Wikipedia:Featured article review/Law/archive2


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by Dana boomer 22:25, 3 December 2011.

Review commentary

 * Notified: Wikidea, Blue-Haired Lawyer, WikiProject Law

I am nominating this featured article for review because I feel it fails the featured article criteria, specifically:
 * 1(c) - well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;
 * The article, which is heavily biased towards common law jurisdictions (particularly England and Wales and the United States) uses low quality sources - in a lot of cases, primary ones - in many areas, and no sources in some. Of particularly good examples are "As the European Court of Justice said in the 1960s, European Union law constitutes "a new legal order of international law" for the mutual social and economic benefit of the member states.", which is referenced to a case transcript; the reader is expected to infer that European Union law is a new, fancy-dan system of legislation and case law based on a primary source quoting people employed by said system.
 * The entire "further disciplines" system is unreferenced, as are many other sections; see the passage "The term "civil law" referring to a legal system should not be confused with "civil law" as a group of legal subjects distinct from criminal or public law. A third type of legal system—accepted by some countries without separation of church and state—is religious law, based on scriptures. The specific system that a country is ruled by is often determined by its history, connections with other countries, or its adherence to international standards. The sources that jurisdictions adopt as authoritatively binding are the defining features of any legal system. Yet classification is a matter of form rather than substance, since similar rules often prevail." for example. Other moments of headdesking are things like citing John Locke to prove a point about the purpose of law - something entirely dependent on legal theorists and practitioners accepting the Lockean perspective, which is not something the text or sources validate.
 * (d) neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias;
 * As mentioned, the entire thing is skewed in an Anglo-American direction; the illustrations and examples used (and at no point is it shown that the examples themselves are valid) are overwhelmingly from English and American case law and jurisprudence, with little consideration for civil law jurisdictions.


 * Quite frankly it reads like somebody wrote down their Anglocentric idea of how the law worked and then added in sources as an afterthought. That isn't appropriate for an article that needs to be highly referenced while presenting a worldwide perspective on the concept of law. That'd be fine in a dissertation, but it makes a poor article. Ironholds (talk) 18:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep in mind, the article's essentially the same as it was before when it was passed in the last FAR.  Wik idea  22:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind, it was promoted over multiple (at least five) opposes with three supports (one from the nominator, Wikidea), it shouldn't have passed its last FAR, it's VERY poorly written, inaccurate and not comprehensive, reads like it was written by a novice law student unaware of law practices throughout the world, issues in the last FAR were never addressed, and the article is as bad now as it was then. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 11:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment. I think a review every now and then is good. Frankly, I'd write it differently today. These points have been raised before though.


 * if there is a case report missing from the Van Gend en Loos citation, that can be put in. A case report is a secondary source, because the reporter of the case is giving an account of what the court has said, and summarising that in a head note. If you want an academic source, see Craig and de Burca, EU Law (3rd edn OUP 2003) 182-184, "The ECJ first articulated its doctrine of direct effect in 1963 in what is probably the most famous of all its rulings."
 * the view was reached before that because this is an article in English, and most readers will be speaking English, topics which do spend time on the common law system are most appropriate. Of course, the early historical cases discussed, like Entick v Carrington are celebrated around the common law world, which includes India and South Africa, for instance. The article as a whole was part written with a Greek, Yannismarou, and I think that although I'd do it different today as I say, it's not just "like somebody wrote down their Anglocentric idea of how the law worked and then added in sources as an afterthought".  Wik idea  19:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point; the article text makes the inference that European law is some new and awesome thing. If you want to state that, fine, but a judgment written by someone involved in EU law (or, in fact, several people) by way of being judges in the EU's highest court is not an appropriate independent source. The fact that most readers will be speaking English is irrelevant - the job of writers of an article as wide as "law" is to produce an article which covers things from a worldwide perspective, without bias. We do not produce articles designed to conform to our readers existing view of the world - we produce articles designed to conform to the world's view of the world. Ironholds (talk) 19:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Not missing the point, and I welcome a review. But you've just raised points that were already raised when it was twice approved before. Cheer up!  Wik idea  22:07, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It wasn't twice approved before (read the files), and even if it was, consensus can change. This article is QUITE bad, and I hope you plan to address the issues this time, because I do plan to make sure they are addressed this time 'round.  This article should not be an FA in this state and should not have been for years.  Let's start addressing issues-- claiming the article is OK because it "twice passed before" isn't going to work, and is a waste of reviewer time.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 11:53, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think calling this article "quite bad" is unfair, its an impressive initial attempt to address an incredibly broad subject area, if more of our "vital" articles were as "bad" as this I would be over the moon. That said, I essentially agree with the substantive criticisms that are being made here, the two impressions I got from reading the article agains are: First, that it is very anglo-centric (there is a big section on tort law for example, replete with obligatory mention of ginger beer bottles, while all of east asia must make do with "The eastern Asia legal tradition reflects a unique blend of secular and religious influences"). Second, sections are often too narrowly sourced and rely overly on primary sources (for a random example - the section on economics and law, which simply states that Coase is "The most prominent economic analyst of law" and then proceeds to cite coase as a primary source while discussing his ideas - ideas that are not mentioned or discussed in the main law & economics article and which don't provide any sort of overview of the relationship between law and economics or any explanation of why there ideas are the most prominent or important, yet there is more discussion of him than the entirety of islamic law).  Ajbpearce (talk) 18:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Media criteria 3
 * File:JMR-Memphis1.jpg The US does not have freedom of panorama for sculpture. The sculpture itself needs to be out of copyright. Date of creation needs to be determined.
 * File:Declaration of Human Rights.jpg author and source of painting not listed. Missing US copyright tag.
 * File:Carbolic smoke ball co.jpg Life +70 tag used with no human author listed. Missing US copyright tag.
 * File:Court of Chancery edited.jpg Missing source
 * File:Code Civil 1804.png Using life +70 tag with no author listed; PD-art license wrong. Missing US copyright tag.
 * File:Joao sem terra assina carta Magna.jpg Using life +70 tag with no author listed. Missing US copyright tag.
 * File:Milkau Oberer Teil der Stele mit dem Text von Hammurapis Gesetzescode 369-2.jpg Photo dated 1926; author died 1933?. Missing US copyright tag. Cannot May not be PD if published in US after 1923.
 * File:Constitution of India.jpg Missing US copyright tag with confusing information about author and date.
 * File:Max Weber 1917.jpg Missing author information. Brad (talk) 14:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Featured article criteria of concern mentioned in the review section include images, prose, comprehensiveness, sourcing and neutrality. Dana boomer (talk) 12:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Delist Major issues are 1c, 1d and 3. Since nomination the article has had only 11 edits. Brad (talk) 10:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 *  Wik idea  18:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC) So apparently, this is actually a review now. As I've said on my talk page, I'd like to get around to this - despite SandyGeorgia's peculiar method of "encouragement" above. I just can't for about a month. Some time like mid November. But what I would like to have from anyone who is really interested in helping, is a simple bullet point list of things we'd like to see. SPECIFICS are best. On technical stuff, like the pictures and copyrights, it'd be nice to see others do that. I do defend this article from the unhelpful and unconstructive comments that this is just a "bad" article or that somehow it wasn't passed twice. I didn't nominate it, and I'm not that fussed about FAs myself - but most people would agree it'd be a pity to see it delisted. I'll make a start with bullet points here, going with some of the good suggestions already made above. Please add yourself:


 * rewriting the economic analysis of law section
 * referencing for the list of legal subjects
 * better references for the all the cases cited, with reports and/or textbooks
 * greater reference to non-common law legal systems, eg, on contract/torts this would be useful
 * I would love to help, but i've made promises and commitments in the past to improving wiki articles that have subsequently been broken by real life, so I am not sure how far I can commit to helping you. That said, here are a few "bullet points" I can lay out . At the same time, when it come to meeting strict FA criterion - there are obviously problems of scale that don't afflict articles on battleships or simpsons episodes.Ajbpearce (talk) 21:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Legal Theory - I picked the economic analysis section last time as an example, but actually the whole legal theory section is fairly unsatisfactory.
 * The history and philosophy sections are hard to write, and do a good job of identifying the important influences on western legal tradition - but especially the philosophy section is very focused on the west, the history section on "east asian legal traditions" should be expanded, and there is no mention at all of South America or Africa.
 * The sociology of the law section needs rewriting - we are told that this is a "diverse field" but there is no real attempt to explain what the sociology of law actually is, or to set out its main interests, for a common reader - again we are left with a few disconnected sentences on academically important works without any understanding of the subject areas.
 * Legal Systems - this section should come before "legal subjects" and needs to deal with other possibilities than civil, common or religious law (clearly for most of human history, most countries were not under a civil, common or overtly religious - system disputes were settled and people governed in other ways (custom, tribal elders, absolute government, whatever) these are still are "law" and need a paragraph. - the section on sharia law could also be fleshed out and expanded as the most important source of modern religious law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajbpearce (talk • contribs) 08:18, October 9, 2011

That's all for now. Replies are welcome after each comment above.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * De-list. I'll make only a few comments now, and may add more later.  This article seems like a good start, but it's way premature to be featured, IMHO.
 * For starters, the top image shows the symbol of the judiciary. Why trivialize the other branches of government, such as the branch that, y'know, makes laws?  Compare the rule of law article, which uses an image representing both legislative and judicial.  Taking a worldview includes not just more than one country, but also more than one branch.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding the definition of "law", I went to the first footnote, and found "words of Mel". What the heck is that?Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Aristotle is quoted as endorsing rule of "law", but this article says Athenians didn't have a single word for law, and instead used a three-way distinction, so which way was Aristotle using it?Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In the United States, proponents of judicial power like to say that laws must by definition be fair and wise, so that judges can then ignore any enactment that they don't think is fair and wise. In contrast, advocates of judicial restraint and separation of powers support a more limited definition.  For example, Chief Justice John Marshall took the limited approach, writing that "law" is simply defined as a "rule of civil conduct prescribed by the supreme power in a state".  So, I would like to see more in this article about the definitional controversy.  That's all for now.Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Constitutional law should have its own subsection, instead of being lumped together with administrative law. In the United States, for example, each state has a written constitution that covers whatever types of matters that people feel sufficiently concerned about to put there.  I also don't agree with this statement: "A constitution is simply those laws which constitute the body politic, from statute, case law, and convention."  In the U.S., though, statutes and constitutions are quite distinct.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In the section on common law, I don't see any mention of the critical concept that a legislature can correct common law decisions with which it disagrees. Common law courts are subject to correction by parliament in England, and the same is true in the American states.  Common law decisions, not based on any provision of a written constitution, are freely amended and changed by legislatures all the time; otherwise the judiciary would completely control the law (and the image at the top of this article would be 100% appropriate).Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The lead sentence says law is enforced to govern human behavior "wherever possible". The "wherever possible" seems kind of confusing; is it explained later in the article what that's about?  Does it mean that some laws can't be enforced, or instead that some behavior can't be governed by law, or both?  The lead sentence also says that the law includes not just rules but also guidelines, but do the sources support "guidelines"?  I thought that a guideline is like a suggestion: never enforced, compliance voluntary, not legally binding.Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:22, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding the Anatole France quote in the lead, it's a good and famous quote, but it seems kind of odd to have a quote that's nowhere in the body of the article pop up in the lead. Perhaps this suggests the body of the article ought to have a new subsection where one would expect a quote like this to be relocated or replicated.  Or maybe it belongs in the legal philosophy section.  But in any event, it seems weird that a quote would only be in the lead.  Same goes for the Aristotle quote.Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The lead says, "In a typical democracy...." Seems like undue weight; all countries have laws, but many aren't democracies (e.g. China).Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Per WP:Summary style, this article needs to be revised to properly summarize the main points of the sub-articles. For example, regarding the section on criminal law, a key point missing here is any description of it's objectives: retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation, and restitution.Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm with Wikidea on this one - "It's bad" doesn't lend itself to a roadmap for fixing the article's issues. Clearly, there's much to do, but look also to that fact that this is (or should be) one of our core articles. Category:Law has over 3100 articles including its 49 subcategories, and that doesn't even include articles in the 475 subcategories (!) of those subcategories. I understand that it's early days yet, as far as this review goes, but still. I'll try to have a look at this one before long, but I'd really love it if we could stretch this out a bit until Wikidea has time to give this repair project a proper go. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 15:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * One item, to start off - Set aside the content, for the moment. Is the structure of the article satisfactory? Does it seem to lend itself to a good overview of what is clearly a very broad topic? UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 15:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delist now The changes required to bring it up to FA standard would be sufficiently substantial to require a new FAC. To answer the good question above, the structure has many issues. The lead is inadequate, there is a glaring omission of sections on appeal processes, legal remedies and punishments. The "Bureaucracy" section could just be dropped, and there seems to be no mention of customary law and other pre-national systems, even in the blatently statist history section, which begins, pretty dubiously "The history of law is closely connected to the development of civilization" - that's lawyers you mean there. Johnbod (talk) 13:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.