Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pepper v Hart/archive1

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 17:59, 25 April 2010 [1].

Pepper v Hart[edit]

Nominator(s): Ironholds (talk) 22:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it fulfils the relevant standards set. Ironholds (talk) 22:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I'm not sure that this is quite ready yet. Just looking at para 2

~~shouldn't it be "nine" and "one-fifth" instead of the numbers "9", "1/5th"?~~
1/5th of the fees of a normal pupil. presumably means one-fifth of the normal fees for a pupil.

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed; there are a couple (5-judge and 7-judge) that I feel work better as numbers. Ironholds (talk) 14:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No dab links or broken links. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 23:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you can't be bothered to explain what this is about I can't be bothered to look and see. Johnbod (talk) 17:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? Ironholds (talk) 16:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think Johnbod is requested that, in the future, you provide a brief explanation of the topic in the nomination statement. Doesn't make a big difference to me personally, but to others it might. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

more comments

one-fifth of the fees of a normal pupil. presumably means one-fifth of the normal fees for a pupil.
The Court established the principle... the court Caps or lc?

Lowercased

not referencing Sheldon's statement meaningless in the lead
expense in cases. Expenses?

Not really. "expense" - cost. "expenses" - lunch, company car, travel, etc (at least around where I am). Ironholds (talk) 21:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vinelott J. why this format for only one judge?
golden and mischief rules. the meaning of these isn't self-evident and wouldn't known by a layman, so a gloss for each would be appropriate to avoid most readers having to follow the link (for "mischief" I wasn't much wiser having done so

sorry about delay in completing comments. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed all; Vinelott J is a High Court Judge, hence J. Court of Appeal justices are LJ (or LJJ for multiple justices), and Lords judges are (were?) "Lord Bloggs". Ironholds (talk) 21:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment – Unfortunately don't have much time for reviewing prose right now, but I was able to check out the reliability of the sources, which looks fine. I did notice that the four links in the notes all apparently go to the same page. Would it be possible to move the full citation to the References section, leaving abbreviated footnotes like the others? Or is it because there is no real author of the page, per se? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you talking about the bailii reference? Ironholds (talk) 06:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's the one. Should have made that clearer. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that seems reasonable enough; I'll get on to it in a tick. Ironholds (talk) 06:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Righto, fixed. Ironholds (talk) 21:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Good work. A question: "In McDonnell, they further limited the use of Hansard, saying..." Who was limiting? Were Lords Bingham, Hope and Hutton, who undertook the Spath Holme judicial review case, all incidentally working on McDonnell? In other words, who is "they" Mootros (talk) 16:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Amended to "the Lords", which makes more sense; sorry. Ironholds (talk) 21:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: comprehensiveness concerns: Points that need to be covered
- When the hearing start? How many days was the case going on before the 5-memb. panel?
  - Absolutely no idea, and none of the sources mention it. Ironholds (talk) 21:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Intermediate hearings (the article jumps to Judgment)
  - You mean intermediate hearings such as the High Court and Court of Appeal, yes? The ones mentioned under "Judgment"? Ironholds (talk) 21:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Media coverage--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, the British media is well known for its coverage of court cases with little immediate application to the real world. Ironholds (talk) 21:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (Still good work) A question with regard to naming of cases, which I noticed on several instances here: E.g. "Wilson, the first case involving Hansard after the Human Rights Act 1998..." Do you mean Wilson and others v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Appellant) [2003]? I think it is perfectly fine to use some common short form like Pepper, where this is clear in the text. Or was Wilson mentioned somewhere else in the text? Mootros (talk) 17:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was more "the source doesn't give a full name, I must remember to find one before it goes to FAC- oops. Forgot". Added now. Ironholds (talk) 21:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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