Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pepper v Hart/archive3
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 promoted by Karanacs 22:23, 27 September 2011 [1].
Pepper v Hart[edit]
Pepper v Hart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the requisite standards. A note: in the two prior FACs, User:Savidan raised concerns over whether or not my sources covered the entire broad spectrum of academic opinion. As I did before, I believe these concerns are invalid. My sources - and there are many of them - are stripped from my complete access to JSTOR, HeinOnline, Westlaw and LexisNexis, the full spectrum of journal repositories for just about every common law jurisdiction whose academics could have a stake in this piece of case law. I have thoroughly reviewed the articles used, and, at Savidan's request, included a couple of new ones (where they proved useful). If he does believe that, despite the wide spectrum of opinions and sources for opinions, some crucial aspect of academia is being left out, I invite him to explain what aspect I am missing. The onus is on him to show that I am missing something, and not on me to prove a negative. Ironholds (talk) 20:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done, no comment on source comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Bradley or Bardley?
- Littleboy or Littleboy & Kelly 2005?
- Millet or Millett?
- Check alphabetization of secondary sources
- No citations to Miers 1993
- Use a consistent date format
- Duff titles should use endashes
- "Library of the House of Commons" of which country? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All fixed, except "duff titles", "consistent date format" and "check alphabetization ". In order - what's a duff title, what dates can you see that don't follow the format of "dd month yyyy" and what do you mean by "alphabetization of secondary sources"? Ironholds (talk) 21:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In order: the titles of the two works by Duff published in 1999, compare the retrieval date formats of the two primary sources, and since the first point has made "Bradley" standard the alphabetization issue that was present in the secondary source list no longer exists. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All fixed, except "duff titles", "consistent date format" and "check alphabetization ". In order - what's a duff title, what dates can you see that don't follow the format of "dd month yyyy" and what do you mean by "alphabetization of secondary sources"? Ironholds (talk) 21:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Images check out, captions are fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Restart, old version. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Seems pretty much there. I think, given the very wide range of dates involved, it would be better to have the dates from the case citations in the main text (and perhaps the whole of the citations, since they are all short). Or at the least the two before 1800. Sources not checked. Otherwise no issues. Johnbod (talk) 04:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure; one possible issue there is that they look a wee bit alien, and also that there's no real way to explain what each bit means if they're in the article prose. Any suggestions on how to fix those? I guess I could bluelink "case citation" to the actual citation each time, but... Ironholds (talk) 12:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe you could leave your current explanation at the top of the notes as a ref for all of them, with a link to the UK table at Case citation. But I note that Swan and Burr, for the two really old ones, are not in that table (haven't checked all the others) so these should probably get a note each with the full titles, even as things are. As a minimum you could just put "the 1687 case ..." etc for the older ones, but the dates are sufficiently relevant for all of them to go in the main text imo, given the evolution in thinking before & after the case that you bring out very nicely. Johnbod (talk) 13:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to confirm we're on the same page; everything stays the way it is, but old cases get prefaced with "the 1688 case of blotto[ref]" instead of just "blotto[ref]". Ironholds (talk) 17:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Smashing; thanks! Ironholds (talk) 22:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Sorry, I thought I already had. Johnbod (talk) 00:53, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Leaning to oppose: I have not read much of the article, but I have concerns in the lead and the first section. Articles concerned with interpretations of law need to be made very clear to the layman, and I found myself somewhat confused by the end of the "Facts" section.
- The lead contains a particularly awkward sentence, which needs attention in several respects - length, punctuation, clarity etc: "Since Steyn's lecture, there have been several judicial decisions which limited the precedent set by the House of Lords, preventing the use of Hansard as a source of law, in criminal law cases or to overrule precedent set prior to Pepper except in exceptional circumstances."
- In the "Facts" section we have a quote from Section 63 of the Finance Act 1976, which begins: "The cash equivalent of any benefit chargeable to Cash tax ... is an amount..." etc. What on earth, I wondered, is "Cash tax"? I discovered on looking at the wording in the act that in fact, "Cash" is part of some marginal notation, not part of the wording of the section, which reads: "The cash equivalent of any benefit chargeable to tax..." etc. But even with this correction, I defy anyone but the most dedicated tax lawyer to understand what the section means. Can you, in your own words, explain what you think it is saying?
- I find it pretty easy. When looking at what benefits to tax, the way of translating "benefit" into "actual money" is to look at the cost of providing it, not the benefit that the recipient might have. Ironholds (talk) 19:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, that's a bit more understandable. If you are sure that is what the section of the Act is saying, why not paraphrase it in these words? Why force your readers to struggle with legalese? You can include the exact wording as a footnote if you wiish, or add an external link to the online copy of the Finance Act, for the benefit of anyone who wants to check the wording. Brianboulton (talk) 19:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Because my interpretation of it - while I'm sure my interpretation is correct - is just that, interpretation. It's taking a primary source and saying "this is what the primary source means in practise", and I'm not comfortable doing that. There's a big difference between rephrasing a clear statement in a secondary source and rewording a statute to say what I believe it says. Ironholds (talk) 20:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Quoth the policy: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." Ironholds (talk) 20:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Because my interpretation of it - while I'm sure my interpretation is correct - is just that, interpretation. It's taking a primary source and saying "this is what the primary source means in practise", and I'm not comfortable doing that. There's a big difference between rephrasing a clear statement in a secondary source and rewording a statute to say what I believe it says. Ironholds (talk) 20:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, that's a bit more understandable. If you are sure that is what the section of the Act is saying, why not paraphrase it in these words? Why force your readers to struggle with legalese? You can include the exact wording as a footnote if you wiish, or add an external link to the online copy of the Finance Act, for the benefit of anyone who wants to check the wording. Brianboulton (talk) 19:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I find it pretty easy. When looking at what benefits to tax, the way of translating "benefit" into "actual money" is to look at the cost of providing it, not the benefit that the recipient might have. Ironholds (talk) 19:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The supposed link to the WP article on the Finance Act 1976 is useless. It goes to a general Finance Act article that mentions several acts, but not that of 1976.
- Yes; it's a stock short title, and is used for every finance act. We have no article on the 1976 Act, but the link instead serves to explain what the Act does; it's the piece of legislation which lays out the tax and budget regimes each financial year. Ironholds (talk) 19:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Then the link should be to Finance Act, not to Finance Act 1976. Brianboulton (talk) 19:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes; it's a stock short title, and is used for every finance act. We have no article on the 1976 Act, but the link instead serves to explain what the Act does; it's the piece of legislation which lays out the tax and budget regimes each financial year. Ironholds (talk) 19:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Brianboulton (talk) 17:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- On the 2nd point, I have removed the "Cash". I am not a tax lawyer of any level of deicication, but can understand both the legislation (for which WP are hardly responsible) and, more importantly, the explanation that follows, though I wonder if the "however" is appropriate - should this not be a "furthermore" in relation to the Special Commissioners? A link to fixed cost might be worked in somewhere, though I suppose this might increase confusion rather than diminish it. But if Brian finds it impenetrable the whole explanation could be set out more simply. Johnbod (talk) 18:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think a simple explanation, in the terms that Ironholds has outlined above, would be a considerable help to the general reader. In the fond hope that something like this will happen, I am striking my "leaning to oppose". If I can find the time in the next few days I will read and comment on the rest of the article. Brianboulton (talk) 19:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- On the 2nd point, I have removed the "Cash". I am not a tax lawyer of any level of deicication, but can understand both the legislation (for which WP are hardly responsible) and, more importantly, the explanation that follows, though I wonder if the "however" is appropriate - should this not be a "furthermore" in relation to the Special Commissioners? A link to fixed cost might be worked in somewhere, though I suppose this might increase confusion rather than diminish it. But if Brian finds it impenetrable the whole explanation could be set out more simply. Johnbod (talk) 18:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Impressive. I think this is finally achieved. AGK [•] 00:10, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support (disclosure: I conducted the GA review). I think some of the criticisms in previous FACs -- about the thoroughness of the literature review -- were misconceived. I am confident -- having conducted my own searches at the GA stage, having wide access to materials, and given Ironholds one additional source that I found -- that this article presents a comprehensive review of the sources and passes that criterion. Confident that other key criteria (eg prose, images) have been adequately dealt with by other reviewers, I support and would not want to duplicate their work. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.