Wikipedia:Peer review/Great Gold Robbery/archive1

Great Gold Robbery

A fascinating tale this. A robbery in 1855 on a moving train which netted over £1 million in today's money. They nearly got away with it too, but the long arm of the Peelers got them in the end. A shot at FAC is considered after this. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:02, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Comments from HAL

I read Crichton's novel and watched his film a few years back and enjoyed them. Jerry Goldsmith's soundtrack is also quite good—I had to play it as I reviewed this. Let's see how the real deal holds up:

• at least four times a day: 8:00 am, 11:30 am and 4:30 pm, an overnight mail service that left at 8:30 pm and a tidal ferry service That's five — is one of these less frequent?
• Is Railway Mania an appropriate link for the "railway boom"?

• Possibly. The source doesn't make it clear and the dates don't match up 100 per cent, but I'll have a dig round to see if there is something else that makes it more clear. - SchroCat (talk) 09:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

• as a General Manager for a Swedish railway company If it's only a GM, should the position be capitalized here? It's not capitalized later in the "Discovery, investigation and arrest" section.
• Alt text is needed for the images
• "in which railway employees also drank" -- > "that railway employees frequented" or something of the sort to improve flow
• to send £200 of gold Consider adding the modern value in parentheses
• who made an impression of it in wax --> "who made a wax impression"
• The key was returned and A comma is needed after the "and" as it is followed by an independent clause
• two long hundredweight (220 lb) Might want to add the kilogram value as well
• valued at the time at £12,000 I would include the (modern value) as well.
• £300 reward notice / A reward of £300 Same as previous ones -- I'll stop listing these assuming you get to them

• Most of these are footnoted, but I've added a couple that I missed previously - SchroCat (talk) 09:48, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

• in Turkish bonds -- "bonds" is present earlier in the article but is unlinked
• An investigation was undertaken at Cambridge Villa, and evidence found that corroborated her story Is that second clause worded correctly? Might remove that comma as well
• ten days or two weeks I'm assuming these two durations are from different sources? Maybe just write "about two weeks"? Up to you of course
• As the Edwin Fox stills exists, it might be interesting to add an image of it - but purely your choice again.
• The single line paragraph starting One of the strongboxes... is a little ungainly. It interrupts the fairly chronological flow of the other first two paragraphs. I might just move it to the end, or integrate it into another paragraph or a note.

• Removed. - SchroCat (talk) 10:28, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

• Maybe add a footnote that Crichton's film is called The Great Train Robbery in America.

• I think that's a bit too tangential - it's on the page for the film's article. - SchroCat (talk) 10:28, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

That's all. An engaging read. ~ HAL333 20:02, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

• Many thanks HAL333 - most adopted, although I still have to work on the alt texts and do a bit of digging on one other. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:28, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

Unless I am going completely ga-ga (answers on a postcard, please) I have reviewed this article before, some time ago, though when, where and for what I cannot recall. Be that as it may:

• Lead

• "The Great Gold Robbery took place..." – I am just a little uneasy at annexing this term for exclusively British use. I imagine other countries had their own great gold robberies. Not sure how I'd address this, though. Something on the lines of "The Great Gold Robbery" in British usage refers to ...? Or something on those lines?

• I think we're allowed this, as no-one else has claimed this as a name for a similar event (and we're allowed it under WP rules too), so I think I'll keep it here and see if anyone else complains here or at FAC. - SchroCat (talk) 09:01, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

• That's a thoroughly statesmanlike and practical approach, I'd say. Tim riley talk 19:27, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

• "employees of South Eastern Railway" – but in the body of the text you give the South Eastern Railway its definite article, which I think is probably right.
• "Pierce agreed, then reneged. In need of money, she went to the governor" – Pierce appears to have changed sex between sentences. (And I'm not wild about pressing "then" into service as a conjunction, and would, in my old-fogeyish way, prefer "and then".)

• Background

• "shipments of gold ... this could be several hundredweights" – "these" might perhaps be preferable to "this", but I do not press the point.
• "Messageries Impériales" – upper case I in Impériales looks dubious to me, but let me not get started on French capitalisation, which is a wicked conspiracy to confuse the innocent Anglo-Saxon.

• Participants

• "employee of SER who had been dismissed from their service" but later "worked at SER since it had started running the Folkestone line" – need to decide if SER is singular or plural. (Either is all right in my book, but it should be one or t'other.)

• I fear my suggestion has mucked up your prose at this point: the text now reads: The originator of the plan was William Pierce, a 37-year-old former employee of SER who had been dismissed from its service after they found he was a gambler, which leaves the "they" with no plural noun to refer back to. Perhaps something on the lines of "...of SER whom the company had dismissed after discovering he was a gambler"? Tim riley talk 19:27, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

• Many thanks Tim riley - and well spotted! I've reworked it slightly here to avoid the issue. Please do let me know if I've created some domino effect in moving a different error to a different place! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:58, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

• access to information about the transportation" – here and elsewhere, "transportation" is not wrong, but wherever possible, as here, I'd go for the shorter "transport", particularly as you used "transportation" in its penal sense elsewhere in the article. Again, I don't press the point.

• Planning and preparation

• "Agar waited at the door on look out" – the OED doesn't hyphenate "lookout" in this sense.

• Robbery

• "returned to the SER offices London" – is there an "in" missing here?
• "so he could be seen" – I'd prefer "so that he could be seen" but fine if you demur.

• Discovery, investigation and arrest,

• "so Rees returned" – I do not think "so" is a conjunction in formal English, and I'd prefer "and so Rees returned". (Similarly in the next sentence, too.) Nobody under sixty is likely to agree with me, but what do they know?

Them's my cavils and quibbles about the prose. None from me about the content, clarity or structure. It's a cracking narrative and I enjoyed the article extravagantly. I look forward to its appearance at FAC. Pray ping me. Tim riley talk 21:37, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks. I have demurred on one point (pending any comments here or elsewhere), but the others have all been duly dealt with. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:01, 5 January 2023 (UTC)