Talk:Northolt siege

Latest comment: 1 year ago by Applodion in topic References
Featured articleNortholt siege 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 February 8, 2023.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 13, 2022Featured article candidatePromoted


Description

edit

The opening line on the description section feels like it needs something before it to give an introduction to the situation. The fact explained could be appropriate if there was something showing why it’s currently relevant. MeeiMaple (talk) 06:18, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

It's mostly known today because it's the first time a member of a specialist firearms squad actually shot someone, which is mentioned in the second sentence of the lead. Do you have a suggestion for improvement? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:56, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hackney siege

edit

I have changed the 'See Also' section. The see also section mentions the Hackey Siege being in 2000. This is not correct as per many sources on Google and the prolonged siege started Christmas 2002 and ended New Year 2003. Not in 2000 at all. Just something for the 'experts' who put that in the article who have no doubt never been involved in the Policing world in any way, shape or form. 2A00:23C6:938B:DC01:1115:B8BC:7E11:8A51 (talk) 12:44, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

You're correct. Thank you for spotting that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:45, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Contemporary pictures

edit

I note that this article contains no pictures that were taken at or near the time of the incident: the photos are from 2022, and the map is undated (but appears recent). There are no pix of Walker, of the stakeout, or any of the victims. Surely these exist somewhere. Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 00:20, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Piledhigheranddeeper: None that are usable on Wikipedia. As far as I can tell, they're all held by photo agencies like Getty so their use is prohibited by policy unless the image itself is the subject of discussion in the article (WP:GETTY, point 7). That's the main reason I included the external link to the news clip. (Though I don't think a photo of any of the victims would be appropriate anyway.) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:02, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

At the time, it looked little different, certainly in terms of colour scheme to look at from a distance. I appreciate that renovation would have taken place after, but at the time it looked no real different visually from the picture. 2A00:23C6:938B:DC01:1D09:8583:854C:7B5C (talk) 16:08, 10 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Errol Walker

edit

The article doesn't say anything about Walker's life after he was sent to prison. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:14, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

I haven't been able to find any source material, otherwise I would have included it. This event pops up in the news every now and then, usually after a high-profile police shooting or when Tony Long gives an interview for something, but otherwise it doesn't get much attention these days. He didn't get a whole life order so my guess is he was released after 15-20 years and he could still be around. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:09, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
This article lacks a great deal of information in the public domain. It gives no real background to the incident and no real information on the subsequent charging and court case overly. 2A00:23C6:938B:DC01:1D09:8583:854C:7B5C (talk) 16:08, 10 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
What information is missing that's available in the public domain? If there are reliable, secondary sources (books, journals, news reports) for it, let me know where I can find them and I'll happily include it. I'm always happy to acquire more source material; all the books currently cited are on my bookshelf. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:52, 10 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

References

edit

Since I was reverted, I would like to point out that listing the footnotes behind the bibliography does not conform to either wikipedia nor academic standards. It also looks ugly and weird which is unfortunate for an otherwise so well-written article. Applodion (talk) 20:17, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply