Talk:Jones v Kaney/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: D oh5678  Talk  14:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:

Problems/notes
As well as the things I've said above there are more minor problems. The first section's title is an odd name for a section. The majority views and the minority views aren't proper sections. There are a couple of links, including red ones, are repeated, for example Court of Appeal and Hall v Simons.

After these problems have been sorted out, feel free to nominate for GA again.


 * Err... I disagree, and certainly disagree that the issue merited immediate failure rather than a discussion.
 * The lead "secion" is at an appropriate length per WP:LEAD to summarise the whole of the article. One paragraph on background, one on the decision (both sides), one on the reaction. What, for example, do you think ought to come out?
 * "the main trial stuff needs to be put in a section of the main article" - could you explain what you mean by this please?
 * What is wrong with the first section's title?
 * The majority and minority views are proper sections, although they weren't for a short time after some odd edits from an otherwise uninvolved editor.
 * Using a link in the lead and also once in the body of the article (as with the Court of Appeal and Hall v Simons links you mention) is perfectly standard.
 * BencherliteTalk 15:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Reply:
 * Section length is fine. I think I misread WP:LEAD.
 * It should be "background" but you've changed it now, so fine.
 * Fine now.
 * Sorry about that, it's just people have told me that in the past.


 * It is now a GA, congrats! D oh5678  Talk