Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fiduciary/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Fiduciary

Self nomination. --Charlemagne the Hammer 13:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Interesting topic, and some nice work, but the WP:LEAD is insufficient, and the tone of the intro is more suitable for someone with a legal background, not for a layperson. The bullet points within the subsections look strange to me as well. Has this had a peer review? Might save you some time...Kaisershatner 14:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

comment Can you please be more specific about the bullet points? I have submitted this for peer review and will do something about simplifying it --Charlemagne the Hammer 00:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure! Comments at Peer Review. Kaisershatner 02:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. I agree with Kaisershatner. Nice article, though it should be broken down into much simpler terms so that the average reader (think 6th grade education) can fully understand it. Peer review should be able to help out with simplifying this article. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 20:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

comment Submitted for peer review, will simplify --Charlemagne the Hammer 00:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Object / refer to Peer review - no references (at least, not in a "References" section). The article should include references to relevant legal textbooks / practitioner texts / journal articles, in addition to the direct citations of relevant case law; and for the latter, links to full case reports in free online databases such as http://www.bailii.org/ or http://www.austlii.org/ would be helpful). -- ALoan (Talk) 21:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

comment There are 23 references, they're called footnotes. Legal referencing uses primary authorities to the exclusion of almost all else. Nevertheless, I will include some secondary authorities from scholarly texts --Charlemagne the Hammer 00:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. This is an encyclopedia article, so it may help to refer to authoritative secondary sources, rather than asking our reader to make the jump from our article to the cases themselves. The criteria (specifically criterion 2(c)) ask for references in a section entitled "References". See also Wikipedia:Citing sources. The Peer review will help immensely, I am sure. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)