Talk:Obscene Publications Act 1959/GA1

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

Reviewer: Sh i r ik  ( Questions or Comments? ) 04:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Well written

 * (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct
 * Very good. I only have one concern. This phrase in the lede: "significantly reformed the law relating to obscenity" seems confusing. Does it address multiple laws or just one? If it's one law, it should be "related to". If it's multiple laws, it should be "reformed laws". (Note: I made some additional copy edits myself.)
 * OK after fixes.


 * (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation
 * There seems to be excessive detail in the lede. Would it be possible to take some of this content out and move it to a content section instead?


 * Fixed both. Ironholds (talk) 07:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm still concerned about the lede's first paragraph being a bit too detailed. Is there no way to trim it? -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 18:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * further tweaked. Ironholds (talk) 18:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll take that. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 20:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Factually written and verifiable

 * (a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout
 * Well-referenced


 * (b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines
 * Inline citations are appropriate


 * (c) it contains no original research
 * No original research visible

Broad in its coverage

 * (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic
 * Detailed and thorough


 * (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
 * Article does not become confusing due to detail, except for the detail in the lead which was discussed in the above section.

Neutral

 * it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
 * Clearly neutral

Stable

 * it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Illustrated, if possible

 * (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content
 * All ok


 * (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions
 * Captions might be able to be expanded, but they are OK as is.

General comments

 * User:Hamiltonstone raises some interesting points that should be addressed below, though I don't share the NPOV concerns. I personally have concerns about the lede that should be addressed. If these concerns are addressed I see no reason that this can't pass.

Overall
Article is on hold while the above and below issues are addressed. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 05:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * With the given changes I'm satisfied that this meets the GA criteria. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 20:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments from another reviewer

 * Quotes Lord as saying "was the first trumpet call of the permissive society, the moment many believe that British morality, manners and family life began seriously to deteriorate". This remark, if correctly quoted, suggests a very strong - and i would suggest somewhat fringe - POV on the part of that author. It calls into question the reliability of the Lord book as a source for some of the other sections (such as the account of the Oz trial). Are you sure this is not Lord quoting someone else? If not, then i would question the neutrality of the WP article as a result.Ironholds (talk) 06:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Look at the article on Graham Lord for reliability. I'll pull the book out and see if it is a quote (it may well be)
 * It is not a quote, but Lord is hardly an unreliable or POV source; he's a mainstream professional writer. Note that he's saying "many believe", not "I believe" or "it was the moment when British culture went down the toilet". Ironholds (talk) 08:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Even mainstream professional writers can have clear POVs (ever read an Arthur Hailey novel?) - frankly, i absolutely read that sentence as a polite version of "it was the moment when British culture went down the toilet" - it was an extraordinary quote that stopped me in my tracks and immediately made me assume the author was right-wing fringe. And i don't know of any data to suggest that "many" believe any such thing. If there are no contrary reliable sources, then there's not much to be done, but it strikes me as pretty wacky. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Regardless of the above issue, i'm not sure the research and writing about the Oz trial should rely primarily on the Lord book. I think Geoffrey Robertson and others have also written on this case, and an analysis of it from the point of view of the Act, rather than through the prism of Mortimer's biography, would be useful.
 * I've got some sources, so I'll check them out. Ironholds (talk) 06:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's fairly simple from the point of view of the Act; there aren't really sources which address Oz's application of the law directly. I don't have a copy of the Robertson book, although I did find a journal article by Williams analysing the case which I've attempted to include. Ironholds (talk) 08:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's an improvement. Others that could be checked at some point:
 * Realistic Look at Expert Witnesses in Obscenity Cases (1974)
 * 'Return to Oz', Index on Censorship, Volume 37, Number 3, August 2008
 * I'm not suggesting these for GA! hamiltonstone (talk) 00:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Impact and assessment - this section is too cryptic to a lay reader: for example, the first sentence refers to "the test", but this needs to be explained. The sections talks about the Act being "deficient", but i'm not sure whether that may be the POV of some commentators - it is common in a field like this for some to say an Act is deficient because too strict, while others say it is deficient for the opposite reason. The claim that the act has been "under enforced" is an example where i would be very cautious. Is there really a consensus amongst analysts that this is the case? I would have thought there are those who think the opposite.
 * Under-enforced considering the amount of material which, under the Act, would be determined as "obscene"; it's not advocating for more enforcement. In regards to deficient, see the reasons and examples given afterwards; those are the justification for the statement. The passage of the 1964 Act, which directly fixed those problems, is evidence that they were seen as issues. Ironholds (talk) 06:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that only partly addresses my concern: we have one source, Edwards, that appears to be claiming: "in 1996 there were 562 cases brought, in which 324 individuals were convicted, which is noted as a small number despite the increasing prevalence of pornographic and "obscene" material.[37] Even with this small number of trials, only a third of convictions resulted in prison sentences, and only a small number of cases went to jury trials." Maybe it is just me, but 562 cases and 324 convictions in one year seems staggeringly high. I was amazed. This isn't my field at all, but as a lay person my reaction was that this looked like over -enforcement, which made me wonder about Edwards' approach. I've checked her CV and she is a highly reputable researcher, but i've been unable to access the article. Anyway, i'll take her word for it... hamiltonstone (talk) 00:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Just a few points. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)