- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 19:51, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
McNally v R
- ... that in 2013, McNally v R upheld a conviction of sexual assault via "gender deception"? Source: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2013/1051.html
- Comment: I am not sure if my hook is perfect, but I would love to nominate my new article! Very open to help with the hook.
Created by Heromagnus1 (talk). Self-nominated at 23:35, 13 March 2022 (UTC).
- Comment: The source above should be the reliable secondary source which supports the hook fact in the article. I think a rephrase is in order: the conviction was in R v McNally, while McNally v R is the appeal which upheld the conviction.
done – Reidgreg (talk) 00:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- hi!! thank you so much. thoughts on the new draft? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heromagnus (talk • contribs) 22:25, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- ALT1: ... that a Scottish student challenged her conviction of sexual assault via "gender deception" in McNally v R?
- ALT2: ... that McNally v R upheld a conviction of sexual assault via "gender deception"?
- Thank you! I loved your second alt and I am submitting it! Let me know what else I need to do to help this move forward. Thank you :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heromagnus1 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Article length is appropriate, it was nominated in time, all of its sources are reliable and it is written from a neutral point of view. I put it in the proper category and added an image of the court as is common in articles about British case law. The approved hook is ALT2. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 13:28, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Heromagnus and Psiĥedelisto: I was going to promote this, but I am concerned about the hook. The term "gender deception" is in quotation marks in the hook, and is used in the article. However, I could not find that term in the source provided above, nor in Politics.co.uk source which is used to verify the term in the lede. Can you post the source here that verifies the "gender deception" term, or suggest alternative hooks that don't include that phrase? Also, Reidgreg you are listed in the DYKmake template as one of the creators of this article. Were you involved in writing this article, or should your DYKmake template be removed? Z1720 (talk) 18:34, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not 100% clear on use of DYKmake, whether it's for creators or co-nominators (not much on its doc page). It's Heromagnus's article, though I've assisted/advised since it was proposed at the Teahouse, suggested the DYK and hooks. Xtools credits me with authorship mainly from copyediting and reference cleanup. Remove my DYKmake if unwarranted. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Z1720: The phrase is in the Queering Judgment source. I apologize for not noticing it's not in the actual ruling cited above, which does use the word "deception" all throughout but not the two in combination. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 09:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Psiĥedelisto and Heromagnus1: Thanks for your response. I found the two instances where "gender deception" is used in the Queering Judgement source: the first instance is about another case, and the second instance is an introductory statement and not used again in the source. I don't think it's wise to word the hooks like this, as they might get rejected later in the DYK process as original research. Here are some alternatives, based on your hooks above:
- ALT2a: ... that McNally v R upheld a conviction of sexual assault because the plaintiff was deceptive about their gender?
- ALT2b: ... that McNally v R upheld a conviction of sexual assault because the plaintiff lied about their gender?
- @Heromagnus and Psiĥedelisto: I was going to promote this, but I am concerned about the hook. The term "gender deception" is in quotation marks in the hook, and is used in the article. However, I could not find that term in the source provided above, nor in Politics.co.uk source which is used to verify the term in the lede. Can you post the source here that verifies the "gender deception" term, or suggest alternative hooks that don't include that phrase? Also, Reidgreg you are listed in the DYKmake template as one of the creators of this article. Were you involved in writing this article, or should your DYKmake template be removed? Z1720 (talk) 18:34, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
@Psiĥedelisto: Hi! Thank you all so much for your thoughts. I think your alts are a little difficult for me because they imply that the deception was real, uncontested, and objective. I wonder if perhaps the solution could just be to remove the quotes in the original hook? This way, we get at the language used without quoting where it is unnecessary to do so.
- ALT3a: ... that in 2013, McNally v R upheld a conviction of sexual assault via gender deception?
- ALT3b: ...that McNally v R upheld a conviction of sexual assault on the grounds that the plaintiff lied about their gender?
Let me know your thoughts! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18a:c77e:42e0:19a:6712:31b:5e96 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- We would say 'allegedly lied' prior to a conviction (WP:SUSPECT), but afterwards we generally state the court's ruling as fact. I would prefer ALT2b or ALT3a. In the latter case, removal of MOS:SCAREQUOTES sets a better tone and, if needed, here are some additional sources which could be added to the article: The Conversation collectively refers to the McNally, Newland and Barker cases as "gender deception cases" and the abstract of Transgender Freedom and the Law (conference paper) refers to "gender deception" as a key component of the case. – Reidgreg (talk) 06:44, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Psiĥedelisto: or someone else: Can we get your thoughts on the proposed hooks above, and re-add the green tick if they are approved? Z1720 (talk) 17:12, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Z1720, Reidgreg, and Heromagnus1: Certainly. I had not abandoned the review, it's one of my QPQ's and anyway that'd be rude, it's just that when the user 2601:18a:c77e:42e0:19a:6712:31b:5e96 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) responded to me I had no idea how to take that, as I was not the one raising problems with their wording or the Queering Judgment source, which I judged fine. So I waited for you to reply. Reidgreg is fine with ALT3a and so am I—it makes no real difference if the text is quote-attributed or not to me, but I do understand the slight difference in wikivoice nuance. So, ALT3a is good to go. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 22:40, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Z1720, Reidgreg, and Heromagnus1: Certainly. I had not abandoned the review, it's one of my QPQ's and anyway that'd be rude, it's just that when the user 2601:18a:c77e:42e0:19a:6712:31b:5e96 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) responded to me I had no idea how to take that, as I was not the one raising problems with their wording or the Queering Judgment source, which I judged fine. So I waited for you to reply. Reidgreg is fine with ALT3a and so am I—it makes no real difference if the text is quote-attributed or not to me, but I do understand the slight difference in wikivoice nuance. So,
- @Psiĥedelisto: or someone else: Can we get your thoughts on the proposed hooks above, and re-add the green tick if they are approved? Z1720 (talk) 17:12, 10 April 2022 (UTC)