Talk:Magistrate (England and Wales)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 21:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: three found and fixed.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 22:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Linkrot: two found, one fixed, one tagged/[2] Jezhotwells (talk) 22:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I aim to post a full review within two days. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The article is mostly well written but a few phrases stood out:

   A practising solicitor or barrister may sit part-time as a district judge (who may be taking his first steps on the route to becoming a full-time district judge) reads rather clumsily.

   There are still some remnants of these duties, such as the licensing of pubs and clubs which was transferred to local authorities with justices retaining an appellate jurisdiction. I find this somwhat contradictory as magistrates no longer have this licensing function.

   On the finding of incapacity or misbehaviour (usually occurs when magistrate is convicted of a criminal offence, approximately 10 removals each year) needs to be recast more grammatically.

   The justices' clerk is required to be qualified as a solicitor or a barrister for a minimum of five years. again rather clumsy{{not done]] Check your spelling.

   The presiding magistrate is known as the chairman and, when sitting three on the bench, will sit at the centre, with the other two magistrates known as "wingers" could bebetter phrased. Not done When sitting three magistrates on the bench, the chairman will sit in the middle. is reall;y no better.

   dismiss an information where no evidence is offered, "an information" needs some explanation Not done

   Over the last 15 years, there have been a number of research papers and reviews of the role of magistrates, with a number of observations being made: "a number ... a number"

   Typical recruitment campaigns have been supported by local newspapers and magazines, from broadsheets and tabloids to women's magazines and TV listings rather ungrammatical.{[not done}} "Typical" is one of the problem words here. Please recast in good plain English.

   I feel the whole article needs copy-editing to explain jargon and improve prose flow.

   There are a number of embedded lists which would be better rendered as prose. Not done

   There are a few isolated sentences, e.g. The Human Rights Act 1998 requires magistrates to give reasons for their decisions, unlike jury verdicts in the Crown Court $ Lord Bingham, former Lord Chief Justice, observed that the lay magistracy was “…a democratic jewel beyond price” Not done

   The lead does not fully summarise the article - should be a few sentences on the history, training and evaluation. See WP:LEAD, also leads should be no longer than 4 paragraphs. Not done

   In the section Training of new magistrates, a fair bit of the text is lifted from the supporting cite.[3] Not done

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Sources appear to be RS, there is inconsistency in the citations, which could be improved by the use of citation templates. Sources which are used more than once would be better displaced in a works cited section. Not done

   Some paragraphs, e.g. The titles "magistrate" and "justice of the peace" mean the same, although today the former is commonly used in the popular media, and the latter in more formal contexts. The term "lay" referred to the voluntary, unsalaried nature of the appointment and was used to distinguish them from professional magistrates, known as stipendiaries. However, since stipendiaries became district judges, the term has fallen into disuse. are not supported by the citation - in this case [4]. Not done

   There are also some uncited paragraphs. Not done

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   the coverage is good but there is a certain amount of repetition, viz. the "R v Eccles Justices, ex parte Farrelly" case which is covered in two separate sections. Not done

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Yes, NPOV

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Stable

5. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Images captioned and tagged. I have some concerns about File:Court room layout.png, which appears to be WP:OR. Not done

   I found a couple of similar but they all seem a tad different here and here both slightly differing to the one currently in the article - I think removal will be best. Off2riorob (talk) 23:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

6. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I feel there is a lot of work needed to bring this up to GA status, but it can be done if the nominator is prepared to work at it. On hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

   Not much has been done to address this. Thanks to [[User:Shaibalahmar|Shaibalahmar] for some prose tweaks and to Off2riorob for helpful comments. As the nominator has gone walkabout, I am not going to list at this time

The history of this article is worth looking at. It was created in a whirl of cut-and-paste and immediately nominated for GA status. I have done a lot of work ironing out the cut-and-paste aspects and making it neutral but I never thought it was ready for GA status.I have addressed some of the above points but won't be doing any more. Good review Shaibalahmar (talk) 06:27, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

For info: the nominator, InExcelsisDeo (talk · contribs), has not edited for about two months. Bencherlite^Talk 08:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I am not sure if Off2riorob is coming back to look at this. I have dropped a note at the Law project page. I will wait until the end of the seven days hold before considering what to do. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)