Talk:NSW Parliament passes alcohol-fuelled violence bill hours after drafting

Notes

"The latter was assented, while the former was still pending assent from the Governor-General." — from the Bills pages at the Parliament website. Both 2 linked in sources.

"The latter formally commenced on Thursday except for subsection 5, maximum fines changes, subject to commence on a day appointed by proclamation." — this is from the bill itself, linked as a source.

"The penalty notice fines for misconduct and swearing in public were raised from AU$200 and $150 to $500" — this is from the Crime and Other ... Bill section 5.2. It speaks of these.

"was increased from 6 penalty units ($660) to 15 penalty units ($1,650)." — from section 5.1, likewise. It refers to this.

--Gryllida 13:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

"instead of midnight" — from [1] section 12 - 1, which says that the standard trading period ends at midnight; and from Liquor Amendment Bill 2014, linked in sources, schedule 1, section 4. --Gryllida 13:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Review of revision 2361146 [Not ready]

Revision 2361146 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 07:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: I've failed to verify a number of things here. I'd removed one passage, that didn't seem terribly important, when I couldn't verify it. These are more substantive. The sentence about penalty notice (paragraph 5 sentence 2). I can't find some of those numbers, and there seems to be something missing because afaics they didn't both go to $500. The sentence/paragraph about bottle shops (paragraph 6). I can't confirm it used to be midnight, and the last clause looks wrong because the source isn't clear on the point, but appears to be suggesting that it probably wouldn't affect the big chains, which I took to have something to do with the business model of those chains rather than any exception under the law. The paragraph about Christie (paragraph 7). I was unable to find a lot of the details here. The source provided doesn't actually say he died, which is sort-of okay because a more recent source says he died, but there's nothing in these sources that says when he died and I'm pretty sure it wasn't the 14th. Nor did I actually find anything that said Peter's injuries were minor, and I definitely didn't see anything about postponed until March. Also, unless there's something that confirms McNeil was found by a court to have been drunk and assaulted them, all that stuff should be qualified with "allegedly". I was somewhat surprised there was no mention here of the Greens. Seems like some mention of objections to the bill would be desirable for neutrality. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 2361146 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 07:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: I've failed to verify a number of things here. I'd removed one passage, that didn't seem terribly important, when I couldn't verify it. These are more substantive. The sentence about penalty notice (paragraph 5 sentence 2). I can't find some of those numbers, and there seems to be something missing because afaics they didn't both go to $500. The sentence/paragraph about bottle shops (paragraph 6). I can't confirm it used to be midnight, and the last clause looks wrong because the source isn't clear on the point, but appears to be suggesting that it probably wouldn't affect the big chains, which I took to have something to do with the business model of those chains rather than any exception under the law. The paragraph about Christie (paragraph 7). I was unable to find a lot of the details here. The source provided doesn't actually say he died, which is sort-of okay because a more recent source says he died, but there's nothing in these sources that says when he died and I'm pretty sure it wasn't the 14th. Nor did I actually find anything that said Peter's injuries were minor, and I definitely didn't see anything about postponed until March. Also, unless there's something that confirms McNeil was found by a court to have been drunk and assaulted them, all that stuff should be qualified with "allegedly". I was somewhat surprised there was no mention here of the Greens. Seems like some mention of objections to the bill would be desirable for neutrality. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

> The sentence about penalty notice (paragraph 5 sentence 2). I can't find some of those numbers, and there seems to be something missing because afaics they didn't both go to $500.

Already explained at the 0th section on this talk page: old values; new values in Crime and Other ... Bill section 5.2.

> The sentence/paragraph about bottle shops (paragraph 6). I can't confirm it used to be midnight, and the last clause looks wrong because the source isn't clear on the point, but appears to be suggesting that it probably wouldn't affect the big chains, which I took to have something to do with the business model of those chains rather than any exception under the law.

Again already explained at the 0th section on this talk page (last line). The big chains thing is indeed vague, and I clarified it in the article.

> The paragraph about Christie (paragraph 7). I was unable to find a lot of the details here. The source provided doesn't actually say he died, which is sort-of okay because a more recent source says he died, but there's nothing in these sources that says when he died and I'm pretty sure it wasn't the 14th. Nor did I actually find anything that said Peter's injuries were minor, and I definitely didn't see anything about postponed until March. Also, unless there's something that confirms McNeil was found by a court to have been drunk and assaulted them, all that stuff should be qualified with "allegedly".

Source added. (Thought I did, but I appear to have missed it.) I have added "allegedly", since I don't have a source which verifies the offense formally.

... the source was published on 14th, but cites "last Saturday", so I corrected the date in the article.

> I was somewhat surprised there was no mention here of the Greens. Seems like some mention of objections to the bill would be desirable for neutrality.

Done.

--Gryllida 10:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Review of revision 2363250 [Passed]

Revision 2363250 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 23:50, 1 February 2014 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 2363250 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 23:50, 1 February 2014 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.