Talk:New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990/GA1

GA review

Unsuccessful. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 00:34, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Carolina2k22 (talk · contribs) 08:14, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Vigilantcosmicpenguin (talk · contribs) 04:25, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this one. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 04:25, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead section places too much focus on specifics. Some puffery issues.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	References are listed.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Large sections of the article are unsourced.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Large sections of the article are unsourced.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Some sentences are lifted from the bill itself without attribution.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Undue weight on individual court cases with no indication of notability.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Article only has 247 edits since 2006. Seems pretty stable.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Images are free.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images are relevant to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.
	7. Overall assessment.	The issues with this article have not been addressed in a timely manner.

Initial comments

Article needs some more citations. There are a few entire paragraphs that are unsourced, including The White Paper sparked widespread debate... and In its current form, the Bill of Rights is....
A few phrases should be placed in quotation marks because they are quoted from the bill. I notice that "a right to be secure from unreasonable search or seizure" is taken verbatim from the text of the law, but please make sure there's nothing else that needs to be put in quotation marks.
The section "Important court cases" seems kind of bad. For one thing, the title of the section is WP:PUFFERY. Also, it seems to entirely be sourced to the court cases as primary sources; there's no indication to me that these are worth including.
I'll be making some minor copyedits myself for grammar, conciseness, etc.

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 04:40, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section

I don't think the hatnote is necessary—is the 1689 Bill of Rights ever referred to as the "New Zealand Bill of Rights"?
The second paragraph of the lead section is solely about Taylor v Attorney General. It doesn't seem like this is important enough to take up half of the lead. The lead should be expanded to summarize the article better, and this paragraph should be shortened.

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 04:40, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a side note, the hatnote is there as the while the 1689 Bill of Rights is a UK statute, it's incorporated as part of NZ law [1], hence potential confusion. Carolina2k22 • (talk) 06:23, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but my question was more, if someone opens Wikipedia and types "New Zealand Bill of Rights", how likely is it that they're looking for the 1689 one? Doesn't matter for the GA criteria, anyway, so I won't press it any farther.

History

The White Paper sparked widespread debate due to its controversial features Sparking widespread debate and being controversial are the same thing. Best to just say what said features are.
The second paragraph is a tad hard to parse, especially the lengthy first sentence, so I'd suggest rephrasing it.
Also, whose opinion is this?

And I would suggest putting some statements describing the act before saying they were controversial (e.g., the mention of the Treaty of Waitingi).
The tables showing votes indicate that there was a split along party lines. If any secondary sources mention this, I think there should be a sentence in the prose about it.
I don't think the three readings need to be three separate subsections, but it's up to you.
The subsection "Present day" should not be in "History" because it describes how the act works rather than its history. I think the paragraph should be moved to "Application of the Act".
Also, remove the phrase In its current form

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 06:26, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Application of the Act

This section relies almost entirely on the Act as a primary source. It should have some secondary coverage to show why these points are important.
The Act applies ~~only~~ to I wouldn't think it would apply to anything else.
Delete whether before or after the Act was passed
In section 4 of the Act~~, it explicitly~~ denies the Bill of Rights supremacy over other legislation. The section states that courts looking at cases under the Act cannot implicitly repeal, or revoke, or ~~make invalid or ineffective~~ invalidate, or decline to apply any provision of any statute made by parliament~~, whether before or after the Act was passed~~ because it is inconsistent with ~~any provision of this~~ the Bill of Rights. ~~However, in contrast,~~ Section 6 says that, where another act can be interpreted that is consistent with ~~this~~ the Bill of Rights, the courts are obliged to use the most consistent interpretation ~~through section 6 of the Act~~.
one of the core provisions in the Act This statement requires a source.
which is the same wording as in Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms So does this.
the attorney-general is ~~legally~~ required
"Reports of the attorney-general" does not need to be a separate subsection.

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 06:26, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rights guaranteed by the Act

This section relies almost entirely on the Act as a primary source. It should have some secondary coverage to show why these points are important. I'll look over this section again once you've rewritten it to reflect sources.

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 06:26, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Important court cases

Note my comment about this section in "Initial comments".
A large number of cases ... mostly pertaining to ... These must be sourced.
The parenthetical also known as Baigent's case is unnecessary if you don't use this moniker in the rest of the article.
leading human rights barrister is puffery.
I would remove of destroying a New Zealand flag with intent to dishonour it since it's already mentioned that he destroyed a flag.
had many shades of meaning Unnecessary idiom
The "Other cited cases" subsection has no citations. I also don't understand this section; why only list these two cases?

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 06:26, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remedies

I'm seeing some more issues with primary sources here, and I now notice that, in fact, the overwhelming majority of sources listed are primary sources (since a legal case citing the law counts, to an extent, as a primary source). @Carolina2k22: you'll need a significant amount of work to make sure this article reflects primary sources; otherwise I will fail this nomination. I'll do the source spotcheck once you've done so. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 06:26, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for all your work reviewing so far! I’ll work on improving it and correcting these issues over the next week. Carolina2k22 • (talk) 02:43, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Carolina2k22: Hi, it's been a week since your last comment. Do you plan on addressing this soon? If not, I will have to fail this nomination. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 00:17, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Hi! I do plan on addressing these issues but unfortunately I’ve been a bit busy over the last week and likely will be this week. Would it be possible to have another couple weeks? Carolina2k22 • (talk) 12:19, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Sure, I'll allow you to take as much time as you need, as long as you're committed to improving this article to GA quality. However, I'll say that the article is currently kind of far from meeting the GA criteria, so you will have to commit to a good amount of work. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:03, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Thank you for letting me know, I'm definitely committed to improving it up to GA standard, just will take a bit of time. I will mention you when I have finished my changes, I appreciate it. Carolina2k22 • (talk) 08:43, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  @Carolina2k22: I'm sorry to say that I'm failing this nomination. It's been thirty days since this review began and no improvements have been made to the article. As Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions expects reviews to be completed in a timely manner, I believe this article has had enough time to get up to standard. As you still plan on bringing this article to GA status, I suggest you wait to re-nominate it until you have made substantial improvements. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 00:34, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.