Wikipedia:Peer review/Fiduciary/archive1

Fiduciary
My first article, applied to have it listed on featured articles, but there were some objections. Posting it here to figure out best way to meet the objections. Two objections suggested that the article may be too complicated for younger readers. I think this is a decent claim.

Therefore, I will appreciate any feedback about parts of this article you found hard to understand or that you think other readers may find hard to understand.

There was also one objection relating to references. Apparently, reference to primary case law is not enough and there must also be reference to secondary authorities, such as legal texts. I do not particularly agree with this view, but I will comply with it during the day, by adding references to some secondary authorities.

Any other helpful suggestions will be appreciated --Charlemagne the Hammer 01:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Charlemagne, per my point at WP:FAC, I think you should move the section that defines the parties in a fiduciary duty type of relationship into the intro ("a fiduciary duty is (some kind of economic thing) between a trustee and a beneficiary, something like that) to establish the definition in more easily accessible terms. I have no legal background and your intro leaves me baffled, frankly, as to just what a duty is - I realize it's the most eminent of whatchmacallit, but what does that mean, exactly, in English?  About the bullet points, rather than listing ten types and (what presumably are the court cases that defined or exemplified these relationships), start with "the most common type of fiduciary duty is that established between an X and Y.  Other types include Z, A, B, C, etc., in a paragraph form rather than bulleted list.  If the court cases listed are all relevent for making distinctions among those types of fiduciary duties, explain why in some kind of historical section:  "The relationship between G and H became considered as a fiduciary duty after Lemming v. Volcano, 1920, in which the Court ruled that..." etc.  I think prose would work better here than a list.  More comments may follow if I get more into it, but I hope that helps for now.  Kaisershatner 02:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I see, this is pretty useful advice. I don't know about turning the entire list into paragraphs... as that may take up to 1,000 words to explain it all; however, I will certainly add an explanation into each presumed relationship. Also wll take other recommendations on board and get back to you when done --Charlemagne the Hammer 02:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I have fixed the lead, made it easier to understand, and made it longer. Included some definitions so it should be easier to understand what a fiduciary and a principal is in this context. Still have to update the bullet list part. I plan to turn it into a definition list, with an explanation for each entry. --Charlemagne the Hammer 02:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Good changes. I made some more dramatic ones - moving up the "jurisdictional note" for example - remember, you are writing for a general audience that may never have heard of English common law or equity.  A very, very, basic definition is needed; the wikilinks can allow people to get up to speed on precisely what is meant if you put the appropriate terms in (ie, you don't have to explain every detail of what English common law or equity is, just note that the fiduciary duty comes from those things, and let the reader click them if inclined).  That's another reason I moved up the jurisdiction section, we should make it clear that what is being discussed is the English view of this idea.  A minor change of the "Foot Notes" section to "References," which I think is covered in WP:MOS.  Keep up the good work,  Kaisershatner 15:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC).  Oh and nota bene that IANAL! so if I didn't get the definition or terms right, fix them!  Kaisershatner 15:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Another thing I remembered - avoid "it is said" and similar terms. Who says? Cite it. Kaisershatner 15:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

It already was cited --Charlemagne the Hammer 20:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)