Talk:R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ex parte Bancoult (No 2)/GA1

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

Reviewer: hamiltonstone (talk) 01:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC) The article appears generally neutral (but see below), stable, well-written and the one image is in order. Comments: That's about it. A very interesting case. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The use of the word "exiled" appears contentious. To a lay person that implies politically (or even militarily) hostile ejection of a person from their country. This does not appear to be on that level; nor does it appear to be ejection from their country, but from one territory to another within a country. While I personally sympathise with people in this situation, i don't think "exiled" is right. The fact that it was used by the minority judges but (i presume) not the majority underlines its potentially tendentious nature.
 * I don't think moving the people from British territory to the Mauritius can really be described as "from one territory to another within a country", but I see your point about the language; changed. Ironholds (talk) 23:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "The public and academic reaction to the decision was a negative one": this is followed by a quote, but not a cite to make clear who is being quoted.
 * Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 23:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't seem to say anything about final effects. Eg, were there Chagossians who had returned and were now again relocated? I'm assuming not. Any other effects? Apologies, alternative arrangements offered by governments, any announcement from the Chagossian refugee group?
 * Effects outside of the litigation, yes, but not as part of it. There were some decisions by US courts, and a Mauritian decision on compensation for the matter, but not as part of the litigation itself. Ironholds (talk) 23:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for those changes. One other thing. THe lead currently says "The Chagos Islands, acquired by the United Kingdom in 1814, were reorganised as the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) in 1965 for the purpose of removing its inhabitants". Are you sure the purpose of the 1965 reorganisation was the removal, or was the removal just one part of it - which is what the body text seems to imply? hamiltonstone (talk) 23:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Journal articles state that the reorganisation was to remove the inhabitants, based on declassified foreign office documents I don't have access to. Ironholds (talk) 23:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. I'm done. cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 23:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)