Talk:Insanity in English law/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

GA Review

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):


 * The term 'felon' or 'felony' crime in the first paragraph of the history section should be changed as felon distinction does not exist in english law maybe use indictable offence instead as would be used in the english legal system.Ironholds (talk) 20:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "felony" is used simply to mean "crime", since the insanity defence can be used in summary and either/or offences as well as indictable ones.


 * well maybe use the term crime then instead of felony as the term is not used in english criminal law. If disagree then no problem.02blythed (talk) 22:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Works for me, tweaked.
 * I would expand The M'Naghten Case details as this is the most important case in this area by far and a very famous case overall. How this would be done i do not know. Like to know your response. Not a neccessity though for a GA pass.
 * There's not much more that can be said without turning this article into a sub-article of that. Ironholds (talk) 20:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok as i said before that is fine. Not needed for GA.02blythed (talk) 22:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I would add a case example of the defect of reason criteria as you have done for disease of the mind and also the windle criteria including facts.
 * I have included one; it's called the M'Naghten Case, and features rather prominently in the article. Ironholds (talk) 20:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok though maybe highlight this in the text, with the windle case parargraph perhaps just to let all the criteria have a case example but no problem in terms of passing GA just a personal preference.02blythed (talk) 22:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * i would state in windle the brief facts as have doen for kemp which will highlight to people a typical example of how this can come about. for example i believe windle said 'i am going to be in trouble for this' to the police which shows he knew what he had done was wrong.
 * Will include. Ironholds (talk) 20:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * While he did say "I am going to be in trouble for this", this is irrelevant to the point Windle is used to illustrate, as is the facts of the case. Windle simply means (in this article) "wrong = legally wrong", which can be applied to any situation without the need for precise details. Ironholds (talk) 20:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok fair enough, no need to add it. 02blythed (talk) 22:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In the criticism section more should be able to be gathered for this i believe e.g. the case where an person diagnosed with epilepsy was found to suffer from insanity where he assaulted an old man. cannot remember case name. This gives another example on top of hennsey to illustate point about not a medical term and also that it should, be reformed to highlight this more and also the stigma attached to it.
 * I remember the case; will include.
 * Included. Ironholds (talk) 20:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Also the burden of proof is on the defendant i believe for two reasons i believe

1. it is the defence that are in the best position to prove evidence wise to ascertain if fit criteria i.e. relevant tests 2. many defendants do not want to apply for this due to the stigma associated with it as people will plead gulity to an offence instead of pleading insanity due to the stigma caused of what people associate with it even though it could be due to there diabetes and not any mental illness. If it was for the prosecution to prove this it could lead to adverse decisons even though found not gulity due to insanity, the defendant may actually feel they are worse off due to the stigma especially if charged with minor offence. Your thoughts.
 * No, those aren't the reasons, yes, the burden of proof is on the defendant and yes, I have already written that in the article. Ironholds (talk) 20:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I just thought that they were legitimate reasons why as i remember being told about the ramifications of the burden of proof while at university in my first year in law school.02blythed (talk) 22:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ahh, they are; the actual reasoning is that the defence is an active one, not a passive one. Normal defences simply require some form of evidence; provocation, for example. The insanity defence requires the defendant to actively prove that he is or was, for want of a better word, mental :P. Ironholds (talk) 22:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Although I am satisfied that everything is reliably sourced, you should place a reference on the last sentance of the article about the sacremento kings record in the 2008-09 season
 * See below point II on the gender issue. Mootros (talk) 19:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): {{GAList/check|yes}


 * b (focused):


 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * It is stable.
 * It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail: )02blythed (talk) 12:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * a Pass/Fail: )02blythed (talk) 12:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

if you follow the above things that i have combined into the prose section i will pass the article.

If have any questions please contact me p.s. this is my second ever GA review.

Additional comments

 * The Lead section does not fully outline what the current situation is in England. One only finds this later in the article. Or is this article actually about the History of Insanity in English law? Mootros (talk) 19:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ by Ironholds


 * The use of language/ factuality in terms of gender is puzzling! Does the issues of Insanity only apply to men, but not to women? Or was this the case only for men in the past? Mootros (talk)
 * Despite the high quality work and excellent effort by the contributor, considering these two points, I am not sure whether this article could pass in its current form. Mootros (talk) 19:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It is standard practice to use one gender when talking about the law, and the second paragraph summarises the modern law quite nicely in my opinion. Ironholds (talk) 20:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Ironholds which i should of pointed out before posting my previous message, in which i passed the article. Law is often used in terms of the male gender but it will always apply to both genders. therefore no problem with this. No need for any changes. 02blythed (talk) 22:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, I agree that this often the case in law. Contributors, however, would like to consider that wikipedia is not "law", but an encyclopedia for everybody. I would kindly ask you to reconsider the text written here whether it is an appropriate style and whether guiding indication might be necessary. Many thanks for your consideration. With best wishes, Mootros (talk) 11:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

GA pass
congrats i have passed the article. Good work and i hope you contribute similar work on similar high importance topics. 02blythed (talk) 22:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)