Talk:Scots law/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 10:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 10:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Initial comments

I normally read the article briefly from start to finish; and then afterwards, I work my way through the article, in more depth, section by section, over several days, but leaving the WP:Lede until last. After this initial read through, I make a decision whether the article is likely to gain GA during this nomination, with or without additional work, in a reasonable time frame. If I conclude that it can't, I might/would Quick fail it. The final decision on GA or not is, of course, made at the end of this review.

• The article appears to be reasonably comprehensive, easy to read and well referenced, although I've not yet checked any of the claims against the references. So I suspect that it will make GA after additional work has been done.
• Note: the reason for leaving the Lede until last is that it should both introduce the article and summarise the main points. In this case, whilst the lede appears to provide a good introduction to the article, but I might change my view on this as I work through the sections in more depth, I suspect that it will be found inadequate as a summary, since on an initial reading it appears to ignore sections of the article (more details will follow later - I'm doing this last but it also has to be considered against each section).
• The lede also appears to "tease" (I could be wrong on a very quick read) by including material that does not seem to be in the body of the article; and the "Branches of the law" section appears to be merely a list with a single paragraph of three sections (more details will follow later).

I'm now going to work my way through the article, starting with "Scotland as a distinct jurisdiction".

The nominator, or anyone else is welcome to add comments, questions, suggestions as I go though the article, but the acceptance criteria is WP:WIAGA, and that's what I'm be assessing it against.

Detailed review

• Scotland as a distinct jurisdiction -

...to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 13:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• • Ref 3 is cited as Stair, etc, (on line) etc and there are lots of "Stair" citations, e.g. 14, 24, 28, 50, 54-56, 59-60, but there is no link to Stair, so these references are not currently verifiable.

• Found it, its the link to Stair Memorial Encyclopaedia, which is a Wikipedia article. Firstly, it was not too obvious as a "Stair" reference, but far more importantly, Wikipeidia articles generally cannot be used in wikipeidia articles as reliable sources (see also WP:RS). I have no objection to the Encyclopaedia itself being used as a citation, but I'm not accepting the wikipedia article as a reliable source citation. Pyrotec (talk) Pyrotec (talk) 15:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Stair Memorial Encyclopaedia is the Wikipedia article on the source itself (as it is a well known (amongst lawyers) Scottish legal encyclopaedia) rather than the source of the citations (I don't think I'm violating WP:RS as I'm not actually citing a Wikipedia article as a source). I can't link to Stair itself as it is a pay-for-use legal encyclopaedia. The wikipedia article Stair Memorial Encyclopaedia makes it clear that this source is a legal source that can be relied upon in court. In this sense, you could treat these citations as off-line written sources, which they basically are, I have only included the WP link to Stair Memorial Encyclopaedia to give the reader a sense of its reliability and legal force. I do accept that the citations are not clear and that the vast majority of the sources are offline. Connolly15 (talk) 22:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying this, I'm not a lawyer, etc, so "Stair" meant nothing to me. Having looked again at Stair Memorial Encyclopaedia, the reference (as opposed to the individual citations) is being improperly cited. There is obviously a title, a publisher(s), possibly a publication date, there are certainly several volumes since most if not all the citations refer to Vol 22, so there could well be a volume title, (the individual citations provide access dates, so its not needed in the reference) and a web site which requires a valid subscription (there is a way of indicating subscription only, but I can't see it in the template parameters). I suggest that you consider referencing it either using the template {{cite web}} itself, or do it manually using the template as guide. Interestingly, I don't have a subscription, but having looked at Stair Memorial Encyclopaedia, I've not yet discovered a log in page for "Stair", but I have found Vol 23, in Hardback listed on Amazon.co.uk at £6,550.00 but not available for sale (see http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Laws-Scotland-Memorial-Encyclopaedia/dp/040623700X), I've also found a copy of the Stair Memorial Encyclopaedia for 30p (plus P&P) from Betterworld books (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Laws-Scotland-Stair-memorial-encyclopaedia/dp/0406237018). I could afford to verify every claim against the quoted paragraph for that price. Pyrotec (talk) 06:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. The style of referencing is the typical referencing style for Stair used in legal texts; however, I appreciate this is not user friendly so I will attempt to amend later. The title is "Stair Memorial Encyclopaedia" and there are volume titles. I didn't realise there was a style, so will amend. If you are interested in accessing it online it is available through subscription legal resources such as WestLaw or LexisNexis - the publisher does not make it available online themselves. Suspect the £0.30 (plus P&P) is perhaps one volume of the Encyclopaedia and would be outdated... the entire Encyclopaedia in hardback would easily fill a large bookcase (your shipping costs might be pretty expensive too!). Connolly15 (talk) 17:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I found this link [1] to the printed version at LexisNexis's UK shop - its surprisingly badly cited, but it has a title, ISBN and publication date. P.S. The 30p one is an ex-library copy and £2.80 P&P (possibly an error) - I don't want a bookcase full so I'll not be ordering it. If you changed the Reference (I do mean reference, not cites/notes) from the wikipedia article to the lexisnexis web site and added the info they provide, I could close this non-compliance. Pyrotec (talk) 20:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done Connolly15 (talk) 00:50, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• • Ref 6 is in French and appears to be book. I find it somewhat surprising that a French source is needed as verification of the part-statement: "There are substantial differences between Scots Law, English law and Northern Irish law in areas such as property law, criminal law, trusts law"; and a book(?) for which no pages are cited. OK, I'm not going the fail the article for using a French source, but it's somewhat surprising, a possibly copy and paste from the French wikipedia, for example?

Comment: This is a hangover from the "original" article before I re-wrote it. I will look for a better source. Connolly15 (talk) 22:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done Connolly15 (talk) 00:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• • I did live and work in Scotland for more than a decade, but not now. I saw purchase contracts stating Law or England / Law of Scotland (one choice crossed out) to be applied to this contract unless otherwise stated. So I get the distinct impression that in the case of such a dispute, it can be pre-agreed which set of laws is to be used. Should this be mentioned in this section?

Comment: Yes sure, contracting parties can opt for any legal system but I see your point as it is especially relevant to the UK. Connolly15 (talk) 22:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• • This Section, particularly the second paragraph is written as an introduction to the differences between English and Scottish law (& NI, but NI is mostly ignored); and the 2nd para gives examples of practical differences, which is fine so far as it goes. It becomes obvious by the "Legal institutions" section that there are practical differences in nomenclature, i.e. both the courts and the practitioners have difference names. I would have expected a short statement to that effect, e.g. there are no Crown Courts, Magistrates Courts, etc, in Scotland and there are no Procurator Fiscal(s) in England - none in this article either.

Comment: Thanks will include when you finish review.Connolly15 (talk) 22:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

 DoneConnolly15 (talk) 01:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• History -

...to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 15:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• • Main block (untitled) -

• Generally Good, quite readable and well referenced. However, I'm not sure that I understand the second part of: "The Parliament of Great Britain was now unrestricted in altering laws concerning public right, policy and civil government, but concerning private right, only alterations for the evident utility of the subjects within Scotland were permitted." Firstly, it's not clear what is being claimed: (1) private rights in Scotland can be changed subject to certain tests, i.e. that of evident utility (to Scotland/Scottish subjects), or (2) Parliament can only change private rights in Scotland, subject to certain tests, it can't change them in England & Wales, etc, etc; and, secondly, what is the test of "evident utility of the subjects"?

Comment: Er, yes, I have to agree with you. This was in the previous article (hence it is also unreferenced). It is basically quoting Article 18 of the Act of Union ( http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Ann/6/11/part/11 (final sentence)). I am afraid I am not familiar enough with this period of history to be able to answer your questions or suggest amendments to this part of the article. Connolly15 (talk) 01:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• • Influential sources -

• A good subsection.

• Sources of law -
  • Legislation -

...to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 06:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• Firstly, a very minor point: citations 33 & 34 refer to Bradley and give a page no., which is great. The Reference however is Bradley & Ewing: so the citations aught to be named consistently.

 DoneConnolly15 (talk) 01:00, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• The first sentence is (verifiable and) strictly true as of 1998, this date is not given here but I found it in the Sewel Convention redirect to Legislative Consent Motion. The next paragraph discusses two 1998 Acts and the European Communities Act 1972, which "have special status in the law of Scotland". Its a verifiable claim and I'm not going to disagree about their status, but the 1972 Act I suspect became part of the law of Scotland before the Sewel Convention. (see below).
• There is no mention in this section of relationship(s) between the laws of Scotland and the legislature of the Parliament of the United Kingdom prior to 1998, but there is of pre-1707 Parliament of Scotland. Possibly, that leaves a big gap between 1707 and 1998: stuff like the Health & Safety and Work, etc, Act of 1974 which is enforceable in Scotland, however the penultimate paragraph of the unnamed major block in the "History" section states: "The Parliament of Great Britain was now unrestricted in altering laws concerning public right, policy and civil government....". Was UK legislation enforced in Scotland from 1707 until 1998 "unrestrictedly"? If it was not, shouldn't this section mention how it was done?

Legislation between 1707 and 1998 passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom was enforced to the degree that the particular legislation said it had legal effect in Scotland. There were no Scottish institutions that could restrict its enforcement, so to the degree that the UK Parliament wanted to legislate for Scotland it did so "unrestrictedly". My intention was that after the History section everything should refer to the situation as it is today, rather than adopting a today and yesterday approach. What do you suggest is best? Connolly15 (talk) 17:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I had assumed that prior to the formation of the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Affairs Committee (or something similar), a grouping of (Scottish) MPs in the House of Parliament, would have specifically reviewed legislation intended for Scotland at the committee stages before the legislation became law. (I could research this). Traditionally when then there was a Labour Prime Minster at Westminster there were lots of Scottish labour MPs around, so they were able to influence Government thinking. I have no objection to "Legislation" being kept as it is, I just don't think that "when the UK Parliament wanted to legislate for Scotland it did so unrestrictedly"; so perhaps "History" needs to comment on this aspect. I was living in Scotland when "Maggie" introduced the Poll Tax - it did not last long (see Tax per head#United Kingdom and Community Charge). Pyrotec (talk) 21:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Refs 37 & 41 have named personal authors that are not cited.

 Done Connolly15 (talk) 01:33, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• Ref 45 has a publisher (The Law Society of Scotland) that is not named in the citation.

 Done Connolly15 (talk) 01:33, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• The statement "European legislation will be annulled if it is contrary to the Treaties of the European Union or their spirit, is ultra vires or proper procedures in its creation were not followed.[46]" is rather vague on who will do the annulling. Having looked at ref 46 some (corporate) body has to take the case to the ECJ and pay costs if they loose; and it seems the ECJ does the annulling thorough the EC. Perhaps, the statement could be made clearer?

This sentence is meant to connect with the sentence before it, "Only the Court of Justice of the European Union has the authority to legally review the competency of a legislative act by the European Parliament and the Council." ... the power to "legally review" something would result in it being annulled, so it is the Court of Justice of the EU that does the annulling. I will make this more clear. Connolly15 (talk) 17:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• • Common law -

...to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 14:16, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• I suspect that ref 47 has both a publisher and named contributors - following the links backwards leads to this page [2] there is also a University of Glasgow logo on the page, which is somewhat a give away.
• Erskine, the reference associated with citation 58 is inadequately cited. It appears to be properly cited in Academic writings so this seems to have been missed during proof reading.

• • Academic writings & Custom -

• OK.

• Legal institutions -
  • Executive -

• Reg 62 at the time of checking was a broken web link - gives a 404 error message and Checklinks gives it as "Dead since 2012-03-31;\n WebCite archive avalible" (sic).

• • Legislature -

• OK, correct as of 1998.

There has been no constitutional change since 1998, though there is a controversial Bill before the UK Parliament to amend. Connolly15 (talk) 17:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• • Judiciary -

• OK.

• • Legal profession -

• OK.

• Branches of the law -

• Clearly inadequate, being little more than two lists of topics.
• This is the section most in need of improvement.

• Reading through the article, as a former resident of Scotland, it gives me a history of the law, its institutions and some of its post holders, but it does not relate to me as a person. The article should at least provide some consideration of typical(?) events in my life and the resulting legal events, and perhaps the Branches of the law section is where this should be covered:

• Well, I might be found intoxicated in/on the street or breathalysed whilst driving a car: so I get to meet some police, but which court will it go to, do I need an Advocate, a Solicitor, or both, and is this private or public law?
• I buy and then sell a house/tenement flat (I've done both in Scotland). For me, when buying in the 1970s, I used a Solicitors' Property Centre (because at the time that was the only way), but by the time I sold there were Estate Agents (an English system, not seen at one time in Scotland). The process of buying and selling is also different: i.e. no Gazumping in Scotland. Yet there is no mention of this Scottish institution.
• I get divorced: (not so far) but I happen to know that in Scotland the law regarding the house/home/property is difference to English law and the wife appears to have stronger rights in Scotland than she would have in England (its mentioned on the documents).
• I try and blow up Glasgow airport with a car bomb - it happened. There is no mention of the Procurator Fiscal, I assume they would be involved in the legal process surrounding any car bomb attempt?
• One of my parents dies - i.e. Probate (not Probation, which presumably has a the same Latin root word).

Comment: My intention was that these specifics would eventually be covered off in the relevant sub-articles. For example, I have started writing a substantive article on Scots Family Law which covers your point on divorce above. In my opinion, this article would become very long if it were to cover things in this amount of detail. I could add general summaries of each area of the law with the links maintained if that would help? Connolly15 (talk) 17:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't like this section as it currently exists. If it looked something like English law#Subjects and links with some summarises I would be much happier. However, the lede says Scots law is mostly different to English Law but is sometimes the same. That tends to suggest that the article would provide information on the differences - house buying was different: I sold a house in Scotland (had a Solicitor in Paisley) and at the same time was buying one in England (had another solicitor there) and two estate agents, but that was 21 years ago. We don't have Procurator Fiscal's in England, but I used to go passed the one in Paisley (the office was near Glasgow Int. Airport) so I know they existed then, they might have merged into some larger organisation. Pyrotec (talk) 21:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• The Lede -

• Very adequate when considered in respect of its introductory function, but not so adequate when considered in respect of providing a summary of the main points in the article.

• In particular, it does not mention institutions (courts, etc) nor legal professions.
• It mentions differences between Scottish and English systems, but no examples are given; however specific examples appear in Scotland as a distinct jurisdiction so perhaps summarising/repeating them in the Lede would be unnecessary.

...to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 08:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Coverage

• I've added this section as "place marker" for consideration of WP:WIAGA clauses 3(a) & (b) plus various sections within the article.

• Currently there are 189 GA Legal articles (see Category:GA-Class legal articles), three of which I awarded GA-status, but none of these 189 GAs are Laws of Country X, in addition there are 925 B-class Legal articles, almost none of which are concerned with Laws of Country X (there is Early Irish law), so there is no obvious precedent for a GA Laws of Country X to guide this review.

• More detailed comments are given in the subsection above about individual subsections. However:

• The WP:Lead provides a good introduction to this article (but it also needs to summarise the main points). The lead also sets the "tone" (perhaps the wrong word) of the article: Scots law is mostly different to English law but is sometimes the same (and perhaps this is a poor summary).

• Scotland as a distinct jurisdiction, History & Sources of law are all "strong" subsections. However, they are very much post 1998, which some pre-1707 legislation: I do question whether the period 1701 to 1998 was a period of "unrestricted" Westminster legislation (I wish to check that for myself).
• Legal institutions probably OK.
• Sources of law, in contrast, is just two included lists of topics.

Interestingly, quite a few articles on Scots laws have a "CourtsScotland template", whereas this article uses the "PoliticsScotland" template. The "CourtsScotland template" is quite informative and I therefore intend to review the scope of this article against that template.

Having looked at the template, there are institutions that are not covered. For instance there is no coverage of the Procurator Fiscal, nor of the Scottish Law Commission or the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission

...to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 08:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Review put On Hold at 09:50, 17 May 2012‎ (see [3]). Pyrotec (talk)

This has been on hold for close to four weeks; the article has received a single edit early in that time. Is this review going to continue? Is it waiting on the article or the reviewer at this point? BlueMoonset (talk) 20:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

There is something wrong with your arithmetic. 17 May to 12 June is not four weeks. Pyrotec (talk) 21:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

"Close to four": 26+ days vs. 28. The point is that it's been on hold a very long time, well beyond the usual single week. I wanted to be sure it hadn't dropped off the radar and that progress was being made, or could be resumed. Any news? BlueMoonset (talk) 22:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• (1) The editor has been inactive since 18th May, I was hoping that corrective actions would be done so that I can close the article (and pass it). (2) It is up to me how long I keep the review open. This article took me a couple of days to review and I anticipate that it would take some time to completely fix, but no action is disappointing. (3) I don't have to answer to you for my actions as a reviewer. But, I will this time. (3) Since that time I have completed eight GAN reviews, another three reviews are On Hold, and another three reviews are in progress. I at least am doing something about reducing the backlog. I shan't ask how many reviews you have done, since I already know the answer. Your comments were probably well intended, but I manage my reviews via User:Pyrotec/GA reviews which, this month, has been updated once a day, if not more. All the relevant articles and the review pages are also on my watch lists. So none of them have "dropped off the radar". Pyrotec (talk) 22:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• Glad to hear it. Thanks for the response. Hope the nominator returns. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Overall summary

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:

   Mostly referenced, but in some cases the reference is not fully cited.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Mostly referenced, but in some cases the reference is not fully cited.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   See comments above

   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:

   Not applicable.

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

   Not applicable.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

As no progress has been made in one month, I'm closing this review. I would like to see this article gaining GA-status and I suspect that if the improvements listed above were made this article could make GA. I wish the article well. Pyrotec (talk) 11:29, 16 June 2012 (UTC)