Talk:Fair dealing in United Kingdom law/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: – Quadell ^(talk) 19:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Nominator: User:Ironholds

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
	1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Good prose, fun to read.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Good lede, well organized.
	2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	References and Bibliography sections are great.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Citations are excellent.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Doesn't seem to.
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Meets GA standards.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Not a problem.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Meets GA standards.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Not a problem.
	6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	The copyright status on the image is in serious doubt. No images.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Good placement and caption. No images.
	7. Overall assessment.	Meets or exceeds all requirements. This is a good article.

Issues and questions

• 1a issue: There are a few places where the prose seems too technical or legal. What does "actively" mean in paragraph 2 of "Fair dealing"? The word "admit" in paragraph 4 sounds like it's a confession, though I suppose it just means "assert" or "rule" or something. Can these be reworded for non-specialists?

  "me being silly" and "fixed" respectively. Ironholds (talk) 22:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• 1a issue: I'm confused by the "not historically been important" passage in "Research and study". It's not cited, and the distinction seems very important to me, just reading it. One has to be published and made widely available, the other generally isn't. I'm not sure what this means. Should it be rewritten, removed, or what?

  Cited and fixed up; tell me what you think now. Ironholds (talk) 22:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

  I tweaked. Hope it's okay. – Quadell ^(talk) 23:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• 1a question: Semi-colons seem to be the in-thing this summer, eh? This article has 29 (plus 5 more in the references) and sometimes has two in the same sentence. I've gone through and reworded here to avoid overuse, bringing the number down to 19. If any of these changes degrade style or accuracy in your view, feel free to undo any of them and, if necessary, fix it a different way. Are these changes acceptable to you?

  Sure; seems fine! Ironholds (talk) 22:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• 2b issue: The quote "The older the issue, the less likely it is that it will be treated as having any currency" is not cited.

  Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 22:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• 2b question: Since all sources are print sources, I don't have access to any of them and can't spotcheck. Obviously you're very experienced with "Good Articles" and with copyright issues. Can you confirm for me that you haven't copied any passages verbatim (besides what is directly quoted), and you haven't introduced issues of close paraphrasing? (I always ask this in GA reviews where I can't adequately check the sources.)

  Yup; all quiet on the copyvio front. Ironholds (talk) 22:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• 3a issue: The article mentions that "fair use" case law was eliminated by the Copyright Act 1911, and it says that fair dealing is currently defined by the 1988 law, but that seems to imply that "fair dealing" existed in some form between 1911 and 1988. It seems to me that an article on "Fair dealing in United Kingdom law" should cover historical use, not just the current way it's implemented.

  It'd be nice; the problem is there isn't really sourcing covering it. Ironholds (talk) 22:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• 3a question: The Fair use article (which focuses on U.S. law) has sections on "practical effects", "economic benefits", "parody", "on the Internet", and "common misunderstandings". Some of this information is incorporated in other section in this "Fair dealing" article, but there is no information about whether parody applies, or how this applies to the Internet. I assume there exists case law on these aspects. Would this article benefit from coverage on some of these aspects?

  Well, we make no distinction between application on the internet and application anywhere else, and don't have a parody exception. I'm pretty sure I saw a line about the debate over a parody exception in one of the books I'm using, so I could always include it as "another difference between UK/US law" if that'd help? Ironholds (talk) 22:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• 4 question: In the "Research and study" section (and lede), you explain that this category does not apply to broadcasts, sound, or film, and you quote a pair of experts who criticize this limitation. But you don't explain why the limitation is in place, or what anyone might say to defend the limitation. Does anyone defend it? Was there ever a reason for it? It feels like an NPOV concern, the way it's currently written.

  Can't find any sources on either bit. I believe (and this is just OR) that the lack of coverage for film sources and the like is because UK copyright law tends to be very anal; we like *spits* all-encompassing copyright law, and give ground very grudgingly. As such, any exceptions are deliberately limited, and since films were hardly likely to be common study resources in 1988.. Ironholds (talk) 22:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• 6a issue: I don't believe the image is actually in the public domain, as claimed. I first asked here, and have brought the issue to wider attention here on the Commons. In the meantime, I think the image needs to be replaced or removed.

  Removed. Ironholds (talk) 22:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions

File these under "Potentially useful feedback", not "Things required for GA status".

• It would be great to have some fitting image. I don't know what. A valid pic of HRHtPoW? Something like File:Copyright Act 1911.jpg, showing the 1911 act where "fair dealing" was established?

• History is pretty slight. I don't see the 1911 act available, but Wikisource has the 1956 Copyright Act it its entirety, and Article 6 spells out how fair dealing applied in this law. I'm not sure if it would be OR to include this with analysis or not (in the absence of secondary sources). But however you do it, it would be an improvement.

• In the U.S., "fair use" covers parody, and Americans might assume "fair dealing" does too. On the one hand, it seems like it would be useful to describe some of the differences between UK fair dealing and other similar laws (particularly U.S. fair use). But on the other hand, it does look a bit silly and U.S.-centric when our Copyright Act 1911 article has a whole section on how the UK law differs from the U.S. law. So this decision would have to take a number of factors into account, though I think such a section would be an improvement, I don't feel 100% confident that it would. (That's why I'm not pushing the issue.)

• The unanswered criticism still bugs me, but you can't go beyond the sources. Still, if you ever find anything, it'd be great.

In the final analysis, it's a great asset to have to such a good article on this copyright-related topic. Thanks for writing this, and I'm glad to pass it. – Quadell ^(talk) 23:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)