Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Northern Bank robbery/archive1

Northern Bank robbery

Featured article candidates/Northern Bank robbery/archive1

Nominator(s): Mujinga (talk) 18:35, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The still unsolved Northern Bank robbery took place in 2004 in Belfast, Northern Ireland. Working with military precision, an armed gang took family members of workers hostage, in order to force them to hand over £26.5 million in cash. The reaction of both the UK and the Irish governments was that the IRA was behind the heist, causing a rupture in the then ongoing peace process. It's now twenty years later and nobody has ever been directly convicted for the crime. Whilst Ted Cunningham does continue to fight his money laundering conviction, the article is stable and I hope ready to be a featured article. Mujinga (talk) 18:35, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

"£4.5 million in used notes supplied by other banks" This would include Bank of England notes?
Moore says these other used notes were "made up of Bank of Ireland, First Trust, Bank of England and other notes". I could be more specific if you think it's necessary? Mujinga (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering why the hundred-pound notes did not cause more of a problem than they did. Do they pass that freely in Northern Ireland? I know the Bank of England only goes up to fifty pounds.
I don't remember anything in the sources discussing that unfortunately Mujinga (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The arrests were made under the Offences against the State Act.[19] " Does this convey something that I'm missing? Also, Offenses against the State Act is double linked.
It's in the source and since the act was mentioned earlier, seems worth mentioning (and linking) again, but that's as far as my rationale goes. Mujinga (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"After the Good Friday Agreement of 1998 ..." At least the first half of this paragraph has the feel of background rather than legacy.
I can see what you mean, if it's OK I'd like to see what other reviewers think Mujinga (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Ripe for the picking: The inside story of the Northern Bank robbery" Should be in title case.
I've used sentence case in the refs so perhaps it makes more sense to have sentence case here as well. But in that event, then Northern Heist should prob be Northern heist, so I've changed that one Mujinga (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why the Portuguese bank note crisis of 1925 is a see also. That was nothing like this, that was someone forging the authority for the bank note printers to print new currency and passing the resultant currency. It's not a particularly close case of money laundering to this.

- Sure, removed Mujinga (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:30, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the comments, I've replied on everything. Mujinga (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Some images are missing alt text
good point, fixed Mujinga (talk) 17:08, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
File:NorthernBankNI20.jpg needs a more expansive FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:12, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
could you give me some guidance here on what is required? to me it makes sense to include the image since it improves the article to see an examplar of a note which was withdrawn from circulation as a result of the heist. this was also discussed regarding Wikipedia:Non-free_content_criteria#8 at the GA review with @HJ Mitchell: - who actually I forgot to alert about the FAC! Mujinga (talk) 17:08, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria thanks for the comments, replies made Mujinga (talk) 17:08, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's some explanation at Template:Non-free use rationale, but what you're really looking for is a rationale as to why a non-free image is necessary for reader understanding. What does a reader get from actually seeing the note, on top of them just being told a note was withdrawn as a result? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great thanks so we are also talking Wikipedia:Non-free_content_criteria#8 and I don't think the image "significantly increases" the reader's comprehension of the article, so I've removed it Mujinga (talk) 11:48, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SC

"Sinn Féin, however, denied": you can lose the 'however': it does nothing useful here
I'm not tied to it, but I think it's doing something as all the big players are saying the IRA did it but then Sinn Féin denies it Mujinga (talk) 21:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Orde ... blamed the Provisional IRA for the robbery. ... Sinn Féin denied the Chief Constable's claim": it says exactly the same thing but without the "however". - SchroCat (talk) 09:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see what other people think on this. To expand on my rationale: commentators, police officers, the Chief Constable of the PSNI (ie Orde), the British government and the body appointed by the Irish and British governments to oversee the Northern Ireland ceasefires (ie IMC) all immediately blamed the IRA (as did the Irish Taoiseach Bertie Ahern although that's below in the text), but Sinn Féin (ie the political party associated with the IRA) then denied it, so for the "however" is flagging this up. Mujinga (talk) 11:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I’ve shown above, the text without the ‘however’ does exactly the same thing, but with one less word, which is one of the most over used (and badly used) words on WP). - SchroCat (talk) 21:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"On the other hand,": You can lose these four words happily: they do nothing and are unencyclopaedic filler
good point, removed Mujinga (talk) 21:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"in compost and Cunningham": As this stands, the money was discovered after being found and after the couple were taken for questioning. A semi colon in place of the 'and' would work better.
rejigged the sentence Mujinga (talk) 21:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The PSNI stated it was a stunt attempting to divert attention from the heist yet it was being investigated": there's a couple of bits awry here, including the word "stunt". Maybe better framed as "The PSNI stated it was an attempt to divert attention from the heist, but was being investigated".
rephrased and actually "stunt" gets used quite soon after so it's good to remove it here Mujinga (talk) 21:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Hugh Orde described": Just "Orde", as you've already full named him
done - as with the other names below I've reduced it to one full naming per section Mujinga (talk) 21:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"went in 25 Land Rovers": is this level of detail necessary?
it conveys that it was a large operation, but rather journalistically, so I've removed it Mujinga (talk) 21:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Ted Cunningham was found guilty": Just 'Cunningham' is necessary
"Bertie Ahern suspected Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness" -> "Ahern suspected Adams and McGuinness"
"meeting with Ted Cunningham" -> "meeting with Cunningham"
"When Gerry Adams denied" -> "When Adams denied"
"regarding the murder of McGuigan": who is McGuigan and where does this fit in with the robbery in which no-one was killed?
good spot, I've rejigged this bit and got rid of the Mcguigan sentence Mujinga (talk) 22:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"the House of Commons of the United Kingdom by Ulster Unionist Party (UUP)" -> "the House of Commons by UUP" (the common name for the Commons will suffice, and you've already full-named, linked and provided the abbreviation for UUP a couple of lines above.
done Mujinga (talk) 22:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Check your linking of sources - I see the Daily telegraph is linked, but many are not, and consistency is key.
thanks for that, I've unlinked it as I prefer to not wikilink the sources Mujinga (talk) 22:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's my lot. - SchroCat (talk) 14:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for the comments, I've been chipping away at them and now I've answered them all Mujinga (talk) 22:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add my support, but see above for my comment about the unnecessary 'however' which adds nothing to aid understanding or clarity. - SchroCat (talk) 10:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support, I've replied on the "however" issue above Mujinga (talk) 11:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]