Talk:Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Noleander (talk · contribs) 21:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Tick list

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

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:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments

• The obvious question is: should this article be merged into the Human Rights Act 1998 article? That article is only 2,100 words long; and certainly could be a good home for material related to a single section of the Act. Question: I see several sources that discuss the act as a whole; are there any sources that focus only on Section 3 of the act?

• Related question: Per WP:Content fork, there should be a substantial section in Human Rights Act 1998 devoted to section 3 of the act. Is there such a section? --Noleander (talk) 21:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• Failing this GAN, due to lack of resonse. --Noleander (talk) 21:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Resuming GA

• I'll resume this GAN, based on recent improvements. --Noleander (talk) 18:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments, pass 2

• Section title "Comment" - probably should be "Reception" or "Commentary" or "Analysis". Title "Comment" may imply to reader that the section is a footnote.
• "and in the suggestion this is a bad thing" - Phrase "bad thing" is to slangy ... need a more encyclopedic word.

End Noleander comments --Noleander (talk) 17:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Changed. Also added a bit of content, I'm satsified with it now. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:31, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• Sentence: "The relationship between sections 3 and 4 and parliamentary sovereignty has been commented on most extensively, with common criticism of the reduced role of legislative supremacy questioned both in fact, and in the suggestion the weakening of parlaimentary sovereignty should be avoided: morality and constitutionalism are among positive features of this change." - I cannot understand this. Can you break it into 2 sentences and use plainer wording? --Noleander (talk) 20:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Changed. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• I have to ask: Any image available? --Noleander (talk) 19:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I created one, it's not incredibly but should be partly helpful. No other images seemed to be available. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Okay, I've passed it, but there is one final task: the new image is too hard to read. The font is too small. It is okay to have the font a bit small in the article's thumbnail, but when a reader clicks on the thumbnail, the full (standalone) image displayed should have large, readable fonts. Currently, the SVG defaults to a rather small size. --Noleander (talk) 21:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)