Wikipedia:Peer review/K. M. Nanavati vs. State of Maharashtra/archive1

K. M. Nanavati vs. State of Maharashtra
Freshly created. I have referenced all the material I could find about this 1959 court case oneline. Please point out what is missing or what more can be done to get it elevated to FA status? Thanks in advance. -- Pamri &bull; Talk 09:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I like this article. However, I suprised that the statement that this trial led to the abolition of trial by jury was not reprised later on in the article. I would have thought that, if the trial had such important consequence, a section on Consequences of the trials should be added. There are, also, a few places where the prose style turns into a slightly rambling narration. I would advise that you read through the article again, and rewrite sentences to a more encyclopaedic and objective style. However, this is good stuff: keep it up. --Gareth Hughes 18:03, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your positive comments and constructive criticism. I am reading the judgement in its entirety and hopefully can write more on the Consequences of the trial. The part on the abolition of the jury trial is mentioned in the jury trial paragraph, but I will move it a different para to better highlight it. By the way, do you find the problem with the prose style throught the article or in any specific para. Just asking, so I don't go overboard while cleaning it up. Thanks again. -- Pamri &bull; Talk 06:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Very interesting subject and good work collecting the info. If the tone is improved by avoiding use of present tense while narrating the story and sound less like a newspaper report, and the section headings are reworded and copyedited, this article can become an FA. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 14:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Very good and clear article overall, but I too would like more on the consequences of the trial and its aftermath insofar as how such changed legal practise in India. Also, shouldn't Mumbai be also identified as Bombay in its first mention as it was Bombay at the time these events transpired?--Mike 00:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)