Talk:Dempsey (dog)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dogs, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | ||
| Stub | This article has been rated as stub-Class on the Project's quality scale. | ||
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it needs. |
|||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a quality rating on the assessment scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance assessment on the assessment scale. | |
[edit] Neutrality?
Usually I think that questions raised about neutrality are rather silly and originate with people with an extreme viewpoint. However, I think it is misleading to say that, "Dempsey was sentenced to death under the Dangerous Dogs Act for being in public unmuzzled." The United Kingdom does not have the death penalty and in modern times it has not been applicable to non-human animals. I think that "British injustice" is also not quite right. Did Brigitte Bardot use those actual words? If she did, they should be in quotation marks. Otherwise I suggest something like, "the perceived injustice of the British legal situation", or, "a legal situation in Britain that was widely considered unjust both there and in France", etc. I also wonder if it is right for the article here to be in the position of judging what is and is not "bizarre".--Oxonian2006 00:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Bad English
The penultimate sentence is poorly written, and actually doesn't make sense:
"The case was dismissed in November 1995 on a legal technicality, since that Dempsey's owner — who had not been involved in, nor originally told about, the unmuzzling incident, had not been informed about prior to the convening of the first hearing."
Firstly one should not say "since that...", simply "since" would suffice. But worse is "had not been informed about" since that to which "about" refers is not stated properly. Perhaps the writer meant that the owner had not been informed about the "unmuzzling incident", but this subject belongs to the previous clause in this sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevoreilly (talk • contribs) 10:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
