Jump to content

Talk:2020–2022 catalytic converter theft ring

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 13:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Moved to mainspace by Queen of Hearts (talk). Nominated by CommissarDoggo (talk), Queen of Hearts (talk), Epicgenius (talk), and Vami_IV (talk) at 21:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/2020–2022 catalytic converter theft ring; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

@Queen of Hearts, CommissarDoggo, and Epicgenius: CommissarDoggo is qpq exempt but I have I donated a qpq anyway. The article was 5x expanded and the hook is interesting and cited in the article - in two separate spots. It is sourced, cited and neutral. No image has been offered here, Before I can continue with a review we need to address quite a bit of WP:CLOP see here. Lightburst (talk) 02:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lightburst: Thanks for pointing this out, over the past couple hours I managed to reduce similarity to 65% on the HuffPost source, most of which is now down to either quotes or facts. Same goes for another source used across the article, Bloomberg, which I reduced to 79%. At this point I'd welcome an independent editor to rewrite sections to reduce it further, as I'm drawing blanks on where else I can do so. CommissarDoggoTalk? 15:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CommissarDoggo: Will wait to hear from the other co-nominators. Lightburst (talk) 15:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to my co-nominators, I think some sentences can be further rewritten. Although much of the text Earwig flagged is direct quotes, there are also phrases like "showed Curtis the ins and outs" and "in December 2019 the price of rhodium stood at $6,000" that aren't just stating simple facts. I'll have a go at rephrasing these later. Epicgenius (talk) 15:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some clop has been reduced for matches with the first two results. It only shows quote matches now. But the third source {Huffpost} shows some clop that needs attention. Lightburst (talk) 15:52, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Finally sat down to try and get rid of a bunch, please re-check the sources at your leisure to see whether any further rewriting is necessary. CommissarDoggoTalk? 00:27, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since there's been a lapse of a couple weeks here, I'll jump in and re-review. Close paraphrasing has been sufficiently reduced, I think; article remains DYK-eligible as of the time of submission; article and hook remain sourced, cited, and neutral. Hook is interesting, article is fascinating. Good to go. This one's for you, Vami. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 18:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What a great article. I really want to promote it, but I'm getting stuck on the wording of the hook. How do we know that it generated $545 million in revenue? NBC News suggests the U.S. Justice Department is seeking to recover $545 million (which suggests $545 million was generated but is a little different), while HuffPost says that DG Auto received $545 million from two companies (but isn't it possible some of that revenue was "legitimate"?). Somehow the hook seems too "concrete". @Vami IV, Queen of Hearts, Epicgenius, and CommissarDoggo: Would you be willing to reword or propose some ALT hooks? Cielquiparle (talk) 11:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cielquiparle: To clarify, the forfeiture the government was looking for was in regards to how much money Dowa Metals and Mining America (a single company that operates as the US branch of Dowa Holdings, Japan) provided to DG Auto Parts for the precious metal dust they received from DG Auto Parts' operation. This is also noted here: https://archive.ph/20231218000134/https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2023-catalytic-converter-theft-ring/ - There was still the matter of DG Auto’s refiner, which investigators had identified early on as the source of the money—all $545 million they ultimately counted—that had passed through DG Auto’s operation: Dowa Metals & Mining America, in Burlington, New Jersey.
As for the Huffpost source, the source says From October 2019 to October 2022, Vang Auto sold $38 million worth of converters to DG Auto. Over that span, DG Auto received $545 million from Dowa Metals and Mining America. Those are two separate entities, with Vang Auto being a catalytic converter theft operation in California. Those are also two separate figures, with Vang Auto selling $38m worth of stolen catalytic converters to DG Auto Parts, who would then decan them and send the precious metal dust to Dowa Metals and Mining America.
While yes it is true that some of the money gained through these sales to Dowa Metals and Mining America were from legitimate sources of catalytic converters (there were several mentions to this in sources - I think I mentioned some from Bloomberg and from Huffpost but I could be wrong - from people either willing or unwilling to mention their names due to the unwanted attention they may receive), the large majority of the sales were from illegitimate sources. CommissarDoggoTalk? 12:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Seasons

[edit]

I see some overlinks to seasons, which should be changed to months if possible given the global audience (see MOS:SEASONS). Would that be possible before it hits the Main Page? Best, Sdkb talk 17:32, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's been edited now to fit that, if you see fit to change it to anything else then please feel free. CommissarDoggoTalk? 17:53, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Final Project Vami_IV worked on.

[edit]

It's sad that this is the final article that Vami ever worked on. 3.14 (talk) 23:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is sometimes strange to think about, I will admit. It was only a couple of paragraphs, some references, an image and some notes when Vami left it. He probably would've come back to it the next day, then the next and the next until it was done, likely to a quality that would've had it as an FA within a fortnight; yet another 4 Award.
I, like many others, would have loved to see what Vami might have done with it given the time, though I hope he would have at least been proud of what it is today. CommissarDoggoTalk? 00:05, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Truer words have never been spoken before. Did you give his eulogy? (The eulogy bit is a joke) 3.14 (talk) 00:07, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
Passed. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:2020–2022 catalytic converter theft ring/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: CommissarDoggo (talk · contribs) 21:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: IntentionallyDense (talk · contribs) 03:44, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


This looks interesting. I'll review shortly. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:44, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. Prose is good. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Per below. IntentionallyDense (talk) 04:03, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Issues have been fixed IntentionallyDense (talk) 00:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. IntentionallyDense (talk) 04:03, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). I spot-checked some of the more used sources as well as some random ones and found no issues. IntentionallyDense (talk) 04:03, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2c. it contains no original research. IntentionallyDense (talk) 00:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. IntentionallyDense (talk) 00:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Broad. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. IntentionallyDense (talk) 04:03, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. IntentionallyDense (talk) 04:03, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. IntentionallyDense (talk) 04:03, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
7. Overall assessment. Prose is good, well sourced, article passes GAC. I had a blast with this review! IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason that the lead has sources is because of Its dismantlement in 2022 was described as the first known interdiction of such a criminal scheme, which didn't appear to fit anywhere else at the time, however I'll take a peek around at the Aftermath section as it should fit in there nicely. CommissarDoggoTalk? 09:29, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As for how short it is, I'll mess about with it and see how much it can be expanded, as there's definitely plenty to go in. CommissarDoggoTalk? 09:32, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Visually the lead looks much better already but I will do a more thourough read through later. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thank you. CommissarDoggoTalk? 09:46, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]
  • generated $545 million Is that the amount they sold it for or the value of what they sold? Could you clarify? IntentionallyDense (talk) 04:17, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Strangely I don't believe any sources actually stated definitively whether it was the actual value that they sold it for or the damages. Just based on the wording of the sources used I'd say it's revenue generated, as I believe that's the wording used in the DoJ releases, but I'll go back into the sources and try to find some clarity. CommissarDoggoTalk? 09:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • with the majority earned through the DG Auto Parts corporation Is this the company they sold the converters to? If so could you specify that? IntentionallyDense (talk) 04:17, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ...Strangely enough I don't actually know where I got that from, I'll clarify it. CommissarDoggoTalk? 09:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The money earned would then be divided between the owners of the company I may be overthinking but was the money divided between the owners of DG Auto Parts or the criminal group? IntentionallyDense (talk) 04:17, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nah you're not overthinking, it is a bit weirdly worded. CommissarDoggoTalk? 09:56, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The investigation began in late 2020 and early 2021 in Oklahoma during a wave of catalytic converter thefts in Tulsa. What prompted the investigation? Was it the stolen converters? If so maybe reword to reflect that. IntentionallyDense (talk) 04:17, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The investigation was prompted by the wave of catalytic converter thefts, however weirdly enough I can't find the exact reason why I worded it like that in the main body, but I'm fairly certain it came from source 17; "Oklahoma, like the rest of the country, had been experiencing an astonishing rise in thefts of the devices...The officers called in a lieutenant who’d been working with the FBI to investigate the wave of thefts...The case might have ended there. But in the months before the traffic stop, as the police tried to get a handle on the theft problem," Regardless, I'll reword it to reflect the source better and to clarify things. CommissarDoggoTalk? 10:05, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your changes to the lead so far have made a lot of improvement, thank you! IntentionallyDense (talk) 17:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • By September, a team of investigators had linked Curtis Cores, a company owned by Tyler Curtis then suspected of buying and selling stolen catalytic converters, with DG Auto Parts, a company in Freehold, New Jersey, which was a recipient of the stolen catalytic converters, owned by Navin and Tinu Khanna. This is a really long and somewhat hard-to-follow sentence. Could you rephrase a bit? IntentionallyDense (talk) 04:17, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Background

[edit]

Initial investigation

[edit]
  • The police then attempted to flip the cutters for their fences. Could you expand on what this means? Specifically the usage of the terms "flip" and "fences". IntentionallyDense (talk) 17:37, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Would this be any better? CommissarDoggoTalk? 18:17, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:18, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The warehouse was owned by Tyler Curtis Which warehouse? IntentionallyDense (talk) 17:37, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The warehouse directly refers to the prior sentence, "In May 2021, GPS tracked Low's vehicle to an automobile recycling warehouse on Oklahoma State Highway 51 in Broken Arrow." CommissarDoggoTalk? 18:15, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops thanks for pointing this out. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:18, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • improbably-named Kansas Core What do you mean by this? IntentionallyDense (talk) 04:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several weeks after Kansas Core gained the warrant to surveil Curtis Cores, he gained a search warrant for Curtis's Facebook account. Is the Kansas Core one person? IntentionallyDense (talk) 04:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to answer both this and the prior question with the same answer as I feel they might be related, that and it's very fun to explain it. Kansas Core is one person, he's one of the initial investigators on the case. I didn't initially write about how improbable his name was, that was later added for clarification. I originally wrote his full name, Kansas Core, and then in later inclusions simply stated his last name, as per policy. This turned out to be somewhat of an issue I was blind to, as noted on a reply to a Twitter post by Depths of Wikipedia on the article that it was quite confusing that a man with the last name Core was investigating Curtis Cores. As such, all subsequent uses contained his full name to maintain clarity.
    It was later put in invisible text I believe during or directly following the DYK that an editor simply didn't believe that that was his name, wish I could find the diff. It was later stated that that is in fact his name, and the source specifically states; Yet the case still might have fizzled if not for the presence, in Tulsa’s Riverside Street Crimes Unit, of an officer with the improbable name Kansas Core ... The cat racket was hardly a choice assignment. “There’s this ‘We don’t care about catalytic converters, because it’s a property crime’ ” camp at the department, Staggs says. “It’s not a sexy crime. It’s not the robberies and the homicides.” When the previous commander gave Core the case, it wasn’t exactly hazing, but it wasn’t far off. “I’m pretty sure that lieutenant basically was like, ‘Core, you’re the up-and-coming guy,’ ” Staggs says. “ ‘Your last name is Core, and all the criminals call these cores. Here you go.’ ”
    It was then later added by another user how improbable the name is, reflecting the wording in the source, leading to the current improbably-named Kansas Core wording. If you want it changed then by all means, I just thought I'd explain the whole thing. CommissarDoggoTalk? 09:48, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh that makes much more sense thank you for clarifying. No need to change anything I was just very confused. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:58, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edwards "I didn't deal with that guy [Navin Khanna] much. Curtis dealt with him...I did talk to the guy—just kind of rubbed me the wrong way." I think this is meant to say "Edwards said". IntentionallyDense (talk) 04:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I, in fact, most certainly did. CommissarDoggoTalk? 09:50, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dismantling the state theft rings

[edit]

Sting operations at DG Auto Parts

[edit]

Operation Heavy Metal

[edit]

Aftermath

[edit]

Overall

[edit]

What an interesting article. I really enjoyed doing this review. I hope the amount of feedback I gave hasn't been discouraging at all. Thank you for getting back to me so quickly throughout this review. I believe with some very minor tweaks regarding prose this article meets GAC. IntentionallyDense (talk) 01:51, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries at all, I'm just glad it's almost across the line after all this time, and the amount of feedback definitely wasn't discouraging. I'm actually pretty happy to have finally learned how to avoid proseline haha
I'm really glad you liked it, because I had an absolute blast researching and finishing it off for Vami back then. CommissarDoggoTalk? 11:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Everything looks good. I'm going to go ahead and pass this! IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2020–2022_catalytic_converter_theft_ring&oldid=1253983851"