Talk:Section 28/GA1

GA Review[edit]

I have made some tweaks to the article's POV but overall I think that it is fairly neutral.
On hold pending fixing of dead links and unsourced statements (marked by a previous editor as "{{citation needed}}.")
If these are fixed, will commence with fact-checking. If factual error is present (or the dead links or missing citations are not fixed), will fail; if citations are fixed and facts verify, then most likely will submit for a second opinion from a more seasoned editor.
~~Finally,~~ I assume that the brackets around the text of the Act itself denote repeal? Bwrs (talk) 12:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm clearly missing something-- where are you seeing brackets on that page? The Wednesday Island (talk) 17:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, if that page has no brackets, that means either that Section 28 is still in force, or the link to it from the Wikipedia article is incorrectly labelled, as it says "as amended and in force today within the United Kingdom." If Section 28 is still in force then I would have no choice but to fail the article; if the link is mislabeled then please fix it. Bwrs (talk) 18:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't see any brackets on the page you linked to there, which was a link to section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 (i.e. Section 28 itself). I think (as a non-lawyer) that there is some confusion on the subject. Section 28 itself was never repealed; to do so would have been pointless because it had one-time application: as the lead paragraph of the article says, it merely amended an existing law, adding a new section 2A to the Local Government Act 1986, and it was this section that was repealed. The OPSI text of the 1986 act shows brackets for repeal, but the 1988 page doesn't, which is why I was confused that I thought you'd said it did. The Wednesday Island (talk) 19:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I removed "moral panic" because the Wikipedia article on the subject indicates that the term denotes a specific point of view. I have replaced it with "major controversy." Bwrs (talk) 18:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

article name[edit]

I also suggest changing the name of this article to Section 28 (U.K.) or Section 28 (United Kingdom) or Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988, and then starting a new Section 28 disambiguation page, in consideration of the fact that many countries may have laws with a section numbered 28, and of those, some of them will be notable, particularly if a constitution has a section 28 (as suggested by the dab link at the top). Bwrs (talk) 12:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be more sensible to move it only if and when other notable section 28's come up; disambig pages with one link look silly. Larklight (talk) 14:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And besides, maybe other parliaments passed a local government act in 1988, so it would need to be Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 of the Parliament of the United Kingdom... Even if there's another notable Section 28 at some point, I think generally where there's one especially famous bearer of a name, they're allowed the plain name with no disambiguation (London is the English and not the Ontarian instance, and Channel 4 is the British broadcaster even though there's also a station in Iran and a shedload of UHF stations in North America which can use the name. (I'm not deliberately coming in and tearing down all your suggestions; I'm just continuing the debate. Please carry on helping improve the article: it's much appreciated.) The Wednesday Island (talk) 17:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the DAB link at the top, there is another notable Section 28, and I would argue that a constitutional document would be just as important as a repealed law, if not more so. As for the analogy to channel 4, do I understand correctly that the British channel 4 is a nationwide broadcaster? This would generally be more notable than any of the U.S. VHF channels 4, which are all local or regional.

Anyway, this is my first good article review so I intend to have a second editor check my work before I pass or fail it. Bwrs (talk) 18:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly endorse renaming the article. Even if there is no more notable "section 28", there are surely hundreds of statutory provisions that in fact have a section by that number, and the vast majority of people around the world will never have heard of this particular provision. bd2412 T 06:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Verifying sources....[edit]

background section[edit]

The website linked-to by Footnote #4 is presently inaccessible. I have marked it as a "dead link" until such time as somebody else can either verify that the site is up or provide a different source. It seems that I cannot access many U.K. sites at this time.
The sentence, "[b]ut it was not until 1986 that major controversy arose and widespread protest demonstrations made a major contribution towards the subsequent passing of Section 28" needs an additional footnote. Footnote #5 provides good information, but the third party source cited by that footnote does not directly support the above statement.

legislative history[edit]

The sentence, "[t]he new amendment was also championed by Knight and accepted and defended by Michael Howard, then Minister for Local Government, although it had little to do with the broad remit of the Act, which dealt with the compulsory tendering of school services" is cited to a reference that does not mention Michael Howard by name; however, the reference does support the second half of that sentence.
Footnote #7 displays an error message, "You must specify title = and url = when using {{cite web}}."

controversy over applicability[edit]

The web page linked-to by Footnote #9 presently displays a "story not found" error. I have marked it as a "dead link".
I have provided an extra inline citaiton to clarify the fact that the quote from the Department for Education and Science and the quote from Jill Knight are taken from the same secondary source.

political response[edit]

The names of individuals mentioned in the second sentence of the first paragraph of this section are not contained in the source cited. I have duplicated and moved the <ref name="4letter" /> tag next to the names of groups, and have marked the individual names as {{fact|date=June 2008}}.

repeal[edit]

I have changed the discussion of the "Keep the Clause" public-opinion poll to reflect that "slightly less than" one third (31.75%) of the voters responded.
Footnote #17 redirects to the BBC news home page, and the website cited in Footnote #18 seems presently inaccessible.
Footnote #20 points to the home page of the polling company, not to the actual poll results.

opposition[edit]

This section seems to lack inline citations. Please provide citations at least for the statements that have been flagged by other editors as {{citation needed}}, if not for all statements.

Thank you for providing me with the opportunity to review this article, and good luck on its promotion. Bwrs (talk) 02:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second reviewer[edit]

I agree with the first reviewer's detailed comments. In terms of naming, everyone knows what you mean when you say section 28 in the UK, so naming it more comprehensively sounds pedantic but people from other parts of the world won't know from the title that this is a UK-specific law. The reviewer has cleaned-up the article and inserted citation needed tags, no one has edited the article in 12 days. I'd renominate when all issues above have been addressed, thanks Tom (talk) 16:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]