Talk:Greene v Associated Newspapers Ltd
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Shirik in topic GA Review
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Greene v Associated Newspapers Ltd article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | Greene v Associated Newspapers Ltd has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 15, 2010. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that in Greene v Associated Newspapers Ltd, the Court of Appeal of England and Wales held that the test for granting interim injunctions in defamation cases was inflexible but applied it anyway? | |||||||||
 | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
GA Review edit
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Greene v Associated Newspapers Ltd/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 00:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Well written edit
- (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct
Well written- (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation
- OK
Factually written and verifiable edit
- (a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout
- Well referenced
- (b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines
- OK
- (c) it contains no original research
- No evidence of WP:OR
Broad in its coverage edit
- (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic
I have concerns about this criteria. Particularly, I'm having trouble identifying what warrants this page (i.e., what makes it worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia). I'm not saying it shouldn't be, I'm rather asking what types of precedents this set. I think there should be a section like "Impact" discussing the precedents, any controversy, discussion, etc., of the final decision. Is it possible to create a section like that? I think this would go a long way to making a fuller article.
- There isn't really enough information for that, but the precedent is fairly clearly outlined in the article; the case established that the precedent set in Cream Holdings Ltd v Banerjee and the Liverpool Post and Echo Ltd should not be applied to defamation cases. This precedent has been discussed in multiple sources, and indeed the amount of journal and other academic coverage it got indicates the case's importance. Ironholds (talk) 11:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- Makes sense to me --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 02:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- There isn't really enough information for that, but the precedent is fairly clearly outlined in the article; the case established that the precedent set in Cream Holdings Ltd v Banerjee and the Liverpool Post and Echo Ltd should not be applied to defamation cases. This precedent has been discussed in multiple sources, and indeed the amount of journal and other academic coverage it got indicates the case's importance. Ironholds (talk) 11:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
- Well-focused
Neutral edit
- it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
- Follows WP:NPOV
Stable edit
- it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
- No edit war
Illustrated, if possible edit
- (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content
- Image is free and properly tagged
- (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions
- OK
General comments edit
This is a well-written article. After addressing my concern above about the impacts of this decision needing representation in this article, I think it will be good to go.
Overall edit
On hold while the above concerns are addressed --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 01:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- After the above discussion, I pass this article. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 02:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)