Template:Did you know nominations/Fair dealing in United Kingdom law
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as 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 Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Fair dealing in United Kingdom law
edit- ... that although Fair dealing in United Kingdom law is interpreted liberally, it is still narrower than the United States equivalent?
- Reviewed: Paul H. Bruske
Created by Ironholds (talk). Self nom at 06:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- Length of article is fine, and hook is correct length. The sentence that matches the hook in the lede is unreferenced (which is fine), but I had difficulty finding the parallel text matching the hook w/the ref in the body - perhaps nom can help by pointing me to the section? The article is quite well done.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:00, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
- "is is done first by proving that the infringement falls within one of the three categories, which are liberally interpreted by the courts" - referenced to Bently & Sherman (2009) p.203 and "This can be contrasted with the United States doctrine of fair use, which provides a general defence rather than rigid and specific categories of acceptable behaviour" from Bently & Sherman (2009) p.202. Ironholds (talk) 07:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
OK, after some consideration I buy it. Would suggest that the first-indicated sentence be referenced w/the ref in the sentence that follows it, as you never know when they will be separated by a subsequent editor (in which case it would no longer be clear that the ref applies to the sentence prior to the one to which it was appended). Good to go.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
- "is is done first by proving that the infringement falls within one of the three categories, which are liberally interpreted by the courts" - referenced to Bently & Sherman (2009) p.203 and "This can be contrasted with the United States doctrine of fair use, which provides a general defence rather than rigid and specific categories of acceptable behaviour" from Bently & Sherman (2009) p.202. Ironholds (talk) 07:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
- Now done. Ironholds (talk) 09:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
- I've removed italics from the hook as nothing requires it. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
