The article's emphasis is out of date. When the Act was new, the political fuss around it was the big story. However the Act has law now for four years. The principle aspect of the Act is what it is what it does as law.
The political rancour in the past is relevant to the history of the Act and its passage - however the point of the article, in the lede, now should be what the Act is, as a law. That is what we do with other articles on Acts of Parliament. LG02 (talk) 20:14, 17 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
- This is an encyclopaedia, not a law textbook. The purpose of the Wp:LEAD is to provide a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. Your proposed edit of a couple of weeks ago did not do this. It also removed content sourced from constitutional law textbooks – the most reliable type of source available – with no reason given. Cambial — foliar❧ 20:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
- The content is not the issue - but the placement, emphasis and duplication. The political fuss is relevant but was a moment in time. In the febrile post-Brexit atmosphere, anything would be full of controversy. Now though the Act is in place as a law.
- The opening is meant to be a summary of what the subject of the article is - but here we have long essay, not on what it is about, but about a political argument, which is then repeated in the 'History' section.
- It would be better to set out in brief summary (which I tried to do) what the law does, as law, and then note briefly that it was controversial when being passed and why. The detail then goes in the History section. When laid alongside the existing content in that section, we can remove duplication without removing substantive content and citations. LG02 (talk) 06:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
- It's not "
repeated
". The point of the lead is to summarise the article, including the history section that describes the debates that took place prior to enactment. If you think sections can be better summarised then do so. But don't remove the summary of the Background, History, Effect on devolution, Reponses in the UK, and International responses sections based on your personal preference for the Provisions section. And don't remove content sourced from academic textbooks for no reason. Cambial — foliar❧ 06:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
.svg){kind=small}
