Talk:Sue v Hill/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Well-written?[edit]

Yes. Mootros (talk) 13:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Factually accurate and verifiable?[edit]

Yes. Mootros (talk) 17:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Broad in its coverage?[edit]

I have reservations about the broadness of references. In particular, the section called "Judgement" relies entirely only on one references. I include the following link which neatly summaries the judgement especially the difference among the judges. The danger is that this reference is highly technical and should be supported with sound scholarly interpretation where possible.

This could be easily fixed. Upon which I think this article is fit to pass. Mootros (talk) 17:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done I've added the book as the ref where appropriate, no rewording of the article was particularly necessary. 203.206.85.236 (talk) 08:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirming change from IP to wiki account Sanguis Sanies (talk) 09:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral?[edit]

Yes. Mootros (talk) 17:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stable?[edit]

Yes. Mootros (talk) 14:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrated, if possible, by images?[edit]

Yes, one relevant image, with appropriate right. Mootros (talk) 14:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]