporting and I don't intend to comment further. Mujinga (talk) 17:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Death_of_Mark_Saunders/archive1&oldid=1017033407"