Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Portland Spy Ring/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 10 April 2023 [1].

Portland Spy Ring edit

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 06:28, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Portland spy ring was one of the controversies in the Macmillan government at the start of the 1960s. It was one of a series of spy scandals that rocked the British establishment throughout the decade (it was uncovered between the scandals of Burgess/Maclean and George Blake), and a coup for the Soviets, providing their submarine fleet with details of British technological advances that they copied. Any constructive criticism welcome. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:28, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Looks fine to me. A couple of quibbles to prove that I read it:
    • Bell (2007) is not used.
    • Could you eliminate the two-letter abbreviations for American states? ([Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations]])
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:39, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Hawkeye. Both your points addressed. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it's not immediately evident which Portland is being talked about here, since the lede never mentions which country it is in. (I think it needs to be explicitly mentioned because there are two prominent Portlands across the pond)—indopug (talk) 20:35, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
    • ~Sigh~... Every flaming time I forget to do this. I swear it's not deliberate! Now added.- SchroCat (talk) 10:04, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest scaling up the map
  • File:Konon_Molody_1961.jpg: source link is dead. Ditto File:Morris_Cohen_spy.jpg, File:Rab_Butler.png, File:Lona_and_Morris_Cohen_1969.jpg
    • OK, These now have updated and archived links - SchroCat (talk) 10:18, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm. The first two of these have a UPI credit statement on the back, and the last credits AP. Are we certain these were not copyrighted by those agencies? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:17, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not on the previous versions uploaded by Materialscientist, who included scans of both front and back of the images when they uploaded. - SchroCat (talk) 13:30, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Portland_Spy_-_Talc_tin_with_hidden_compartments.jpg needs a more elaborate purpose of use statement in the FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, Now beefed up a little with an explanation. Thanks as always Nikkimaria! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:22, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments edit

  • Will do a full review later, but one thing that jumped out: "obtained classified research documents [plural] and passed it [singular] to the Soviet Union." -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:07, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • ~Sigh~ Sometimes I wonder if my brain actually works...! Thanks for picking that one up - and I look forward to any further comments. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:51, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "because of the nuclear-power from the reactor" - don't think that hyphen is needed
  • "he was given a Minox" => "he was given a Minox camera"?
  • "were giving the US the information they obliged to under their NATO commitments" => "were giving the US the information they were obliged to under their NATO commitments"
  • "set in a wooden bowel" - a wooden bowel? Unless there's an obscure alternate meaning of that word of which I am unaware, I don't think this is right
  • "a battery with a removable top, containing $6,000 and the radio transmitter concealed beneath the kitchen floor" => "a battery with a removable top, containing $6,000, and the radio transmitter concealed beneath the kitchen floor". Also, could you clarify which $ this sum is in? US dollars seems a bit random, although I guess it could be correct.
  • "Lonsdale was removed from Winston Green prison" - the correct spelling is Winson Green
  • "the Portland Spy Ring and its aftermath has been described" => "the Portland Spy Ring and its aftermath have been described"
  • "$6,000 in 1960 equates the equivalent to" => "$6,000 in 1960 equates to"
  • Think that's it :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many thanks Chris - All covered now. Thanks very much for your comments - they are all much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:26, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:21, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SN54129 edit

  • Under the Cohens, second para, I'd suggest inserting a (some?) date there. This is because atm the reader has to click away to find out when the Verona project started in 1943. There's then a gap of 13 years in which they don't do any thing? I guess if they don't do anything related to the PSR, that's fair enough, but a date to anchor the leaving UIS, etc, would be useful. SN54129 13:35, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks SN54129. I've added the date they left the US. There's still a gap in their biographies, but it should (hopefully) be enough for this article. Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 09:39, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, that's the ticket! SN54129 12:11, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Polish spy Michael Goleniewski about a spy in the Admiralty" - seems a shame to repeat spy like that; "a leak in the admiralty" or something?
  • " MI5 surveillance " - to clarify who the beggars are for the first time, introduce them as domestic intelligence or something.
  • "In the early 1950s" - it rather sounds as though it would read better at the beginning of the para rather than the end: i.e. what they experimented on in the 50s resulted in the Dreadnought and its radar in the 60s.
  • Congratulations are certainly due to Molody on his being recruited by an organisation that would not come into existence for another 14 years... the KGB  ;) (ditto 1st chief directorate)
    • That was rather sloppy! Both by source in merging the two organisations and me for not picking up on it! - SchroCat (talk) 14:40, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any idea how much the Renault cost? Somewhere between the £20 on booze and %150 on the radio, but its relative worth would be interesting to know.
    • It's not recorded, unfortunately. - SchroCat (talk) 14:40, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might be worth adding in "to Katrina" ("Before his marriage broke up"), as she hasn't been mentioned for a while. Or perhaps "Katrina, thinking it could".
  • A seventy five meter tall mast in Ruislip?! And no-one noticed! Any idea how they pulled that one off?
    • 75 metre long, not high! I suspect it was wound round the attic a couple of times, but the various sources just deal with the length, rather than the set up. - SchroCat (talk) 14:40, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The radio under the kitchen floor, is this the same radio that was under the cellar floor earlier?
  • Compare the sentence, "he was an illegal—a member of a foreign government working in London under an operational cover" with that of the Molody section: "an illegal agent—a spy working undercover in a foreign territory with no diplomatic immunity". They're extremely similarly phrased, but also, illegal links to two different places in both?
  • "deciphering them using copies of the one-time pads from the bank" - H'mmm, well of course, one-time pads were just that-use once. Was he receiving monthly replacemts? (I guess, but!)
    • It's not covered. I presume he was getting resupplied when he went on his European trips or maybe in London, but there's no mention of it. - SchroCat (talk) 14:40, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the bag Gee had been carrying" - In McGee's bag?
  • Any idea why Houghton "didn't dare" tell the full story in court? One might have thought it would have been to his advantage.
    • I think much of it would have made it worse for him, but he doesn't really expand on the point in his rather whiny autobiography. - SchroCat (talk) 14:40, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No conclusions 1-4?! Perhaps an explanatory note a lá "after making four points regarding..." whatever.
  • Great article, cheers! SN54129 13:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nicely attended to  :) and a really interesting article. Almost disappointed in the mundanity of the arial though - I liked the idea of some sort of Eiffel Ruislip that no-one ever noticed. Russell T Davies, eat your heart out! Anyway, happy to support this fine article for promotion to featured status. SN54129 15:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt edit

Just a few things.
  • I might wiki link caravan, as the word's not the same meaning in AmEng.
  • You learn something new every day - now linked - SchroCat (talk) 15:08, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "one-time pads and map references." Could this be better explained?
  • "He was honoured by the Russian government in 1990 by appearing on a stamp." Would you rather stick to "Soviet"?
  • " Wynne had been the subject of a show trial in May 1963" Probably "was" for "had been". Do we need to say "show trial" if we're saying in Wikipedia's voice that he was guilty? Also I imagine the Soviets conducted the trial as I see from Wynne's article he was held in the Lubyanka?
  • The source refers to it as a show trial too. I think the term can be applied even if the party is guilty - it's the propaganda value that makes it a show trial (Gary Powers was certainly guilty of spying and his trial is also widely described as such). I've added that it was held in Moscow - is that enough to cover the Soviet angle? - SchroCat (talk) 15:08, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Wehwalt - I'm much obliged as always. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:08, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wehwalt (talk) 15:40, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Hawkeye7 - pass edit

  • All the references are nicely formatted.
  • Speller (2005) Page numbers? Also: use title case for book title
  • Siddique (2019) Access date?
  • Spot checks: 7, 21, 22, 77, 90, 93, 108 - all okay

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:22, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hawkeye7 - both points addressed. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:38, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ian edit

Recusing coord duties to review... Copyedited as usual, let me know any concerns. The only outstanding query I have is re. It contained a type 2001 sonar, described by the naval historian Iain Ballantyne as "immensely powerful", because of the nuclear power from the reactor could "detect threats using active sonar at unprecedented ranges for both ships and submarines". -- not sure about the expression of the final clause, can I confirm we mean that the sub's nuclear reactor allowed the sonar to detect threats at unprecedented ranges? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:06, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ian, I think our wording here is likely the issue. The source says:

Another massive leap forward in terms of offensive war-fighting was the immensely powerful Type 2001 sonar the Soviets had been so keen to gain insight into via the Portland spies. With a limitless energy supply from the reactor, Dreadnought could detect threats using active sonar at unprecedented ranges for both ships and submarines.

What we says does reflect what the source says. I've made a very minor tweak (deleting the struck through part of your quoted section above), but if you have any ideas on how to improve further, I'd welcome them. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:45, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing more needed, removing that "of" does the trick entirely, tks Schro.
Given the above, and the earlier image and source reviews, happy to support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:55, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley edit

Apologies for finding new quibbles on top of those I came up with at PR. Nothing of any consequence – merely drafting points:

  • "Much of the development work for the HMS Dreadnought" – I think it's either "the Dreadnought" or "HMS Dreadnought" and not both together.
    • Butting in, very true -- how did I miss that? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • He was given the identity of the Canadian national Gordon Lonsdale – unless there was a real Canadian whom he was impersonating I think an indefinite rather than a definite article might be clearer, with a comma before "Gordon". (Not, one assumes, Gordon from the slipper baths.)
  • There was a real person of that name - a dead child who would have been around the same age. (A common trick once upon a time - used in real life and as a plot device in many thrillers, including The Day of the Jackal. - SchroCat (talk) 09:19, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the USSR were able to test their first nuclear device four years later" – is the USSR plural? I don't, for instance, think I'd write "the United States were"
    • (They certainly tried to be when the UN was set up and tried to get multiple seats for each of the republics, rather than the one given for the USSR. All of which doesn't get away from the fact that I've changed to the singular here)
  • "they moved to 45 Cranley Drive, Ruislip…. 190 Strand, London" – does giving the street numbers add anything useful?
  • "he was receiving no bonuses from the Russians, so he was short of cash" – I must have bored you before with my antediluvian insistence that "so" is not a conjunction in formal written English. "and so" is what you want, me judice.
  • "He would then contact Moscow … alerting them of what was being sent" – another unexpected plural for the USSR.
  • Afterthought: and does one alert people "of" something rather than "to" it? Tim riley talk 21:55, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "GCHQ were alerted" – I don't boggle at the plural verb, but I think a few words in the text introducing GCHQ and explaining its role would be helpful. (I know there's a blue link, but …)
  • "copies of 4 confidential AUWE files" – usual to put numbers up to ten in words rather than digits.
    • True, but there is "310 photographs" a few words on and we're supposed to be consistent
  • "Two impages of a talcum powder tin: a phoeograph" – spelling.
  • "the attorney general, Reginald Manningham-Buller… the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Parker" – one of these days I am going to become seriously unhinged trying to cope with Wikipedia's policies on capitalising, or not capitalising, job titles. For the moment, while still comparatively sane, I merely point out that if the Attorney General is lower cased there is no obvious reason to capitalise the LCJ.
    • The capitalisation guidelines are so arse-about-face that I am constantly tying myself into knots over what the correct form should be... - SchroCat (talk) 09:19, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Later, after a glass or two of chianti: if I thought I could I could get away with it I'd capitalise everything in sight and to Hell with the MoS. Kindly don't tell anyone I said this. Tim riley talk 21:41, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan" … Hugh Gaitskell—the leader of the Labour Party and leader of the opposition – ditto. I think I need to go and lie down now with a copy of Fowler under my pillow.

That's my lot. Over to you. – Tim riley talk 20:50, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most done, just GCHQ to sort - SchroCat (talk) 09:19, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Tim, All now done, except the one on numbers. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:32, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pleased to add my support here. The article is as far as I can see comprehensive and balanced, and well and widely referenced, a pleasure to read and surprisingly well illustrated for a piece covering the period in question. Meets all the FA criteria in my view. – Tim riley talk 14:17, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any reason why a publisher is not given for Hayes? Which I assume would be Robinson. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:36, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Gog. Oversight on that one - now added. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:40, 10 April 2023 (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://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Portland_Spy_Ring/archive1&oldid=1149235100"