Talk:Defective Premises Act 1972/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk) 14:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This is probably an act I should get to know anyway, so I'm happy to offer a review...

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Couple of comments below.

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Sources and citations all look excellent, obviously.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   I feel the article gives a good understanding of the content and context of the law. Perhaps a further expansion of its influences would be good (see comment below). If you're looking to take this to FAC, then discussion of the effects of this Act on the law (as in, major cases, influences on other Acts, influence on foreign law) would be the sort of thing with which to expand it. I'm more than happy to promote it to GA without any more of that stuff, however

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Doubt there's much potential for edit warring here. :)

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   I'm obviously happy to pass this without any real illustration. No urgent need for one. Perhaps finding something suitable (portraits of important people, photographs of something that could be considered illegal under this act, that sort of thing). Just a thought, may not be massively appropriate.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Happy to pass once the couple of issues below are sorted. Nicely researched, concise, covers the ground well. (Also, I now know to contact you when my cupboard falls on top of me...)

Some comments...

• "Privity of Tort" principle that was "exploded" in Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 (that if A had a contract with B and in the process injured C, C was prevented from suing A because of the contract with B) - Not certain this is phrased in the best way- does this mean that if you sign a contract with me to plough my field, and in the process you injure John Smith, that John wouldn't be able to sue you because of the contract that exists between us? (As an aside, is there enough for an article on the Privity of Tort?)
  • Exploded means "destroyed"; I'll replace with overturned. I can suggest Privity of Tort? Ironholds (talk) 14:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
    • That would be useful- I was meaning have I correctly understood the situation? J Milburn (talk) 15:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
• "Earl CJ" This someone's name? Could a full name be given?
  • Earl, Chief Justice. I cannot find who it refers to; there are no LCJs called "Earl" from that time, and if it's "Earl of X" it's both non-standard and narrows it down to about 30 people.Ironholds (talk) 14:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Could we at least expand CJ to Chief Justice, with a link?
• "he was in possession of"- of which he was in possession?
  • "property he was in possession of" Ironholds (talk) 14:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
    • You misunderstand- your phrasing is non-standard. "of" is a preposition, and so should come before the verb. "of which he was in possession" is grammatically accurate, while "he was in possession of" is not. To (probably mis-) quote Churchill, this is English up with which I will not put.
• "North" Who is he? As he has yet to be introduced in the article, a brief description may be in order- "lawyer and author John North", or whatever/whoever.

  He is; "something the academic lawyer Peter North"... Ironholds (talk) 14:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Oh, I see he is. J Milburn (talk) 15:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• "(repealed by this Act)" - Avoid self references? "repealed by the 1972 Act" or somesuch.

  I can see that just confusing people "what Act? There's another 72 Act?" Ironholds (talk) 14:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Equally, it is not overly clear which Act "this" refers to. Perhaps "(repealed by the Defective Premises Act 1972)" to avoid ambiguity?

• "and only applied to lawful visitors, not trespassers." That's an interesting little fact :)
• You know this better than me, obviously, but is "could not be sued upon" the correct term?
• "Additionally, a landlord who merely has the right to repair property rather than an obligation to do so may still be found liable." In what circumstances? Could this perhaps be expanded upon?

  Done. Ironholds (talk) 14:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• The "miscellaneous" section- is this a technical term? If not, is it perhaps in violation of our guidelines on trivia sections?

  There are "Supplemental" and "Miscellaneous provisions" sections in most Acts of Parliament. It isn't really a trivia section, I wouldn't think. Ironholds (talk) 14:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Ok, sure. J Milburn (talk):

• "Bermingham"- again, a little in-prose context as to who Bermingham is would be useful.
  • Done. Ironholds (talk) 14:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
• "John Spencer" Again- not necessary, but would be nice.
  • Done. Ironholds (talk) 14:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
• "The Defective Premises (Northern Ireland) Order 1975 brought largely corresponding provisions into force in Northern Ireland on 1 January 1976, with the article covering injuries to third parties excluded."- I feel it would be beneficial to the article to expand this- similarities/differences? Context of that law? Seems to have been added almost as an afterthought, but it does seem to be important. Equally, what is the law like in Scotland and Wales? How come the NI wasn't covered by the original? (Sorry if these seem like inane questions to you, but the article as stands does leave me asking those questions).
  • Wales is identical, since England and Wales have a unified system. The NI order was completely identical to the Act described in the article, except it excluded the section covering injuries to third parties. Scotland has its own idea of what tort law is (doesn't even call it tort!) and so the provisions would be inappropriate and were not applied. Ironholds (talk) 14:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Could we get those points into the article? Explain that the Act applies to England and Wales, explain the difference between that the NI Act, and mention the main Acts relation to Scottish law? J Milburn (talk) 15:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
      • That's already in the article, and the difference is explained. I can't really go "it didn't apply to Scotland because... since it's essentially OR, but logical OR. Ironholds (talk) 16:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
        • I see the territorial extent is mentioned in the infobox. Could you at least expand on what you mean by "largely corresponding provisions" in the article, and mention any related Scottish legislation? (Also, as another note, is the full text of the Act not available online as a useful external link?) J Milburn (talk) 16:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
          • The full text is available, and linked as is standard in the infobox. I am unaware of corresponding Scots legislation, and the NI legislation is literally word-perfect; the only difference is the exclusion of third-party liability. Ironholds (talk) 21:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
• All points done. Ironholds (talk) 22:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Ok, I'm happy to promote now. Congratulations! J Milburn (talk) 23:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)