Template:Did you know nominations/R v AB and CD
- 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 EEng (talk) 03:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
R v Incedal and Rarmoul-Bouhadjar
[edit]- ... that the Court of Appeal of England and Wales ruled in June 2014 that it was "difficult to conceive of a situation" where it would be justified to hold a criminal trial in full secrecy?
- Reviewed: Mullivaikkal Remembrance Day
- Comment:
The trial is due to start on 16 June, so the blurb will need amending for tense if posted after that date.(no longer relevant)
Created by FormerIP (talk). Self nominated at 12:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC).
- Comment If this hook is approved it would be best not to run it until the appeal hearing is finished (according to today's guardian it is still in progress). If the appeal succeeds the hook would no longer be true.— Rod talk 12:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- That's fair enough. The article indicates that the decision will be made within "the next few days". Formerip (talk) 13:10, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Am I missing something here? The hook seems unreferenced (the fact that it is the first in UK legal history) and it would need a truly reliable source (I mean someone capable of knowing about possible other secret trials if they had existed). L.tak (talk) 10:30, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- The ref comes after the second sentence in the "background" section. I've added it again in the lead. I guess it can't be ruled out that there might have been other trials in the past that were so secret nobody ever found out about them, but surely they wouldn't be part of "legal history". Anyway, the source says it has never happened before. Formerip (talk) 12:29, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Note that blurb has now been completely changed and the article has been pagemoved, since the appeal decision has been made public (it has also been confirmed that there will be no further appeal). Formerip (talk) 13:07, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
The DYK check shows creation on 5 June and it was nominated 5 June, so it is confirmed new enough, and it is long enough. QPQ done. The text is objective and neutral, and fully cited. The hook is acceptable and short enough at 185 characters, and it checks out with online citation #4. Spot checks on external links have not identified sources of copyvio or close paraphrasing. Issues: (1) "Philip Johnston" and "IRA" are disambig links.(2) The line beginning "Certain elements" should be moved to the beginning of the following paragraph of which it is a summary, so as to share its citation #15.An important and useful article; thank you for this.When issues 1 and 2 have been resolved, this nom should be OK. --Storye book (talk) 17:37, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- The issues are to do with content added by another editor who was quite insistent about their additions. I'll go and see if I can tidy it up without getting reverted. Formerip (talk) 17:57, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Done. Fingers crossed. Formerip (talk) 18:14, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Formerip. All issues resolved. Good to go. --Storye book (talk) 21:47, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
- The issues are to do with content added by another editor who was quite insistent about their additions. I'll go and see if I can tidy it up without getting reverted. Formerip (talk) 17:57, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Promoting as
- ... that in its recent ruling in R v Incedal and Rarmoul-Bouhadjar the Court of Appeal of England and Wales held it "difficult to conceive of a situation" justifying holding a criminal trial in full secrecy?