Template:Did you know nominations/Bail Act 2013


 * 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 Montanabw (talk) 04:24, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Bail Act 2013

 * ... that the New South Wales Bail Act uses a risk-based approach?
 * Reviewed: Stripped Classicism

Created by 110.20.234.69 (talk), Whiteghost.ink (talk). Nominated by Whiteghost.ink (talk) at 23:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC).


 * It was moved to mainspace on 27 December. --George Ho (talk) 22:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg The article is long and new enough; QPQ done. It is inline cited with multiple reliable sources, mostly online. Spot checks did not reveal copy or close paraphrasing (due to the amount of sources; this was very much a spot check). I think the article is mostly neutral, but maybe a bit skeptical to the more restrictive part of the law. The article uses passive voice a couple of times, I added "by whom" three places; so I wonder if you would either fix that, but if you think it's unnecessary, just remove the template. Also, per WP:Weasel be aware of using words like "it was noted". There was already one "clarification needed" tag in the article, so I wonder if that can be fixed. As for the hook, it focuses on the main point of the article. I think it is acceptable, but maybe a more interesting hook would be to focus on that the act was amended due to the 2013 "sensationalized" cases? Apart from this, I think this article is basically good to go. (The lead is heavily inline-cited and not totally WP:SUMMARY style, but it's OK; just for later you don't need a lot of citations in the lead because the lead is only meant to summarize the body). Iselilja (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for getting back to me, and for reviewing the article. I've tried to rewrite the article a bit to remove the tags, although I think the concern about the 'huh' tag has been resolved. I hope this improves the article. I've been trying to use the sources that are available, and I have put in a lot of information about Hatziergos's review and criticisms of the original Bail Act 2013. I'm not sure how to remove the citations in the lead properly, (because much of what they cite is not common knowledge or is a quote) but have tried to reiterate the material in the body of the article. Thanks again for the review, it's good to get another perspective on the article. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 09:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg ::Great, thank you. I think the article is good to go now. As for the hook, it is a kind of summary of one of the lead sentences. If the promoter wants one hook who is more word-for-word, I'll propose
 * ALT1 ... that the New South Wales Bail Act includes an "unacceptable risk" test?
 * But I think the original hook should be OK too; so just OK'ing. Iselilja (talk) 23:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Promotion comment: Promoted with Alt1 hook.  Montanabw (talk) 04:24, 31 January 2015 (UTC)