Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999/archive1

Pagination

• Could you add pagination information for the journal articles? There is a problem in particular with the Journal of Business Law refs which have NO location info at all. I understand law material has significantly different citation standards from other domains, but this is definitely considered a problem on Wikipedia. Circéus (talk) 20:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

  Pagination, sorry? Ironholds (talk) 00:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

  Page ranges, i.e. going from "60(2)" to "60(2):353-381". There is no volume/issue or page information at all for the references you make to the Journal of Business Law, making them at best quite inconvenient, at worst useless. If you've read the articles, it shouldn't be that hard to give that information (or at least find it again). Circéus (talk) 01:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

  Page ranges I can get; the volume and numbering was not included in the articles, however (which I got from the electronic site). Ironholds (talk) 01:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

  I'm going to blurt (not at you, at the site): what the [insert favorite profanity here] Internet version of a journal does not give basic bibliographic information like that?? Circéus (talk) 01:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

  "most stuff published through Sweet and Maxwell via Westlaw" is the response. I'll try and see if the journal has archives (although from my memory, they don't) and if that fails, attempt to hunt down the physical copies in my law library like some kind of literary hitman. Ironholds (talk) 01:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

  I am not so sure pagination should be required here. The aim of bibliographical information is to inform the reader about the reliability of the reference and to enable them to find the reference, and neither goal is really compromised by not adding page numbers (for the online versions of these journals, it's apparently of no use, and for the paper versions, the issues will have a table of contents anyway). Ucucha 01:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

  I consider it a matter of basic convenience. McGill, whose campus is right next to where I live, appears to also have it as a physical holding, so I'll mosey over there tomorrow and hope I don't get lost on the way. Circéus (talk) 02:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

  I got the details for the JBL and LQR, but not JIFM, and I stumbled across anotehr source for the data of the last one (BJIB&FL). I'll update them soon (except for BJIB&FL they're on anotehr computer) Circéus (talk) 23:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Moved from FAC

Because of the gross incivility, I've moved all of this content to talk. You are both invited to start over and remain civil. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment, I'm terribly sorry but this is nowhere near the standard to qualify for a featured article. One problem that FA reviewers will face on highly specialised legal topics is the difficulty to evaluate whether the information is accurate, pertinent or useful. When an article looks good, how do you know it actually is good? The answer is, you need specialists. I'll just say a couple of things. This page cites only one case (Nisshin Shipping) on the Act itself, and doesn't explain it. It doesn't deal with any other cases after the passage of the Act, eg The Laemthong. That is a whopping failure to engage or explain the Act. Furthermore, while the referencing may look impressive, it is not. It is full of pointless information and anecdote. Here's just one example:

“ The Act applies in England and Wales and Northern Ireland, but not Scotland, which has its own rules on privity and the rights of third parties.[47] The Act came into law on 11 November 1999 when it received the Royal Assent,[2] but the full provisions of the Act did not come into force until May 2000.[54] The act made clear that contracts negotiated during a six-month "twilight period" after the act's passage fell under its provisions if they included language saying that they had been made under the terms of the act.[54]

The Act had various consequences...

”

This is all entirely useless. That same section then starts talking about the views of the construction industry (as if it matters?) on the Act. ("The act has been criticised somewhat by the construction industry for its refusal to make an exception for complex construction contracts,[25] and for the vagueness of the term "purports to confer a benefit". It is generally accepted, however, that it would be unfair to make an exception for a particular industry,[25] and case law has clarified the meaning of "purports to confer a benefit".[46]")

On that last point, if you look in the article itself - which should be the thing clarifying meanings - for the meaning of "purports to confer a benefit" you find this,

“ The second situation, that a third party can enforce terms that "purport to confer a benefit on him", has been described by Meryll Dean as too broad, and one view put forward in the parliamentary debates was that it was "un-workable" in situations such as complex construction contracts involving dozens of sub-contractors with chains of contracts among them.[25] This argument, and a proposal to exempt the construction industry from the Act, was rejected by both the Law Commission and Parliament.[25] The phrase "purport to confer a benefit" was originally found in the 1937 Law Commission paper, and was used in the New Zealand Contracts (Privity) Act 1982 before it was adopted for the English Act.[26] ”

It doesn't tell you anything. But actually, it doesn't matter! There is no problem whatsoever in this phrase. This is just one example about how defective and riddled with mistakes, omissions, exaggeration of some parts, lack of emphasis in others. This article should not have been rated good in the first place. The reference list is adequate, but the page fails draw on those very references, or to grapple with or explain the main issues and functions of the legislation. It certainly does not deal with the details and the difficulties of the legislation. Finally, it does not actually quote any of the provisions. In a short act, this will often be useful for the reader. Again, I'm terribly sorry, but this cannot be endorsed. Wikidea 14:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Spoken like a man with absolutely no experience of a proper FAC. "irrelevant" "unimportant" "as if it matters" - if academics have dedicated an 8,000 word journal article to it, it matters. But y'know what? I'm not going to get anything done with you around. I formally withdraw this FAC. Ironholds (talk) 15:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I just want to add - because I do not want to hurt anybody's feelings, and because I can see that a substantial amount of effort has been put in - that I am sure the page can be improved. My comments are purely to set out some preliminary problems in the hope that it will encourage some improvement. Wikidea 15:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Standard two-faced bullshit from you. What about the petty, vindictive personal attacks every time you encounter me? What about the pointy little edits, like adding an "expert attention" tag to the page, and removing "maintained" templates because you claim they denote "ownership"? You're a two-faced weasel with more interest in making sure everything follows your idea of what makes an article rather than actually writing one. Ironholds (talk) 15:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to read this kind of dialogue at FAC: I'll leave it to you two to figure out what to move to talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I was too late with that last comment. For the record, here is my experience with a "proper FAC": User talk:Wikidea/Archive 02 Wikidea 15:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)