(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
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)reply
(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable
captions
OK
General comments
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.
(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
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)reply
(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable
captions
OK
General comments
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.