Unus testis, nullus testis 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: August 26, 2023. ( Reviewed version). |
A fact from Unus testis, nullus testis appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 2 September 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: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
The result was: promoted by
Cielquiparle (
talk)
04:41, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Created by WatkynBassett ( talk) on 28 July 2023. Self-nominated at 18:42, 30 July 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Unus testis, nullus testis; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: SpaceEconomist192 ( talk · contribs) 20:31, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|
...again meaning that the testimony of one witness is insufficient to convict.This sentence should be removed, no need no need to repeat the same information twice.
...which has been characterized as the "numerical system" by American legal scholar John Henry Wigmore.What does Wigmore mean by this? A clarification is needed.
...a single witness to a fact was in principlewas → is
...not sufficient to establish this fact as proven...this → a
...a larger number of witnesses was required for the establishment of certain special facts.An example of these «special facts» would be a good addition.
Sometimes even a specific weight was given to a witness' testimony...The use of «even» is editorializing, it should be removed. Also, the sentence is out of place, what's its pertinence?
...(with the notable exception of the crime of treason where two witnesses are required, see e.g., Article Three of the United States Constitution).Is it possible to put this in an explanatory note?
...their testimony is often unreliable, inter alia, due to errors of perception...inter alia → among others things
...received critically by some..«by some» is a weasel word, it should be removed.
Critics have called the traditional requirement of corroborative testimony..., in that case it does corroborate such wording so its fine.
...according to current scholarly understanding...looks like weasel wording, it should be removed.
The rule is now said to have been introduced...«now» is a relative specification of time, it should be removed.
The rule is not only based on Roman law but has also biblical roots.This sentence is rather futile and the use of «but» is editorializing. The whole sentence should be removed.
...the requirement of two or more witnesses is often attested to in the Old and New Testament.is, in my opinion, enough to reinforce this. But it's also fine as it is.
are pointed to. While in the...
Thank you for your quick review. I had not expected the article to be picked up so soon and am for private reasons quite time-constrained at the moment. I hope to address the issues raised by you in time, but if I don't, I have every understanding for failing the article. The first batch of replies above! Thanks again! WatkynBassett ( talk) 12:27, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Regarding this revert, I see the point around this fitting the exception in WP:WEASEL but I still have concerns.
As it stands, I would at least cite the scholar in text, saying something like "In 2000, <profession> Christin Coan noted that this rule has been criticized, especially in cases like rape where often only the perpetrator and the victim are present." Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:07, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Unus testis, nullus testis 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: August 26, 2023. ( Reviewed version). |
A fact from Unus testis, nullus testis appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 2 September 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: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
The result was: promoted by
Cielquiparle (
talk)
04:41, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Created by WatkynBassett ( talk) on 28 July 2023. Self-nominated at 18:42, 30 July 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Unus testis, nullus testis; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: SpaceEconomist192 ( talk · contribs) 20:31, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|
...again meaning that the testimony of one witness is insufficient to convict.This sentence should be removed, no need no need to repeat the same information twice.
...which has been characterized as the "numerical system" by American legal scholar John Henry Wigmore.What does Wigmore mean by this? A clarification is needed.
...a single witness to a fact was in principlewas → is
...not sufficient to establish this fact as proven...this → a
...a larger number of witnesses was required for the establishment of certain special facts.An example of these «special facts» would be a good addition.
Sometimes even a specific weight was given to a witness' testimony...The use of «even» is editorializing, it should be removed. Also, the sentence is out of place, what's its pertinence?
...(with the notable exception of the crime of treason where two witnesses are required, see e.g., Article Three of the United States Constitution).Is it possible to put this in an explanatory note?
...their testimony is often unreliable, inter alia, due to errors of perception...inter alia → among others things
...received critically by some..«by some» is a weasel word, it should be removed.
Critics have called the traditional requirement of corroborative testimony..., in that case it does corroborate such wording so its fine.
...according to current scholarly understanding...looks like weasel wording, it should be removed.
The rule is now said to have been introduced...«now» is a relative specification of time, it should be removed.
The rule is not only based on Roman law but has also biblical roots.This sentence is rather futile and the use of «but» is editorializing. The whole sentence should be removed.
...the requirement of two or more witnesses is often attested to in the Old and New Testament.is, in my opinion, enough to reinforce this. But it's also fine as it is.
are pointed to. While in the...
Thank you for your quick review. I had not expected the article to be picked up so soon and am for private reasons quite time-constrained at the moment. I hope to address the issues raised by you in time, but if I don't, I have every understanding for failing the article. The first batch of replies above! Thanks again! WatkynBassett ( talk) 12:27, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Regarding this revert, I see the point around this fitting the exception in WP:WEASEL but I still have concerns.
As it stands, I would at least cite the scholar in text, saying something like "In 2000, <profession> Christin Coan noted that this rule has been criticized, especially in cases like rape where often only the perpetrator and the victim are present." Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:07, 3 September 2023 (UTC)