![]() | Make It 16 Incorporated v Attorney-General has been listed as one of the
Social sciences and society good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: January 1, 2023. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | A fact from Make It 16 Incorporated v Attorney-General appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 22 January 2023 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Just noting my intention to chuck in a judgment section at some point over the coming days which will go through the Supreme Court's judgment. Will have to make sure that responses section is kept tidy since once the bill is introduced, I can imagine it will have quite continuous developments after that point. Carolina2k22 • (talk) • (edits) 02:56, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Sammi Brie ( talk · contribs) 02:28, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not) |
---|
|
Overall: |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Welcome to GAN,
Carolina2k22! Sourcing looks good. The main issue is copy; tweaking commas, splitting some long sentences, etc. There are some places where concision might be useful. 7-day hold. Ping me when the page is ready.
Sammi Brie (she/her •
t •
c)
02:28, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Five citations were chosen at random out of 36.
Earwig's copyvio detector catches a content farm that copied the page from us (no concern there). Most of the rest are phrases like "the Bill of Rights Act" and "lowering the voting age to 16" along with a couple of quotes.
She said the Attorney-General had not given a good reason as to why the discrimination was justified and the High Court erred in agreeing with him.
He said the prime minister should focus on issues like youth crime rather than the voting age.
In her GA review, Sammi Brie didn’t comment on how this article refers to judges. The article uses the legal convention of naming them as "Surname J" and I’m unaware that the MOS confirms this as acceptable. It’s certainly not a reader-centric approach. Firstly, you have to be aware of the convention or somehow figure out what the "J" (or "CJ" or "JJ") stands for. Secondly, and more importantly, readers would probably more interested in the judges common names than just their surnames. Thirdly, once the common names are used, it becomes more obvious that wikilinks from the prose section to their articles are missing (currently mostly just linked linked from the infobox). Schwede 66 18:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
SL93 (
talk)
03:09, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by Carolina2k22 ( talk). Self-nominated at 02:26, 3 January 2023 (UTC).
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
QPQ: None required. |
I would like to call in to question how relevant it is to have a section on "Public opinion on the voting age" when it does not relate to the court case and subsequent judgement. Including opinion polls makes the article more about voting age reform overall and it distracts from the actual court judgment itself and it's implications; such information belongs more in an article such as Electoral reform in New Zealand or an article about the voting age. I think it would be far more prudent to have the article examine the implications of the judgement (e.g what a declaration of inconsistency actually means and what it's effect is) rather than opinion polling that relates to the subject matter of the judgment but not the court case and judgment itself. MangoMan11 ( talk) 08:57, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
![]() | Make It 16 Incorporated v Attorney-General has been listed as one of the
Social sciences and society good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: January 1, 2023. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | A fact from Make It 16 Incorporated v Attorney-General appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 22 January 2023 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Just noting my intention to chuck in a judgment section at some point over the coming days which will go through the Supreme Court's judgment. Will have to make sure that responses section is kept tidy since once the bill is introduced, I can imagine it will have quite continuous developments after that point. Carolina2k22 • (talk) • (edits) 02:56, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Sammi Brie ( talk · contribs) 02:28, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not) |
---|
|
Overall: |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Welcome to GAN,
Carolina2k22! Sourcing looks good. The main issue is copy; tweaking commas, splitting some long sentences, etc. There are some places where concision might be useful. 7-day hold. Ping me when the page is ready.
Sammi Brie (she/her •
t •
c)
02:28, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Five citations were chosen at random out of 36.
Earwig's copyvio detector catches a content farm that copied the page from us (no concern there). Most of the rest are phrases like "the Bill of Rights Act" and "lowering the voting age to 16" along with a couple of quotes.
She said the Attorney-General had not given a good reason as to why the discrimination was justified and the High Court erred in agreeing with him.
He said the prime minister should focus on issues like youth crime rather than the voting age.
In her GA review, Sammi Brie didn’t comment on how this article refers to judges. The article uses the legal convention of naming them as "Surname J" and I’m unaware that the MOS confirms this as acceptable. It’s certainly not a reader-centric approach. Firstly, you have to be aware of the convention or somehow figure out what the "J" (or "CJ" or "JJ") stands for. Secondly, and more importantly, readers would probably more interested in the judges common names than just their surnames. Thirdly, once the common names are used, it becomes more obvious that wikilinks from the prose section to their articles are missing (currently mostly just linked linked from the infobox). Schwede 66 18:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
SL93 (
talk)
03:09, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by Carolina2k22 ( talk). Self-nominated at 02:26, 3 January 2023 (UTC).
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
QPQ: None required. |
I would like to call in to question how relevant it is to have a section on "Public opinion on the voting age" when it does not relate to the court case and subsequent judgement. Including opinion polls makes the article more about voting age reform overall and it distracts from the actual court judgment itself and it's implications; such information belongs more in an article such as Electoral reform in New Zealand or an article about the voting age. I think it would be far more prudent to have the article examine the implications of the judgement (e.g what a declaration of inconsistency actually means and what it's effect is) rather than opinion polling that relates to the subject matter of the judgment but not the court case and judgment itself. MangoMan11 ( talk) 08:57, 16 January 2023 (UTC)