Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Judiciary of Poland

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 18:48, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Judiciary of Poland

(
)
  • ... that in Poland a mean court judge processed almost four cases per day? Source: 14.38 million estimate given by GUS; 10,000 judge estimate can be seen in table, divide this per 365 per WP:CALC, which is in the text
    • ALT1: ... that in Poland the courts processed 14.38 million cases in 2020 while having fewer than 10,000 judges? Source: Same as above, just not divided
    • ALT2: that the ECHR found three of five chambers of the Supreme Court, Poland's top court, not to be properly constituted within the meaning of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights? Source: See "Partisan control of the National Council of the Judiciary" part, last para Quote: In addition to that, several judges and lawyers sued in the ECHR to declare the Supreme Court chambers, with the controlling majority being appointed by the new body [the partisan National Council of the Judiciary - note], to be incompatible with the European Convention of Human Rights, and thus invalidate its rulings. The Strasbourg court agreed, declaring the Disciplinary Chamber, the Chamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs and the Civil Chamber not to be independent and impartial tribunals established by law.
    • ALT3: ... that the Constitutional Tribunal, Poland's top court, ruled it was not a court? Source: Notes from Poland
    • ALT4: ... that the State Tribunal, the Polish court tasked with trial of the highest politicians, only convened three times in the past 40 years? Source: In text
    • Reviewed: User:Szmenderowiecki/Sort of recognised contributions
    • Comment: Please refer to the (exhaustive AFAIK) list of all of my DYK reviews and submissions for the purposes of QPQ. Feel free to add an entry to the list once the nomination is processed and (hopefully) accepted. 4 cases per day may be substituted by 1,500 per year, as verified here. ALT3 could actually go to April 1 if possible, though the problem might be that the ruling (unfortunately) exists and that the argument relies on the technicality of the Polish Constitution described in the lead (about tribunals in general).

5x expanded by Szmenderowiecki (talk). Self-nominated at 00:53, 22 March 2022 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

QPQ: No - You need to link the specific review that you're claiming credit for
Overall: I don't think that ALT0 checks out because you don't have figures for the "average (median?) court judge", but are just dividing the cases by the number of judges. I don't consider ALT4 to be interesting because due to the small number of top politicians, it doesn't make sense for the court to convene a lot. For ALT2, the precise findings were that these courts were not "established by law", mainly because of irregular appointments. See here for an explanation of the exact provision and how it's applied by the ECHR. See below for another version. For ALT3, I think it could be reworded but is confusing as it stands (it would be clearer with "itself", but still confusing). (t · c) buidhe 06:12, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

As for ALT0/ALT1, the quote being verified is translated from Polish as: "Polish judges (there are about 10,000 of them) process approx. 15 million cases, which means that an average [mean, not median] judge processes about 1,500 cases per year," which was verified using 2018 data. I've used 2020 data and the same methodology. It was fact-checked as true back in 2020. Yes, it is a number of cases divided by judges (with all the problems that appear with measuring mean not median values, but this does not invalidate the hook as such, as I properly state that I calculate an average. I do have that data.
I don't see what's confusing about ALT3. Granted, it is apparently contradictory, but that's the point of DYKs (be short, punchy, catchy, and likely to draw the readers in to wanting to read the article – as long as they don't misstate the article content). Additionally, I don't actually see how I can reword it using "itself". Will you propose the rewording for this one, considering the article to which this is sourced?
ALT2a is OK, but I'd consider other options first. (Modified because the relevant part is not not being established by law but their independence 18:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC))
ALT4 is at the low end of my priorities, so I'll drop this one to expedite the process.
Re QPQ requirement, that's not my reading of the QPQ rules. It merely says that I must review one other nomination (unrelated to you)‍ and provide proof of that for examination. The full registry is available there, with my submissions reviewed (6) and my reviews (18). How is that not sufficient? Besides, I don't want to accidentally duplicate the QPQ claims, which AFAIK are not logged anywhere (unlike credits for reviews). If the newest review must be claimed for QPQ and I'm misreading the policy (not you), take my Template:Did you know nominations/Vitamin A review. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 13:12, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
I do not know about Polish, but in English many people are going to see "average" and think it means "median" in this context. It would be clearer to talk about the mean number of cases handled per judge. Not to mention, each day is unclear whether we're talking about all days or working days...
Looking at ALT3 and not knowing the details of this case, I wouldn't know "what is it". Admittedly, right now I can't think of a good rewrite.
The reason most DYK participants link which DYK hook they are counting for QPQ is because otherwise it's impossible to tell if they claim the same review twice (I've done this by accident). (t · c) buidhe 21:05, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
OK, got it. The relevant ruling (summary) for ALT3 is here. In Polish (see full case here). The funny thing is, the English version says that the trial must happen in a tribunal established by law, while the Polish version talks of sąd ustanowiony ustawą. The ruling heavily relies on the technical distinction between what the Constitution calls a "court" and a "tribunal". The ruling basically says that the ECHR did not properly analyse the legal position of the Tribunal, and, since the Constitutional Tribunal is only a judicial organ but does not determine the outcome of cases like most courts do, it does not administer justice and therefore is not a tribunal/court within Article 6, which they argue only applies to the courts which administer justice. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 08:55, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Second opinion requested as this review has stalled for a month and there have been some changes by Micga to the article in the meantime, which might impact the new assessment. Consider him as a co-nom to this nomination due to these changes.Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:28, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

In response to the new review request above, I shall review this. I shall do a full review to familiarise myself with the material (it is a long article, anyway). So no disrespect to Buidhe. Storye book (talk) 14:37, 25 May 2022 (UTC)


General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Some issues:

These points affect DYK
  • Too many paragraphs have no citations at the end. We cannot pass this DYK until that matter is resolved.
  • Earwig is not working for me at the moment, so I am accepting in good faith that it's plagiarism-free.
  • Re ALT1: Please give us a link for the numbers in this hook. I don't believe that I can accept the hook without an actual citation (linked or offline) which gives those particular numbers. (ETA: Citation 118 "Dlaczego sądy są tak bardzo odległe od obywateli i działają przewlekle" covers this)
  • Re ALT2: That is an interesting hook: I would favour that hook if you could please add a citation to the end of the last paragraph in the section, which you refer to. (Update: I have struck ALT2 because the hook is not written out in the above form in the article, making it too difficult for the general reader to check it out).
Points which do not affect DYK
  • I do think that the article would be more readable and comprehensible if it contained more summaries and fewer detailed lists. Readers who really want to know the long lists of details would consult the sources, anyway. However this point does not affect DYK.
  • I have copyedited the first half of the article, but I did not do the rest. It is not in a bad condition language-wise, and I did resolve the disambig links. This does not affect DYK.

When the issues regarding the missing citations, and the hooks, are resolved, this nominations should be good to go. Storye book (talk) 16:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Storye book, thanks for the review. I haven't been editing the article for quite a while, and I see that some substantial changes were made since I tried to make an article in order, but I couldn't. Btw, I will also work on the shortened infographic as National Appeal Chamber's rulings cannot be appealed to administrative courts, but Adobe Illustrator won't let me correct it without major disruption. Micga is pinged as courtesy.
Re ALT1: the source is Rocznik Statystyczny Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej 2021, p. 165 for caseload, p. 164 for number of judges (it is available online). It is also (I hope) very well summarised in the table with the salaries, where the number of judges is given by each category.
Re ALT2: the citation is to three ECHR cases. Now the information might become outdated once the bill demolishing the Disciplinary Chamber becomes law, but that should be clear in a week or two.
Re long lists: I also think that they generally belong in their respective articles, but since we don't have them yet, they will stay in the text for now. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 04:53, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
@Szmenderowiecki:.
* Thank you for the update. There are still two points to deal with.
* (1) There are still too many citation-needed templates on the article. We need to have all paragraphs and all bulleted points cited before we can pass this nom. (If this were a light-hearted subject, then perhaps we might not need to be so careful about citations, e.g. for every bullet point, but law is a serious matter. We have to have all facts cited, for DYK).
* (2) Re ALT2: This fact occurs in section "Capture of the Constitutional Tribunal", end of first paragraph. The citation for the hook facts at the end of that para ("ETPC: Udział dublera w składzie Trybunału narusza prawo do sądu") is fine, with Google Translate. But you need to write out the hook in the same words in that place, because our readers will not be able to find it using a page-search. You have not even mentioned article 6 in the article's text.
(I am not asking you to summarise chart-lists. But some of the sections contain lists within paragraphs or under bullet points. The important word in the article is "judiciary", so we need focus on and prioritise just the main points about the judiciary, e.g. to know their position and their responsibilities, and summarise within that framework. For example, lists of bulleted responsibilities can be summarised, making the article easier to read Note: this point is not necessary for DYK.) Storye book (talk) 09:57, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Since I originally intended this as a pre-GA nomination, I will address all these points anyway, to the best I can. I will be working on the article for the next couple of hours. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:27, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Also, re ALT2, the relevant sentence is this one: "The Strasbourg court agreed, declaring the Disciplinary Chamber, the Chamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs and the Civil Chamber not to be independent and impartial tribunals established by law", with three sources given to each chamber (each of the rulings are now final). The sentence you provided is indeed in the text but I don't intend to make a hook based on it. The Constitutional Tribunal hook is in ALT3, but it was struck for whatever reason by buidhe (who said it was confusing). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:25, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Thank you . Since you are working on it, please may I suggest creating a clear overall pattern or or overview framework for the article. My experience of reading it so far has been a feeling of drowning in detail, for which there was no overall framework to arrange it all in context. One way to correct this is to imagine that you are writing it for a young, intelligent teenager who can understand explanations but who initially knows nothing at all. You don't need to be patronising to do this - just start with a few simple sentences giving an overview of the situation of the judiciary, e.g. (putting it simply) what is the purpose of their job, how are they supposed to do that job, what difficulties stand in their way, and so on. To maintain this clarity throughout the article, you would need to summarise a lot of the detail, then that detail can be made available in links or citations. I'm not suggesting that you do those things in exactly that way, but the principle is that the article should be clear, concise and to the point, and not bogged down with distracting detail. I am going to the trouble of writing this because I think the article subject is worth the hard work of improving it. It is an important subject. I repeat that this suggestion does not affect DYK. Storye book (talk) 16:27, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Update: Thank you, Micga and Szmenderowiecki for improvements that you have made on the article in the past few days. Please let me know when you are ready for me to give the article another DYK update. Storye book (talk) 07:50, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Storye book, I have condensed the article, as you've proposed, and split the common court section (the huge one) into a separate article, so the amount of text went from 64K characters to 52K characters. Citation needed tags have been addressed either by adding refs or by making text references to the articles of the Constitution, or the relevant laws, or (in one case) to a dedicated article about a crisis within the Constitutional Tribunal.
There is one hook that you might find interesting, and it is this:
ALT5 ... that while there is little variation in the approval of the Polish court system in general among the Polish electorate, the support for the Constitutional Tribunal is split along partisan lines? (See: newest poll from March 2022)
but I don't insist on it and you can promote the one you consider to be more interesting (particularly since it seems to be about the same thing in the US, where the Supreme Court is politicised while lower courts aren't subject to that much debate). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 08:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Thank you Szmenderowiecki for the expansion, the update and the ALT3. I shall have to check all these out later, because this is Platinum Jubilee Week in the UK, and most of us here are somewhat distracted by it, in various ways. I'll try to look at it later today or tomorrow, Monday at the latest. If by Monday you think I've forgotten, please ping me. Thanks for your patience. Storye book (talk) 10:32, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Update: I have started to take a fresh look at this, since you revised the article. ALT2 is now redundant, since that hook is not mentioned in the above form in the article, making it impossible for the general reader to check it out. If you still want ALT2 as one of the choices, then please write it out in its above form, in the article, with its citation(s) next to it, and let us know. Until then I shall be considering ALT5. I don't have time to check out ALT5 and read through the article in full today; it will have to be tomorrow, Monday. Storye book (talk) 10:46, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
I beg to disagree. ALT2 sentence (the paragraph that starts with "In addition to that, several judges and lawyers..." is still there and no one did anything to it, so in fact the general reader is able to verify it. The only difference is that I do not name all chambers by name. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 15:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
  • The problem from the viewpoint of DYK is that the general reader will use search terms taken from the hook to find its facts in the article. I don't think there are any phrases that we can take from the hook, which are exactly repeated in that paragraph. After you directed me to that paragraph, I had difficulty matching the exact or full meaning of the hook in that parapgraph, even with the understanding that the hook is rephrased there. This is a long and complex article, so we cannot assume that the reader who has just clicked on the hook has yet read any of the rest of the article. So they are searching "in the dark" for a matching phrase or word from the hook.
  • You, as an expert on the subject, clearly know what it all means, and can easily comprehend that paragraph's implications. I, who have (so far) read the previous incarnation of the article and have a rough idea of the hook facts, still cannot share your deeper understanding. I need the exact hook copied exactly into that paragraph, with its appropriate citation(s) next to it. You don't necessarily have to replace any of the existing wording with the hook wording. You could, for example, say: "in other words" - hook wording - citation. OK, that's repetitious from your point of view, but to a general reader it's clarification. Please be patient with this request. If you want ALT2 to be one of our choices with the text remaining as it is, and it gets promoted, it would be thrown out of prep for sure, and we would then have to put the hook wording in anyway, to get ALT2 passed. Please be patient, I am just trying to get this nomination accepted and passed. Storye book (talk) 09:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I am now starting to read through the article. I'll add points here, as I find them, and will let you know when I've finished this task. I shall copyedit as I go (minor copyediting by the reviewer does not affect DYK). Storye book (talk) 16:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

  • (1) First impressions: a massive improvement in structure and clarity. Congratulations on the bits I've read so far. One issue found: 3rd para of Supreme court section, beginning "Because of the universally". That is actually a correctly-constructed sentence ... I think .. but it is such a gloriously entangled set of over-arched clauses, that it is more of a hindrance to understanding than an aid. I suggest that you split it into several sentences, for clarity's sake. Storye book (talk) 10:32, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
  • (2) If you are using a two-word phrase as an adjective, then it is usual practice to join those two words with a hyphen (you will see an example of that in this sentence). I'm correcting all the ones that I find in the article. Just letting you know. Storye book (talk) 10:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
  • (3) Re para beginning: "The Supreme Court is led by". In formal English, the parenthesis that includes the "etc." at the end of the para would be considered undisciplined, partly because "etc." can perhaps include anything - even innuendo. In formal English, you would normally replace that last bracketed bit with something like: "for example, a lack of independence of judges, or unnecessarily slow decisions on cases". I'll let you correct this one. Storye book (talk) 10:53, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
  • (4) It's "embroiled in", not "embroiled into". If you imagine substituting the word "entangled", then it's easier to get the syntax right (I have corrected this one). Storye book (talk) 10:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
  • (5) You need a citation at the end of the first para of the Administrative courts section, and at the end of the first para of the State tribunal section. Links to other articles are not sufficient, because we cannot use WP as a citation.Storye book (talk) 15:31, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
  • (6) I am now looking at the Staff section, and finding more missing citations. Please do a page search for "citation needed", throughout the article (there may be more added later). As previously mentioned, links to WP are not sufficient for a citation. Storye book (talk) 16:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Note to self: I have checked the article as far as and including the Judges sitting in the tribunals section. I shall continue reading through the article later. Storye book (talk) 16:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

  • Re citation needed tags, I believe that literal translations from the articles of the Constitution do not need additional cites, because otherwise I will be forced to literally put the ref to the Constitution of Poland. I think it is pointless, because I explicitly point to the article of the Constitution, and fortunately the Polish constitution isn't written in the 18th-century poetic language of some out-of-touch intellectuals :). I am not speaking of some interpretations of the Constitution, which do need to be supplied with the citation.
  • Re hook: I also don't agree with this one. So long as the hook is verifiable, mentioned in text and appropriately cited (WP:DYK, point 3), it's all right. It really doesn't have to be literally mentioned, the thing to consider is whether the hook distorts the meaning of the sentence it comes from. I am ready to discuss, I just don't think that not being immediately able to find it using Ctrl+F because of paraphrasing is a valid reason to reject it.
  • Other than that, I tried to implement your remarks and I'm looking forward to further suggestions. Thanks for the corrections you've made. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@Szmenderowiecki: Thank you for your response. I won't get into discussion about the hook yet, because I still have to finish going through the article, and that is a long job. When I've done that, I'll get back to the matter of the hook. What I will say, now, is that my point about the hook is not about my own opinion or about whether I agree with you. It's about what will get through DYK and what will be thrown out of prep. But I'll discuss that later. Storye book (talk) 20:31, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@Micga and Storye book:, I believe we might have to suspend the nomination because large changes are being introduced to the parts of the article already reviewed. I myself am losing track of them, and some of them introduce unsourced fragments to the article. I'm simply reluctant to revert them (which I've already done on some separate occasions, in different places) so as not to appear to be asserting ownership the article. We need to resolve them. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 00:05, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, Szmenderowiecki, I agree with you on that. When or if Micga tells us they have stopped editing, at least for the duration of DYK, we can start again here, if that is what you want to do. Storye book (talk) 09:29, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Update: @ Szmenderowiecki. I have checked the talkpage of the disruptive editor, and it appears that they have a history of disruptive editing, unwarranted page moves, refusing to discuss on the talk page, and not giving edit summaries - and they were temporarily blocked last year. So I don't think we are going to get a resolution in the normal manner. If they don't get blocked again soon, then I suggest that we wait until the current major-editing session ends, then replace the entire article with the last previous version of the article that you approve of. We can then put back any of those edits that you agree with. I don't believe that this recourse would be ownership on your part. It would be salvaging an article from disruptive edits. Storye book (talk) 10:00, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
@ Admin. Please note that this nomination is temporarily suspended, due to current major changes in the article which are beyond the control of the nominator and reviewer. It is hoped that we may be able to resume this nomination in due course - so please don't close it down yet. Storye book (talk) 09:29, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Storye book, Szmenderowiecki, it looks like the last of the extensive article changes were completed on June 7. How soon will you be ready to resume work here? BlueMoonset (talk) 02:41, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
I believe that I'd need a few hours for that. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 07:38, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
@Szmenderowiecki: I believe that the only practicable way to resolve the unhelpful edits would be to delete the article and immediately replace it with this last edit by Szmenderowiecki. That way, we will know where we are. Then I can continue my checking through it for DYK, and you can continue to edit it as you were doing. Of course, we can also go through the deleted disruptive edits to see if there is anything valid that we can put back in. Would you agree to this? I would be happy to do the cut and paste bit, while adding a note to the talk page to explain my actions - but I would rather have your opinion first. If we start working on it again, I would also like to put an under construction tag on the article, in the hope of deterring further disruptive edits while the nomination is still processing. Storye book (talk) 10:32, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
I am basing my editing on my last version, but now that the flurry of editing has stopped, I think I should review the new edits first to see if any of them are helpful. The summary of what I accepted and rejected, and the reasons for that, will be posted here (anyway, the DYK nomination is transcluded on the talk page, so it will be seen). There is also an update about the disciplinary law, so I'll have to incorporate this as well. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 11:01, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Excellent - that sounds good. I recommend leaving some sort of tag at the top of the article while this nom template is operative, though, because the existing cleanup tag stopped the disruptive editor immediately. An alternative is the {{Under construction}} tag with the alternative {{In use}} tag, but, since the current tag has had the desired effect ... Storye book (talk) 11:15, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Changes made to the article were as follows:
  • Updates: a disciplinary reform was signed into law and will become effective on July 15, so appropriate changes were introduced.
  • Reorganisation: 1. partial reorganisation of the "Staff" section, though avoiding the excessive fragmentation of the last version. The main outlines remain those of the last version I edited. 2. moved "Overview" section back to the lede, as the resulting lead (MOS:LEADLENGTH) was too short and it is the lead that is supposed to be the overview, not the dedicated section.
  • Added/removed 1. I did not remove the groups of people who may nominate Constitutional Tribunal judges. 2. I did remove the mention that the Supreme Court adjudicates in cases related to the Tribunal of Arbitration for Sports (Polish Olympic Committee), as I felt that this can be mentioned in the dedicated article, but not in the overview because this is too much detail for an overview. 3. Condensed the sentences about retirement for health reasons or for reasons of inability to adjudicate.
Ultimately, the changes weren't as far-reaching as I thought, but when this is 70-80 edits within two or three hours, you may often indeed feel lost. I feel that the article is ready to be reviewed, again. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 15:26, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Fantastic, Szmenderowiecki! Well done. And thank you for your patience. I shall look over it tomorrow - it's a long article and I feel that I should take my time over it. Storye book (talk) 16:44, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Update: @Szmenderowiecki: I have just started looking through the article (don't have much time today; will complete the task tomorrow, I hope). Just two immediate points:

  • Two paragraphs need a citation at the end (I added the templates). The one beginning "The title of judge is granted" refers to sections of the Constitution in the paragraph's text, but a linked citation or a citation with a quote would help the reader to prove that it really is in the Constitution. You have mentioned before that you cannot cite the Constitution, but WP's house style requires a citation in each paragraph.
  • The para beginning "Several laws as well" has no citations. If the reason is that it is merely a summary of the following table, you could cover the issue by giving the para a subheading "Summary of table" or similar.
  • Two of the items in the Refs section indicate ref errors. Storye book (talk) 09:00, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Well, I've fixed what you've indicated here. As I said though, I didn't say I can't cite the Constitution itself, rather that it was pointless since it is easily searchable. I pointed to the Wikisource text of the Constitution instead. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 10:02, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
* Thank you, Szmenderowiecki, for addressing the above three points. Since the article has been through some changes, I now need to check it again for neutrality, plagiarism, and any typos etc. (I'm expecting it to be fine, though), and I need to revisit the hooks (I'm not sure whether we entirely resolved the hook questions, so I'll have to revisit that also). I shall resume this tomorrow. Storye book (talk) 16:42, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
* Initial checks: copyediting and neutrality. I'm starting now. So far, I have got as far as the end of the leader. Sorry, this is going to be slow, but I'll keep you updated on how far I've got. Storye book (talk) 20:09, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
* Structure section done, for ce and neutrality. Storye book (talk) 20:26, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
* Procedure and Staff sections ditto. Storye book (talk) 10:46, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
* Minimal requirements section ditto. Storye book (talk) 14:59, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
* Issues section started. Clarification needed: the second sentence of the para beginning "According to a 2020 survey", is way too long, with an overarching clause that we forget the beginning of, by the time we have read to the end. Please split it up into sentences which are easier to read. Without removing any of your words, the sense of it could be something like: Excessive caseloads cause delays, followed by the details about numbers and reasons for that. Storye book (talk) 14:59, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
* Issues section (continued). Clarification needed: At the end of the para beginning "The minister of justice, according": who is doing the deciding? The judges or the president? And is "decide" a strong word there? Would "prefer" be better? Maybe the president is allowed to decide, but can the judges decide where to be appointed to? It's all a bit confusing. Storye book (talk) 15:34, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
* Copyediting and neutrality check for the whole article, now completed. I shall now check on the other issues, as promised above. Storye book (talk) 15:43, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
* Earwig plagiarism checker is currently too slow and it times out, or maybe it can't handle the size of this article etc. Whatever - I'll accept in good faith for now, that there is no plagiarism in the article. Storye book (talk) 16:03, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
* Revisiting the hooks: re ALT1: page searches could not find the number 14.38 in the article or in either of the given citations next to the bit about over 14 million and 10,000 judges. If you want the number 14.38 in the hook, you need to have it in both the article and citations, or give us another hook, please. Also, if you want to un-strike and start again with ALT2, please could you kindly help me find it in the article (now that it has been re-organised), since I failed to do so before. Sorry to have to go through this again. If you would prefer to start again with a new hook, please could you make sure it is written out clearly in the article, with a citation alongside? Forgive me for insisting on that, but I have seen so many occasions where the promoter can't find it in the article, and throw it out of prep - and I do want to get this nom through DYK. Storye book (talk) 16:24, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
* @Szmenderowiecki: I have now checked through everything, and I have no reason to worry about the plagiarism issue. When the above issues of clarification and hooks (see my posts 21-22 June) are resolved, this nom should be good to go. Storye book (talk) 16:24, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
* Sorry for the delay. I have reworded the sentences you pointed to. As for the clarification about the last sentence of the paragraph starting from "The minister of justice", "they" was a neutral-gender pronoun, but I clarified that the prerogative is for the President.
* Storye book, I have restored the 14.38 million point to the article, so I think ALT 1 is in play. I still insist that ALT2-derived hooks be considered, as I don't get the point against it. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:56, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Szmenderowiecki, for resolving some of the points, above. We have only the hooks to resolve, now.
  • Re ALT1. I have found 14.38 in the article text, but so far I have not found it in any citations (though I only checked four of them). Please let me know which citation it is in, and copy the citation closer to the number?
  • Re ALT2. I have unstruck it, as per your request. This is a long and complex article, and I believe that the general reader who knows little of law (like me) needs to be able to find the hook easily using page search. I had to find several search terms before I found the right one "constituted", which took me to the end of the first para of the Capture of the Constitutional Tribunal section. But the words and details of the hook are not all in that paragraph, and I struggled to make sure that I was looking in the right place for the hook facts. I could not find "three of five chambers" or "Article 6". I am not saying that the ALT2 facts are not in the article; I am saying that I cannot find them all together, with all necessary citation(s) close by, and for DYK we need that for the hook to get promoted. To clarify, the "point against it" is that as a non-lawyer, I cannot find it, and to find it I need it to be written out in the article in the same form, or very similar form, as the hook. So that it does not look like pointless reiteration to you, you could perhaps write out the hook at the end of the paragraph as a summary, with its citations? Please note that this is not about my opinion or preference or about whether I agree with your editing policy; it is about my experience of getting hooks promoted and not being thrown out of prep.
  • Thank you for your patience with this. Let's try to get this resolved, somehow. Storye book (talk) 19:19, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
  • So, I've added the quote which supports ALT2 so that the users are easily able to verify the hook (the three part). ALT2a, which just rephrases Article 6 into what it stands for, resolves the dispute pretty well wrt not being able to find Article 6. There are five chambers of the Supreme Court in total, so the maths should work.
  • Now, as to ALT1, this[1] is the source for the 14.38 million and fewer than 10,000 judges. It is in the article and there is now only one source. I've removed the other source as I've deleted the data about the caseload in relation to other EU countries. I think I've resolved your concerns. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:01, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, Szmenderowiecki, for trying hard to resolve this.
  • Re ALT2 and ALT2a. The facts of the ALT2 quote are now together in one place with a citation. Unfortunately, I still could not find ALT2 in a page search. I eventually found it by consulting the page history to see where you "added the quote", as you have described. But what I found was a link to Article 6, so that "Article 6" still does not appear in the readable text. And the facts of the quote are now at the end of the last para of the Partisan control of the National Council of the Judiciary section, where there is no mention of "constituted". The other potential search terms in the ALT2 hook appear in too many places in the article to be useful in a page search. So I have reluctantly struck ALT2 again, in favour of ALT2a, which can be found easily in a page search for "independent and impartial tribunals". So I can approve ALT2a
  • Re citation for ALT1. I have downloaded and searched the pdf citation which you referenced for 14.38. I have done a pdf content search for both "14.38" and 14,38" but it is "not found" (I had already done that search before, but I did it again). Please could you kindly give me the page number where it appears in the pdf file? I am happy to take the rest of the citation at AGF because it is in Polish, but I think I should be able to see that number? Or is it written out differently in some way? So for ALT1 I just need to be able to find the number 14.38 in the citation.
  • Re ALT5. I have just realised that I had not reviewed ALT5. The facts of the hook are in the Lack of popular support and trust section (with the supporting citation which you have linked above with ALT5). So I can approve ALT5.
(Please excuse the use of bold - It's more a note for myself, so that when I come back to this, I can see quickly where we are.). So all we have left to do now, is to verify 14.38 for ALT1, and that should be easily done. We are nearly there. Storye book (talk) 10:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
I can settle with ALT2a, fine. As for ALT1, the exact number is located on page 165 of the yearbook, and under the column "Cases resolved" you have the grand total of 14381,5 thousand (Poland uses commas for decimal separators). I rounded this figure to 14.38 million. I am also fine with ALT5. You can promote whichever hook you consider to be the best (ALT1, ALT2a or ALT5). Thank you for your thorough and rigorous review. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:52, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
  • . Thank you, Szmenderowiecki, for all your hard work and patience. Good to go, with ALT1, ALT2a or ALT5. I prefer ALT1 myself, because the number-crunching is rather striking. We've done quite well - only one month and one week! Storye book (talk) 15:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)


References

  1. ^ "Statistical Yearbook of the Republic of Poland 2021" (PDF). Rocznik Statystyczny Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej = Statistical Yearbook of the Republic of Poland. Warsaw: Statistics Poland: 160, 164–5, 188. 2021. ISSN 1506-0632.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Judiciary_of_Poland&oldid=1095843715"