Wikipedia:Peer review/R v Peacock/archive1

R v Peacock

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it covers an important current event to have occurred in British law, and has recently undergone a revamp.

Thanks, Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: An interesting article, which needs further attention in a number of respects:-

Lead

• Is it possible to remove the twitter hashtag stuff from the first line? It's an inelegant introduction to the article, and could be incorporated into the second paragraph where you mention the legal significance of the tweeting.
• You should also remove the term "notable", per WP:PEACOCK
• Michael Peacock's birthdate is irrelevant at this point
• The word "something", in "something which was illegal", is redundant.
• In British law, one is not "found innocent", or at least that's not how we say it. The correct term is "acquitted", or possibly "found not guilty", but why use three word when one will do?
• Link BDSM
• The sentence "Peacock was the only individual to have pleaded 'not guilty' under the Act for the kind of gay BDSM pornography he published and won their case" is confusing and ungrammatical. When you say "Peacock was the only individual..." is that still the case? If so this should be "is the only individual", otherwise "was at the time the only individual". To avoid the grammatic tangle at the end, I suggest you delete the words "and won their case" and instead insert the word "successfully" before "pleaded". Also, this significant fact should be mentioned in the body of the article and cited there, rather than in the lead.
• Final lead sentence needs much attention. Remove peacock terms "notable" and the first "significant"; rephrase "the 14 December 2011 guidance from the Lord Chief Justice..." - dates should not be employed as adjectives. And do you really mean "allowed tweeting in English Courts", or allowed evidence from tweeting..." etc?

Details of the case

• Repetitive prose: You have "working...worker...work" in very close proximity
• "mid 40s" → "mid-40s"
• "Sleazy Michael" should be in quotes
• I would say "the Craiglist website" rather than "the website Craigslist"
• The words "to perform" (after "illegal")are redundant. In the same sentence you say "at the time". Does this mean thatthe acts have since become illegal? If not, you should remove these words, too.
• More redundant words: "to be" after "DVDs"; "subsequently" in the final line.
• "As a result of this" - as a result of what?

Trial

• More redundancies in the first sentence: "finally" and "taking place". I won't mention others, but you need to be fully aware of this characteristic in your prose and to watch for it carefully.
• "outdated" is not hyphenated
• Amazingly enough, not everybody knows what "tweeting" means, so you need to elaborate a bit beyond stating that "Myles Jackman tweeted throughout the trial".
• "Jackman himself recognised it" → "Jackman recognised it" - and you need to be clearer about what is meant by "it".
• "Friday 6 January 2012" is clumsy. I'd drop the day, which is not relevant anyway.
• Link/xplain the term "recorder". Many readers won't be familiar with it.

Aftermath

• I'd call the CPS the "prosecuting legal authority"
• "Specialist Lawyers..." why the capital L? Likewise the W in "Sex Worker"
• Slangy abbreviations such as "aka" should be avoided.
• As Jackman has been mentioned in an earlier section, he doesn't ned this full introduction here. Do we need to know the name of his firm?
• Avoid contractions, e.g. "didn't"
• "its director Vivienne Pattison" → "the group's director Vivienne Pattison"
• "she related that while "As a society we are moving to a place where porn is considered as kind of fun between consenting adults..." I don't think "related" is the right word here. And are you sure the quotation should start with "As..." (with a capital A)?

Press response

• Why "Press" rather than "Media"
• Was the Guardian the only paper to comment?
  • Nichy" Hodgson?

From what I can gather, The Guardian was indeed the only major British paper to cover the story. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC))

Sources

• What makes "Storyful" a reliable source?
• Ref 10: Publisher details missing. What makes this blog a reliable source?

Dablink

• Link on Escort goes to a disambiguation page

I hope these comments are helpful. As I am not able to watch individual peer reviews, please contact me via my talkpage if you want to raise any questions arising from this review. Brianboulton (talk) 23:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this Brian, I will make many of your suggested improvements to the page, crossing out your suggestions as and when I undertake them. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)).