Wikipedia:Peer review/Metock case/archive1

Metock case

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm worried that the detailed summary of the Court judgment in the Judgment section might be construed as original research. In fact this kind of summary of legal instruments is common in law articles on Wikipedia (usually without the kind of point by point inline citations we use here). It's unlikely that secondary sources will ever carry this level of detailed summary and I do think that an encyclopaedic article should include it. But of course I'm unwilling to continue offering these summaries if they are likely to be deleted on OR grounds. Note however that the opening remarks of the section are cited from relaiable secondary sources. It is the sections commencing "The first question" that are a concern.

Thanks, JaniB (talk) 04:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments

There are a number of issues here, but I'll try to break them down:

• "Groundbreaking" is a subjective term, and as such, doesn't really need to be in the lead. Let the content speak for itself. Same goes for "major political significance". The article should simply tell us the areas of significance and its effects; the lead should summarize that significance and those effects.
• The second paragraph I think is trying to summarize the court's opinion (though I'm not sure). Even so, it should read something like "The court found that..." rather than what it is currently, which is a block of text that may actually be plagiarized. As written, the paragraph actually breaks WP:NPOV.
• Definitions generally don't need to be included in the lead, such as "A non-EU national is..."
• Since everything in the article indeed should be "facts", that doesn't make a very helpful title. "Background" would probably be more appropriate.

I don't really think I should go any further than the lead of the article as far as specific criticism goes, because it looks like this is basically a start-from-scratch scenario, I'm afraid. It looks like User:1d6507f9 basically crammed in 37k worth of information on December 2, and that sets off all sorts of red flags as far as stability is concerned. Although the simplest solution here would be to revert his edits, that's not really in the spirit of Wikipedia, so I'd suggest cleaning up his prose in ways you see fit based on the issues you've mentioned here. There's a lot of jargon that needs to be simplified to make this encyclopedia-worthy. Overall, the main issue here may not be WP:NOR or NPOV (although those may be present here); instead, clarity and style are my major concerns. The article is written in the style of a legal brief, rather than a summary of an encyclopedic article, and as such, your concerns about the style here are certainly warranted. I consider myself intelligent enough to understand most basic legal issues, but I'm lost after the first couple of sentences here.

Remember, BE BOLD. Runfellow (talk) 19:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for these comments Runfellow.

JaniB was really asking for comments specific to her concern about so-called "original research" (does the paraphrase of the Court's judgment constitute OR?), but I'll address some of the issues you raise.

The December 2 edit was a considerable expansion, prepared by myself and a number of colleagues, of the original article, one that had been flagged as requiring expansion as I recall. The original material was retained for the most part and that included the subjective terms you mention. I understand your issue, but personally I would prefer to keep those commonly accepted judgements. I'm sure the issue must be often debated within Wikipedia.

The second paragraph is not a plagiarism. It was provided by me to set the backround to what is an issue of ongoing political significance in the European Union.

The article is an article about a law case and reads like a legal article in the same way no doubt as an article about a mathematics theorem reads like a mathematical article. There are plenty of those where I get lost after the first couple of sentences, but that doesn't mean the article is not within the scope of Wikipedia. The purpose of the lede is to make the main effect of the judgment available to all, and that is what we tried to do with, for example, my second paragraph.

"Facts" is a standard heading in any article about legal judgments. You will see it in about pretty well every article about a legal judgment in Wikipedia (and elsewhere). In it, one simply presents the situation put before the court that needed ruling on.

I would be very sorry indeed to see all our hard work reverted! JaniB has already more or less retired from Wikipedia over the reception of her edits (she provided the framework for the current expansion, over which she devoted a significant amount of time researching and mastering the Wikipedia mark-up involved). As things stand, I and a number of colleagues are prepared to devote time to articles about really important EU case-law, but not if our efforts are reverted or edited to extinction! We are not naive about Wikipedia. We do know it is an issue. I have some material to add to this article that I shall incorporate after the New Year and, depending how the article has fared, then consider supplying some more article starts and expansions.

Thank you again for your comments. I still would like to hear from others (perhaps with some experience of editing law articles?) on JaniB's enquiry. Imogene @1d6507f9 10:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)