Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
I will be undertaking the review here. This article is very new, so it is not possible to comment on its stability. It appears neutral, well-written, and unlikely to be particularly unstable. There are no images, so no issues around licencing.
There are two main issues with this article:
<edit conflict> Here is what I was writing under the heading "comprehensiveness" at the same time TreasuryTag was making the comment that follows. Treasury, you might want to revisit / revise, and I'll have a look at your remarks too.
Assuming for the moment that the article were to be confined to the UK code, it is missing the following:
It's true, actually, you do make fair points. I don't have time right this second to do the further research and writing required, but I'll try to get onto it by the end of today (UK time!)... Thanks! ╟─ Treasury Tag► hemicycle─╢ 07:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
<< I might possibly be able to get hold of either or both of those, if they happen to be in the political library I use. I won't be able to do so this week, as it's closed for UK bank holiday + school half-terms. From the Google Books snippets of the texts, they do indeed look like they'll go into great depth, and would indeed be valuable. Perhaps a little more than a week, then ;-) ╟─ Treasury Tag► hemicycle─╢ 10:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Numerous Westminster-style jurisdictions have codes that are known as ministerial codes. They can be remarkably elusive when searching for them online. They include:
A (now out-of-date) survey of codes was published by the Australian parliamentary library here: http://www.aph.gov.au/library/intguide/pol/codeconduct.htm
If this article were to continue to be about only the UK code, it may be appropriate that the article title be changed. I would think it might be better to have an article that covers the codes in general, with less detail (for example not having an article-by-article summary of a code. Would welcome other views. hamiltonstone ( talk) 02:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
I will be undertaking the review here. This article is very new, so it is not possible to comment on its stability. It appears neutral, well-written, and unlikely to be particularly unstable. There are no images, so no issues around licencing.
There are two main issues with this article:
<edit conflict> Here is what I was writing under the heading "comprehensiveness" at the same time TreasuryTag was making the comment that follows. Treasury, you might want to revisit / revise, and I'll have a look at your remarks too.
Assuming for the moment that the article were to be confined to the UK code, it is missing the following:
It's true, actually, you do make fair points. I don't have time right this second to do the further research and writing required, but I'll try to get onto it by the end of today (UK time!)... Thanks! ╟─ Treasury Tag► hemicycle─╢ 07:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
<< I might possibly be able to get hold of either or both of those, if they happen to be in the political library I use. I won't be able to do so this week, as it's closed for UK bank holiday + school half-terms. From the Google Books snippets of the texts, they do indeed look like they'll go into great depth, and would indeed be valuable. Perhaps a little more than a week, then ;-) ╟─ Treasury Tag► hemicycle─╢ 10:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Numerous Westminster-style jurisdictions have codes that are known as ministerial codes. They can be remarkably elusive when searching for them online. They include:
A (now out-of-date) survey of codes was published by the Australian parliamentary library here: http://www.aph.gov.au/library/intguide/pol/codeconduct.htm
If this article were to continue to be about only the UK code, it may be appropriate that the article title be changed. I would think it might be better to have an article that covers the codes in general, with less detail (for example not having an article-by-article summary of a code. Would welcome other views. hamiltonstone ( talk) 02:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)