Talk:Dorothy Bain

Untitled

I agree prosecuting one notable case does not make you notable. However this is a very senior post, although I recognise the article could be clarified on this point. Please give people time to improve newly created articles. PatGallacher (talk) 23:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Dorothy Bain QC and Ruth Charteris with Nicola Sturgeon.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:52, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dorothy Bain/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Goodreg3 (talk · contribs) 23:21, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 19:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Earwig finds some overlap here. I think this is just about OK; most of it is quotes, and the main sentence other than quotes is quite hard to rephrase. Checking further down the Earwig list finds only quotes.

Sources:

• The Daily Express is considered unreliable per WP:RS/PS.
• Twitter is generally an unreliable source; I see you have another sources for Bain being sworn in as Lord Advocate -- do we really need the Twitter source?
• You cite a blog at Transform; it's an institutional blog, so is probably as reliable as the site itself, but it would be better to find another source if possible since this is about a ministerial statement and surely that was reported elsewhere.
• The first paragraph of "Calls for reform" is unsourced.

Spotchecks (footnote numbers refer to this version.

• FN 20 cites "On 10 November, she was appointed to the Privy Council earning the title 'The Right Honourable'." This is a bit nitpicky, but the source doesn't actually say that being in the privy council earns one the title. I'm not inclined to regard this as a verification failure, but can you find anotheor source that makes that clear?
• FN 28 cites "The case was ultimately unsuccessful for the Lord Advocate and the Scottish Government, with the Supreme Court ruling in favour that the Scottish Parliament does not have the legal ability to constitute for a second independence referendum "without the UK Government's permission"." Verified. I think you can cut "in favour", which looks like editing debris, and I'd suggest changing "constitute for" to "call" as simpler.
• FN 50 cites "In May 2024, Bain, as Lord Advocate, stripped the Post Office of its status as a reporting agency. Instead, the Post Office would have to report all allegations of crime within the organisation to Police Scotland. In a statement, Bain said "because of its fundamental and sustained failures in connection with Horizon cases in Scotland, I’ve decided that Post Office Limited is not fit to be a specialist reporting agency". She further confirmed that the Post Office in Scotland "is therefore no longer able to investigate and report criminal allegations directly to the Crown and it should now instead report any allegations of criminality to Police Scotland for them to investigate"." Verified.
• FN 42 cites "On 22 July 2022, Bain published the legal argument for a second referendum." Verified.
• FN 23 cites "Bain has promised to act independently and has stated she will assist the First Minister over a review of the functions of Lord Advocate." Verified.

There are seven images of Bain; do we really need all seven? I haven't reviewed the images for copyright yet; let me know if you think any can be cut before I do so. Multiple images is fine but a couple of these seem unnecessary. I'll wait till the sources comments above are addressed before going ahead with a review of the body of the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:27, 28 June 2024 (UTC)