Talk:R v Thomas
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose): b (MoS): [[Image:|15px]]
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): [[Image:|15px]]
- It is broad in its coverage.
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- It is stable.
- It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
- a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- a Pass/Fail: [[Image:|15px]]
The only reason why I put a - on 4a is because the governments of Australia and the United States are not represented in the Background of the case. Other than that, this is a good article. Diez2 01:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] GA review — kept
This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, Ruslik 09:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Categories: Wikipedia good articles | Wikipedia CD Selection-GAs | GA-Class Good articles | Social sciences and society good articles | WikiProject Australian law articles | GA-Class Australian law articles | Unknown-importance Australian law articles | GA-Class Australia articles | High-importance Australia articles | GA-Class Terrorism articles | Unknown-importance Terrorism articles | WikiProject Terrorism articles