Template:Did you know nominations/O'Halloran and Francis v. United Kingdom

O'Halloran and Francis v. United Kingdom

• ( Back to T:TDYK
• Article history )

• ... that the European Court of Human Rights ruled that British drivers do not have the right to remain silent when asked by the police to identify the driver of a speeding car? Source: https://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2007/545.html
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Steve McMillan (politician)

Moved to mainspace by The C of E (talk). Self-nominated at 16:06, 11 January 2022 (UTC).

• I will ask if anyone wants to propose an alt hook. The current one is interesting and correct, but has the potential to cause outcry over removal of rights. There is the possibility it was intended to be so deliberately provocative. I will try to propose an alt myself if nobody else wants to. Kingsif (talk) 03:16, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

  @Kingsif: - I’m uninvolved here, and my thoughts are that if this (or similar content) isn’t the hook then we’ve kind of failed, as the content in the hook above is basically the most important part of the article, and it’s interesting, and it’s rated PG. starship.paint (exalt) 14:44, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

• The vast majority of hooks are not the most important part of the article. It's not a failure to omit the in brief of an article, and especially when taking away the context of the article puts such a brief in a grey area. Kingsif (talk) 20:10, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

• Apart from being confusingly and ambiguously written, the original hook is misleading because it says the court ruled against British drivers specifically, when so far as I can determine, the ruling applies to the EU generally, not just the British. So the hook needs a rewrite, I will try to come up with one a little later. Gatoclass (talk) 08:08, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  I find the hook to be interesting and generally clear, but isn't the ruling also specifically against car owners rather than drivers? Retswerb (talk) 06:57, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

• @Gatoclass: It's been a few days, have you been able to think of a new suggestion yet? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Narutolovehinata5, the issue is no longer with the hook, a replacement for which should not be that difficult. The problem is that I am not altogether satisfied with the shape of the article. Not that I've found any errors, it's just that I find it a bit random and lacking in clarity. I did begin rewriting it, but a fair bit is sourced to the original court summary, and legalese can be pretty difficult to follow and get right, and additionally, I have a number of other things on my plate off-wiki right now. So it might be a few more days before I can get back to this, apologies for the delay. Gatoclass (talk) 13:52, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: Do we ask if, with no or little outside coverage, the court case isn't significant enough for its own Wikipedia article (I think I mentioned this at the main DYK talk - that C of E likely was looking for cases that could be provocative to create articles about, whether they really pass GNG or not) Kingsif (talk) 22:42, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

IMO it has enough independent reliable sources to pass GNG. If you think otherwise, you are free to nominate it for AFD, but I think it would be a waste of time. A nominator's motives for writing an article are immaterial from a policy standpoint. Gatoclass (talk) 07:52, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: In any case, given that The C of E cannot return to the nomination and address any concerns, you will probably need to adopt this one, and that any concerns will need to be addressed soon given that the nomination has already been up for a few weeks. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:05, 1 February 2022 (UTC)