![]() | R (Jackson) v Attorney General 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. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Pyrotec ( talk · contribs) 15:54, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay, Christmas, New Year and other things seem to have conspired to hold up this review.
I've done a quick read of the the article and on the "plus side" its certainly informative and generally at or about GA-level, but I also found it rather vague in places and there were terms that did not seem to be explained. I'm now going to go through the article one more time, starting with the Background section and finishing with the WP:Lead. Pyrotec ( talk) 16:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
.....stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec ( talk) 20:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC
"the doctrine was seen only as an English principle in MacCormick v Lord Advocate[22]" I think is confusing. Up to that clause, I assumed Jowell was arguing that Hope was importing a Scottish principle. Now I'm unsure whether it's that way round or the other: the clause seems to mean the MacCormick case considered it an English and not Scottish principle. However, it could mean that MacCormick was the only case to see it as an English principle, in addition to the Scottish one found in other cases. Either way this needs to be clarified and I suggest the clause become a full sentence. Grandiose ( me, talk, contribs) 17:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
At this point, I've almost concluded by Initial comments, so I'm putting the review On Hold. Firstly, I'm looking for confirmation, or otherwise, from Grandiose that the England & Wales vs Scotland view has been satisfactorily addressed; and, secondly, some consideration (or not) of whether Jurisdiction needs to be summarised in the Lead. Pyrotec ( talk) 21:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm awarding this article GA status. Congratulations on getting the article up to this standard. Pyrotec ( talk) 17:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() | R (Jackson) v Attorney General 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. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Pyrotec ( talk · contribs) 15:54, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay, Christmas, New Year and other things seem to have conspired to hold up this review.
I've done a quick read of the the article and on the "plus side" its certainly informative and generally at or about GA-level, but I also found it rather vague in places and there were terms that did not seem to be explained. I'm now going to go through the article one more time, starting with the Background section and finishing with the WP:Lead. Pyrotec ( talk) 16:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
.....stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec ( talk) 20:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC
"the doctrine was seen only as an English principle in MacCormick v Lord Advocate[22]" I think is confusing. Up to that clause, I assumed Jowell was arguing that Hope was importing a Scottish principle. Now I'm unsure whether it's that way round or the other: the clause seems to mean the MacCormick case considered it an English and not Scottish principle. However, it could mean that MacCormick was the only case to see it as an English principle, in addition to the Scottish one found in other cases. Either way this needs to be clarified and I suggest the clause become a full sentence. Grandiose ( me, talk, contribs) 17:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
At this point, I've almost concluded by Initial comments, so I'm putting the review On Hold. Firstly, I'm looking for confirmation, or otherwise, from Grandiose that the England & Wales vs Scotland view has been satisfactorily addressed; and, secondly, some consideration (or not) of whether Jurisdiction needs to be summarised in the Lead. Pyrotec ( talk) 21:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm awarding this article GA status. Congratulations on getting the article up to this standard. Pyrotec ( talk) 17:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)