Talk:R v Bailey

Comments
I'm coming from GAN, but I don't really feel like doing a formal review, so here are some comments for another reviewer to consider. I am unfamiliar with the structure of English courts, so I don't know if the court this is coming from makes this case inherently notable, but it is troubling that this article has no secondary sources commenting on the principles this case stands for. One would expect, if this case is notable, that it would be covered in a law review article or casebook note or treatise somewhere. I don't see how this could pass without secondary sources. Mangostar (talk) 00:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

My GA Review of this article
A good article has the following attributes:


 * 1. It is well written. In this respect:
 * (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
 * (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.


 * Can this sentence either be clarified or corrected? Circumnstances acted? (personification?) "The issue to be decided was whether circumstances over which the defendant could have had some control acted in law so as to exonerate him."
 * simplified
 * With law articles, it's always difficult not to insert too much jargon. Please replace "were of insufficient cogency" with something like "lacked the relevance needed" or whatever means the same thing in this case but without the vernacular.
 * simplified
 * I'm not sure "switch-off" is the right wording here. Can you think of something else? (Perhaps it is a British idiom, though, that I don't recognize.)
 * although source law report uses those exact words, changed to "sudden loss of awareness". Hope that isn't WP:OR.
 * Jargon: Replace "adduced" with "brought forward" or something to that effect.
 * changed to "given"
 * Jargon: "lucid"
 * changed to "behave quite normally"
 * Does the first trial (before appeal) need to be listed in the infobox under Prior actions?
 * reference added as per law report.
 * 2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect, it:
 * (a) provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout;
 * (b) at minimum, 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;[2] and
 * (c) contains no original research.


 * This criterion is obviously the potential "deal-breaker". I will have to get a second opinion. Also, see Wikipedia talk:Notability.

In this regard, the article, and any article describing a legal decision, is to be regarded as a precis of that decision, maintaining the essentials, but using less jargon. It's a matter of opinion how far this has been successful but certainly, the external link satisfies WP:V. -- Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 18:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find this link. However, from OR, Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source


 * 3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect, it:
 * (a) addresses the major aspects of the topic;[3] and
 * (b) stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details (see summary style).


 * Good


 * 4. It is neutral; that is, it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.


 * Good


 * 5. It is stable; that is, it is not the subject of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Vandalism reversion, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing) and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.


 * No prior issues


 * 6. It is illustrated, where possible, by images.[4] In this respect:
 * (a) images used are tagged with their copyright status, and fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
 * (b) the images are appropriate to the topic, and have suitable captions.[5]


 * No images

Conclusion
I will request a second opinion regarding the citations issue. In the meantime, please address the other things I have noted above. Thank you! --Eustress (talk) 04:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I will seek secondary sources, but we are not describing, say a television program, we are giving a compact, easily readable version of a legal decision. -- Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 18:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I am American and so was reluctant to weigh in here at first. In the United States you would not have decisions from a court this high that did not have any independent sources.  I thought perhaps that this was different for England, but after some research I do not believe this to be the case.  With a little research I've determined that This book and this book, for example, both contain information about this case.  There's nothing wrong with R v Bailey as it stands, but as a body of secondary literature exists around Court of Appeal of England and Wales cases, I don't see how this article can be considered "GA" without using any of that literature. --JayHenry (talk) 21:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The Court of Appeal in the UK is the final arbiter on points of law unless "a point of law of general public importance" is certified to the House of Lords, so in that sense it is not final, but it is binding on all lower courts. Whether it goes to the Lords depends very much on whether the parties accept the finality of the ruling. As far as text books go, sure, the case is mentioned in most criminal law textbooks, but only mentioned, and in considerably less detail than this article. Very few of them go into in-depth analysis or criticism, and even then that's only an opinion. Here, on the other hand, we have facts, arguments and decisions in relation to a case which establishes an important point of law in relation to criminal liability. I could list books which cite this case, but a reader consulting them would not be further enlightened. -- Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 21:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps what I was saying wasn't clear, and for that I apologize. I'm not suggesting that anything currently present needs to be removed.  Facts, arguments and decisions in relation to a case are all well and good.  You have done a concise and clear summary of that information.  But law books provide context.  They explain how a decision fits into the legal framework.  I will leave this to someone more familiar with GA to decide, but saw the request for second (third really) opinion.
 * Consider how much of this argument actually could be used on an article about a TV show. Most of the important information comes from the show itself.  The setting, the characters, what happens all are determined from the show itself.  Guides to the show discuss it in considerably less detail.  One could list books which mention an episode, but a reader consulting them might not be further enlightened.  Yet we don't allow these articles that are plot summaries rewritten from the primary source to be GA.  Should we then allow an article that's a case summary rewritten from a primary source?  Your claim on the GA page is that "multiple, independent sources for articles like this do not exist."  In fact, the sources do exist, but you are arguing that it's just not necessary to use them? --JayHenry (talk) 21:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I've now added a reference to Archbold, the UK criminal practitioner's "bible", and that's a valid source, except that of course anything in there derives from the cited law report itself. I'm not sure how "independent" can be satisfied here in relation to the content of the article, because any source will have that dependence. I can't imagine the GA criteria are intended to be so inflexible that this should be a barrier, especially in the light of the citation on Primary Sources given above. -- Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 21:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, well I appreciate everyone's help and Rodhullandemu's second opinion/evaluation of the article. Given the recent citations brought to light, should we place the article on hold now and give the nominators a week to incorporate the new sources? --Eustress (talk) 22:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the confusion...I think we're still waiting for the official second opinion. Thanks. --Eustress (talk) 00:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Update
Thank you for your patience in this process, Rodhullandemu, and thank you for addressing the grammar stuff already. I've set the status on hold again. (I think you knew this GA review was going to be tricky—I wish an official policy were passed regarding law cases—but for now, I'll bank on your fiduciary position as administrator.) Would you please use inline citations to show what is supported by the provided sources. With those intact, I'll be able to make a final decision regarding this GAN. Thanks! --Eustress (talk) 01:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Inline citations would be nice, yes. They would all go to different numbered paragraphs of the official Law Report, and there would be very many of them. What would be the point of that when the whole of the Law Report is cited as a source? -- Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 01:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The purposes of citing sources, specifically here in Wikipedia but anywhere else as well, include the following:


 * To ensure that the content of articles can be checked by any reader or editor.
 * To avoid claims of plagiarism.
 * To show that your edit is not original research and to reduce editorial disputes.
 * To help users find additional information on the topic.
 * To improve the credibility of Wikipedia.


 * Not only do I think this is reasonable, but it is required for GA status:


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect, it:
 * (a) provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout;
 * (b) at minimum, 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; and
 * (c) contains no original research.


 * If you don't have time to do it now, we can remove the nomination and you can nominate it again another time; otherwise, on hold status grants you one week. Best --Eustress (talk) 01:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll do it, but I don't hold out any hope that anyone who reads the article won't be severely alienated by the intrusions. Meanwhile, I've made some further general comments here, and wish I was being paid by the hour for this. -- Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 01:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Rodhullandemu that this is not reasonable. The judgment is less than 20 paragraphs and it's clear that, at the moment, the entire article is a rewriting of that judgment. Adding inline citations throughout the text to this extremely brief judgment would be silly, and I don't see how this could be considered a requirement of the GA process -- to cite the same source at the end of every paragraph. That will help neither you, nor the reader, verify the content of the article, or address any of the reasons for which we ask for citations.  It will be an unwelcome intrusion. --JayHenry (talk) 01:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Articles of this length (7 average length paragraphs, including the lead) do not required inline citation, particularly when drawing from a sole source, for the most part. As Jay noted, it's pointless to cite the same reference after every paragraph. As far as the discussion over whether or not there is a need for additional references to supplement what is currently present, while I don't think it could hurt in anyway, and may be able to facilitate a need for inline citation (which personally I prefer), I think that would be more a matter for FA than GA. This is accurate and verifiable by a reliable source. It's a simple topic, so there isn't a need for many sources.  Lara  ❤  Love  02:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, well I was just trying to follow policy. I'm not comfortable passing this to GA in its current state, so I will officially bow out and put the article up for a second opinion from a more experienced GA reviewer. Best --Eustress (talk) 03:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Survey
WP:Good article usage is a survey of the language and style of Wikipedia editors in articles being reviewed for Good article nomination. It will help make the experience of writing Good Articles as non-threatening and satisfying as possible if all the participating editors would take a moment to answer a few questions for us, in this section please. The survey will end on April 30.


 * Would you like any additional feedback on the writing style in this article?


 * If you write a lot outside of Wikipedia, what kind of writing do you do?


 * Is your writing style influenced by any particular WikiProject or other group on Wikipedia?

At any point during this review, let us know if we recommend any edits, including markup, punctuation and language, that you feel don't fit with your writing style. Thanks for your time. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

GA Assessment/Review being conducted by Ncmvocalist

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Will add my comments soon. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I can see that editors have put a reasonable effort in making this article what it is. However, I am of the opinion that this is not up to an expected GA standard, and so I’m sorry to inform editors of this article that I have failed it, and I’m baffled any person would promote it to A-class when it is certainly not (yet) ready to be considered for FA. In any case, these are a few concerns I have.

Prose was satisfactory, but still needs improvement in being clear, and well-written (I’ve given a few examples, though ideally, editors are expected to go through all of the prose and fix it up). The sentencing in some parts was particularly vague. "It was submitted that Bailey had neither the specific intent to cause GBH...however, the Recorder followed the decision" etc. Who submitted? And who was the recorder of this case? And to the actual sentencing, it is far too long and is therefore unclear several times. Try to break up the sentences. An example (the … are parts that I didn’t find the need to repeat here, although they may need appropriate modification): "...and did not have the general intent for an alternative verdict of unlawful wounding. However, the recorder followed the decision in the case of R v Quick. He directed the jury that.... Although Bailey was convicted, he appealed the decision." There are many other issues with prose in other places, including the next section: "The Court of Appeal reviewed R v Quick which had dealt with an allegation of assault occasioning actual bodily harm not requiring specific proof of intent". A case about an allegation of assault not requiring proof of intent? So someone made a case making an allegation that no proof is required for assault? No way.

It is not broad in its coverage, other than as a summary of the case – this is not enough for an article (as is with a film – a mere summary of it is not enough). More is required. To pass GA, although it doesn’t have to be comprehensive (in detail), I am of the opinion it needs to cover these major aspects. I didn't assess fair representation without bias, and would leave that until it is broad in its coverage.
 * The lead section states “The court ruled that as the law then stood” suggesting the law has since then changed. What is the law as it stands now, post-R v Bailey? Why was it changed, if it did?
 * Another part the article neglects to cover is commentaries. Such textbooks (as mentioned in the references section) I would imagine, do not merely restate, or republish such a case – they have additional commentary, questions and the like. Note; even if you think these are merely opinions, these are sometimes referred to by judges in their judgements, and so do have some credibility.
 * I’m also surprised no other legal essay has been referred to in relation to this case.
 * What part of the case was referred to in R v Hardie? The entire case, or just one part? Which part?
 * Has any part of the case been criticized in subsequent cases? Has it gotten full approval?

In this particular article (I don’t wish to rule out for all case-law articles), I don’t expect the case to be used through in-line citations or footnoting. However there are times when in-line citations are necessary for other sources (i.e. more than just the case itself – commentaries, textbooks and so on).
 * In the lead section itself, I don’t think the case can be used to source a statement like “The question was whether circumstances over which Bailey could have had some control gave him a legal excuse for his actions.” Possibly a textbook may be a useful reference for this part. (I do note that a lead section may not require references as such, however, this part would need to have the footnote.) The facts would probably not need footnotes unless otherwise disputed.
 * Please also try to be consistent when referring to other cases. The first reference to R v Quick has a link to the actual text of the case. It should instead link to the Wikipedia article, and have a footnote that links to the case-text. Also, during a passage, the case-citation (eg; [1973] EWCA 1 (Crim)) is not required – this should be in the footnoting.

I hope prior to another GA nom, more work is put into it so that it is ready for GA status. But if you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Still fails to satisfy 3a and 4 with insufficient commentary. Prose issues still exist, including some examples from the previous FGAN, and the newly added section lacks clarity. This analysis of the case? Of the current law? Does the text endorse the analysis as the current law? Something else? Failure to satisfy these criteria have led me to fail this article again. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Fuck the commentary. If you knew anything about how English law works and is taught in this country you would realise that your comments are insane. I'm not interested in editing legal articles any more. Shame, because I seem to be the only one doing it. I've only spent two months waiting for this article to be reviewed and when is is, three editors fail to understand how these things are done. It's bad enough trying to make bricks without straw around here, but making straw without straw is beyond even my capabilities. Enough nonsense. -- Rodhull andemu  12:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you had to wait so long, are so frustrated and feel that way. The only reason why I decided to review the article was out of pity - 2 months is a very long wait as far as I'm concerned just for a GA review. And btw, I'm well aware of how common law is taught - but thank you for assuming otherwise. It is not a matter of how it is taught, but the failure to include the opinions of other reputed minds in the field (whether it be in the form of lawyers, judges or former judges; all of whom are generally the only reputed authors in law, as I'd have expected you to know). Perhaps you are under the impression that no other textbook or essay refers to (and discusses) this case, beyond merely reproducing it. It is indeed a shame you're giving up so easily, because unless you're suggesting common law (by coincidence) is somehow completely different for you (in comparison to everyone else), I see no basis for your decision. Again, I apologise for the wait, and frustration that you feel at this moment for seeing your article failed, but I well-understand how things are done, and am not asking something that is outside of your capabilities. Anyway, whatever it is, good luck! Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and you mention 3 editors - I can only speak for myself as not being under such a category. It is possible your view may have merit for the other 2 editors, but I don't know them, nor wish to comment on them for the same reason. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I now understand why out of all the case law articles we have, only one is a GA and that isn't a British case. -- Rodhull andemu  15:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're being sarcastic, are you suggesting that there should be low standards?? Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Lets all try to go with good faith, i love those words, maybe Rod is making a geninue point, only one GA, that does say something. ;-) Realist 2  ( 'Come Speak To Me' ) 22:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe it does; going with good faith, perhaps there's a notable difference in quality. And in case there is any confusion about the spelling in this article, it is firmly meant to be English (UK) - NOT USA. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)