The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot ( talk) 11:26, 4 March 2016 [1].
The Siege of Sidney Street was the culmination of a two-and-a-half week investigation by the two police forces of London, following a bungled burglary by Latvian agitators. Three policemen were murdered in the burglary, and two more were badly injured (it is still the blackest event in British police history). The siege itself was made all the more interesting by the fact it was captured on the cameras of Pathé News, and the presence of the Home Secretary, Winston Churchill. This article had a great PR, with some hugely helpful and constructive comments throughout. Cheers – SchroCat ( talk) 16:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Support A very happy PR customer, I think having such a high quality article on this sort of event exemplifies the strength of wikipedia. No doubt it'll be the best and most concise overall article about it you'll find. Clearly meets the criteria.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Support – I have read this again today and think that it has vastly improved since the PR. I feel this meets all the necessary criteria to be considered featured content. Cassianto Talk 18:14, 23 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Source review - spotchecks not done
Comments Support by EddieHugh
And a couple of broader things. A map for each incident's location would be ideal for following where the various people went. I know that it's topical now, but is there sufficient evidence to conclude that the events (the robbery in particular) were done for revolutionary reasons? Based on this article, there doesn't seem to be, which means that the early stressing of immigration and crimes by radicals might be overdone: apart from language problems and the short paragraph on the Alien Bill, this aspect fades away. A lively read overall. EddieHugh ( talk) 16:28, 24 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Support – Another peer reviewer looking in. Excellent then, excellent now. Meets the FA criteria, in my view. Tim riley talk 16:57, 24 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Support: I had a great deal to say at peer review, where much useful article building was done. That leaves me with very little to say here, beyond that it's a very interesting story that deserves to be better known. As a matter of curiosity, we have near my home a one-man decorating business that styles himself "Peter the Painter". It couldn't be, could it...? Of course, he'd be about 140 now, so unlikely. But I'll be wary of employing him. Brianboulton ( talk) 17:11, 28 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Support and comments: my own patrilineal ancestry and last name go back to a Russian who arrived in London's East End as a young boy around 1900, so I'm sure he would have a thing or two to say about this! He was a bit of a ne'er-do-well, I've always been told, so perhaps he was even tangentially involved... family lore has it that "Asher" ("Ашер" in Russian) was just one of several aliases. Anyway, I enjoyed this article very much, and have just a few quibbles, none of which detract with my support:
And that's me lot. Thanks again for the great read; whether you choose to act on the above or not I'm happy to support the nomination. Cheers and have a great end to the weekend, — Cliftonian (talk) 18:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot ( talk) 11:26, 4 March 2016 [1].
The Siege of Sidney Street was the culmination of a two-and-a-half week investigation by the two police forces of London, following a bungled burglary by Latvian agitators. Three policemen were murdered in the burglary, and two more were badly injured (it is still the blackest event in British police history). The siege itself was made all the more interesting by the fact it was captured on the cameras of Pathé News, and the presence of the Home Secretary, Winston Churchill. This article had a great PR, with some hugely helpful and constructive comments throughout. Cheers – SchroCat ( talk) 16:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Support A very happy PR customer, I think having such a high quality article on this sort of event exemplifies the strength of wikipedia. No doubt it'll be the best and most concise overall article about it you'll find. Clearly meets the criteria.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Support – I have read this again today and think that it has vastly improved since the PR. I feel this meets all the necessary criteria to be considered featured content. Cassianto Talk 18:14, 23 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Source review - spotchecks not done
Comments Support by EddieHugh
And a couple of broader things. A map for each incident's location would be ideal for following where the various people went. I know that it's topical now, but is there sufficient evidence to conclude that the events (the robbery in particular) were done for revolutionary reasons? Based on this article, there doesn't seem to be, which means that the early stressing of immigration and crimes by radicals might be overdone: apart from language problems and the short paragraph on the Alien Bill, this aspect fades away. A lively read overall. EddieHugh ( talk) 16:28, 24 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Support – Another peer reviewer looking in. Excellent then, excellent now. Meets the FA criteria, in my view. Tim riley talk 16:57, 24 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Support: I had a great deal to say at peer review, where much useful article building was done. That leaves me with very little to say here, beyond that it's a very interesting story that deserves to be better known. As a matter of curiosity, we have near my home a one-man decorating business that styles himself "Peter the Painter". It couldn't be, could it...? Of course, he'd be about 140 now, so unlikely. But I'll be wary of employing him. Brianboulton ( talk) 17:11, 28 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Support and comments: my own patrilineal ancestry and last name go back to a Russian who arrived in London's East End as a young boy around 1900, so I'm sure he would have a thing or two to say about this! He was a bit of a ne'er-do-well, I've always been told, so perhaps he was even tangentially involved... family lore has it that "Asher" ("Ашер" in Russian) was just one of several aliases. Anyway, I enjoyed this article very much, and have just a few quibbles, none of which detract with my support:
And that's me lot. Thanks again for the great read; whether you choose to act on the above or not I'm happy to support the nomination. Cheers and have a great end to the weekend, — Cliftonian (talk) 18:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC) reply