Wikipedia:Peer review/Irving v Penguin Books and Lipstadt/archive1

Irving v. Penguin Books and Lipstadt

 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for June 2009.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for June 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I would like feedback on how to improve the page. Is there any important information that you can't find? Can you think of any better way to organize the page? How about the references: do you think they should be formatted differently? Should I include more information about the judgement?

Do you agree with my decision to include the intro's from Holocaust, Holocaust Denial, and English Libel Law? Do you agree with my decision to link the footnotes to the articles rather than reproducing them in full? Personally, I feel that a certain amount of knowledge of the above three topics (with the possible exception of the last) are crucial to understanding the case. Should the sections be rewritten to better suit the article?

Do I have a shot at getting this to FA? The topic seems rich enough to be able to make a featured article of it. What would I have to do to get it there?

Are there any WikiProjects which would be interested in this article?

And: if you can think of a better hook, or if you just want to support my DYK nomination, here is a link (you may have to scroll down)

Thanks, TachyonJack (talk) 20:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: This is an important and interesting subject, well worth an article of its own. I have so far looked at the article in a fairly general way, and have attempted to answer some of the questions you have asked above:-


 * The subsections entitled "The Holocaust", "Holocaust denial" and "English Libel Law" are word-for-word transpositions from other Wikipedia articles. There are questions of plagiarism here - you were not the author of any of the articles in question, and do not seem to have attributed these sections, as required in Copying within Wikipedia. In any event I believe that whole sections should not be transposed in this way. You should redraft each of these sections in your own words.
 * The references in these sections are simply links to other Wikipedia articles. This does not satisfy the requirements of WP:CITE
 * The "English Libel Law" subsection is completely without citations. Some other sections are very light on citations, with a number of unreferenced paragraphs
 * Infobox: What is the reason for including so much case opinion in the infobox rather than in the article itself? Are these quotations from Mr Justice Gray's judgement? This should be made plain, as should the meaning of the numbers, e.g. (13.98) that begin each paragraph, but I do not believe that infoboxes are the place for such details.
 * Please look at the MOS requirements relating to the style of section and subsection headings, in particular relating to the use of capitals. Thus "English Libel Law" should be "English libel law", "Libel Suit" should be "Libel suit", etc.
 * Bolding should not be used in text for emphasis (another MOS point)

Aside for these principal issues, I have looked at the lead section in some detail:-


 * "David Irving v. Penguin Books and Deborah Lipstadt is a significant case in English law, noted for its ruling that the claim that Holocaust denial is a deliberate distortion of evidence is substantially true, and therefore not libelous." This opening sentence is rather long, and tortuously expressed. I suggest a few changes:-
 * Delete "significant", as this rather undermines neutrality.
 * Split the sentence for clarity.
 * Thus: "David Irving v. Penguin Books and Deborah Lipstadt is a case in English law, relating to Holocaust denial. It ruled that a claim that such denial is a deliberate distortion of evidence is substantially true, and therefore not libelous."
 * Second paragraph, second line. The close repetition of "Irving" could be avoided by referring to him as "the writer", second time.
 * It is inappropriate to spell out the word "Mister" as part of a judge's title. English judges are known as "Mr Justice ...", an honorific similar, in the USA, to "Mr President", "Mr Ambassador", etc.

I think you should deal with the major issues I have mentioned, before I make a general review of the main text. As I cannot watch all my peer reviews, please leave a note on my talkpage when you think that these matters have been addressed.