A fact from Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the Did you know column on 9 April 2021 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the
legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article is within the scope of
WikiProject British crime, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.British crimeWikipedia:WikiProject British crimeTemplate:WikiProject British crimeBritish crime articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the
project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as
this nomination's talk page,
the article's talk page or
Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by
Cwmhiraeth (
talk) 05:48, 5 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Looked at both citations and all, including the hooks. ALT1 is more interesting than ALT0 (Although both are in their own way), so I'm choosing that. However, Earwig's Copyvio Detector shows a 84.5% chance of similarly with the UK Human Rights Blog.
Check here for reference and see where you can make the edits to avoid plagiarism issues.
Ominae (
talk) 02:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Ominae: Thanks for your review. I've looked at the plagiarism detector, but the match appears to be because of the block quotes that are used in the article, which highlight the important parts of what the judges thought and are taken from the judgments (and cited as such). I'd looked at other Wikipedia pages on law cases, and they've also seem to make use of block quotes. The article also uses and cites the Human Rights Blog in the 'Significance' section. In light of this, would keeping the article in its current state be acceptable?
Bibliopole5795 (
talk) 00:39, 17 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Okay. I think a new review is in order. Thanks for the answer.
Ominae (
talk) 02:23, 17 March 2021 (UTC)reply
comment only - Good to check that block quotes have quote marks. I think a few are missing -
Victuallers (
talk) 22:40, 30 March 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Victuallers: Sorry, could you clarify what you mean? I included two block quotes in the article, and both of them have quotation marks?
Bibliopole5795 (
talk) 13:27, 31 March 2021 (UTC)reply
I have added the missing quotes identified by the copyvio detector and added a "citation needed". I think you ask a lot of the reviewer to not identify the specific clause you use to back up your hooks. I didnt intend to do a review but it took a while to unpick. I have just read the entire judgement and I cannot see the place where they specifically and unilaterally agree on a duty of care to the public. In fact there are clauses that specifically warn against this. If you add "generally" to the first hook then its a goer as I have added a ref to where I think this is true. The citation needed has to be taken care of and as the DYKadvice says "strongly suggest" that a source is provided next time. ALT1 IMO doesnt explain the context of the blog comment quoted or the law that is being clarified, but it is a correct quote. I would suggest that the main hook could be ticked if you agree with my evaluation.
Victuallers (
talk) 14:43, 31 March 2021 (UTC) ALT2 would need some else to tick
Victuallers (
talk) 15:27, 31 March 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Victuallers: I've just had a re-read through of the judgment myself and I agree with what you said. I've re-wrote the first hook as ALT-3 to better fit what the judges actually said, in line with the quote you provided in the ref. As for ALT 2, I actually really like it and I think it might be better than what I originally wrote? I'd be happy to wait for another assessment to figure out which hook to use.
Bibliopole5795 (
talk) 01:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Alt1 is OK and Alt3 is better, but the nominator likes Alt2. Can someone review Alt2 please?
Bibliopole5795, a number of paragraphs are unsourced. Can you please add sources where they're missing, and ping me when you've done so?
MeegsC (
talk) 14:12, 2 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Bibliopole5795 There is one minor issue. Can you add a reference after "The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court" and then I will promote it?
SL93 (
talk) 22:29, 4 April 2021 (UTC)reply
A fact from Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the Did you know column on 9 April 2021 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the
legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article is within the scope of
WikiProject British crime, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.British crimeWikipedia:WikiProject British crimeTemplate:WikiProject British crimeBritish crime articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the
project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as
this nomination's talk page,
the article's talk page or
Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by
Cwmhiraeth (
talk) 05:48, 5 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Looked at both citations and all, including the hooks. ALT1 is more interesting than ALT0 (Although both are in their own way), so I'm choosing that. However, Earwig's Copyvio Detector shows a 84.5% chance of similarly with the UK Human Rights Blog.
Check here for reference and see where you can make the edits to avoid plagiarism issues.
Ominae (
talk) 02:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Ominae: Thanks for your review. I've looked at the plagiarism detector, but the match appears to be because of the block quotes that are used in the article, which highlight the important parts of what the judges thought and are taken from the judgments (and cited as such). I'd looked at other Wikipedia pages on law cases, and they've also seem to make use of block quotes. The article also uses and cites the Human Rights Blog in the 'Significance' section. In light of this, would keeping the article in its current state be acceptable?
Bibliopole5795 (
talk) 00:39, 17 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Okay. I think a new review is in order. Thanks for the answer.
Ominae (
talk) 02:23, 17 March 2021 (UTC)reply
comment only - Good to check that block quotes have quote marks. I think a few are missing -
Victuallers (
talk) 22:40, 30 March 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Victuallers: Sorry, could you clarify what you mean? I included two block quotes in the article, and both of them have quotation marks?
Bibliopole5795 (
talk) 13:27, 31 March 2021 (UTC)reply
I have added the missing quotes identified by the copyvio detector and added a "citation needed". I think you ask a lot of the reviewer to not identify the specific clause you use to back up your hooks. I didnt intend to do a review but it took a while to unpick. I have just read the entire judgement and I cannot see the place where they specifically and unilaterally agree on a duty of care to the public. In fact there are clauses that specifically warn against this. If you add "generally" to the first hook then its a goer as I have added a ref to where I think this is true. The citation needed has to be taken care of and as the DYKadvice says "strongly suggest" that a source is provided next time. ALT1 IMO doesnt explain the context of the blog comment quoted or the law that is being clarified, but it is a correct quote. I would suggest that the main hook could be ticked if you agree with my evaluation.
Victuallers (
talk) 14:43, 31 March 2021 (UTC) ALT2 would need some else to tick
Victuallers (
talk) 15:27, 31 March 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Victuallers: I've just had a re-read through of the judgment myself and I agree with what you said. I've re-wrote the first hook as ALT-3 to better fit what the judges actually said, in line with the quote you provided in the ref. As for ALT 2, I actually really like it and I think it might be better than what I originally wrote? I'd be happy to wait for another assessment to figure out which hook to use.
Bibliopole5795 (
talk) 01:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Alt1 is OK and Alt3 is better, but the nominator likes Alt2. Can someone review Alt2 please?
Bibliopole5795, a number of paragraphs are unsourced. Can you please add sources where they're missing, and ping me when you've done so?
MeegsC (
talk) 14:12, 2 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Bibliopole5795 There is one minor issue. Can you add a reference after "The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court" and then I will promote it?
SL93 (
talk) 22:29, 4 April 2021 (UTC)reply