# Talk:Greene v Associated Newspapers Ltd

This review is transcluded from Talk:Greene v Associated Newspapers Ltd/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 00:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


### Well written
(a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct
 Well written
(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation
 OK


### Factually written and verifiable
(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout
 Well referenced
(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines
 OK
(c) it contains no original research
 No evidence of WP:OR


### Broad in its coverage
(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic
 I have concerns about this criteria. Particularly, I'm having trouble identifying what warrants this page (i.e., what makes it worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia). I'm not saying it shouldn't be, I'm rather asking what types of precedents this set. I think there should be a section like "Impact" discussing the precedents, any controversy, discussion, etc., of the final decision. Is it possible to create a section like that? I think this would go a long way to making a fuller article.
There isn't really enough information for that, but the precedent is fairly clearly outlined in the article; the case established that the precedent set in Cream Holdings Ltd v Banerjee and the Liverpool Post and Echo Ltd should not be applied to defamation cases. This precedent has been discussed in multiple sources, and indeed the amount of journal and other academic coverage it got indicates the case's importance. Ironholds (talk) 11:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 Makes sense to me --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 02:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
 Well-focused


### Neutral
it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
 Follows WP:NPOV


### Stable
it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
 No edit war


### Illustrated, if possible
(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content
 Image is free and properly tagged
(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions
 OK


### General comments
This is a well-written article. After addressing my concern above about the impacts of this decision needing representation in this article, I think it will be good to go.


### Overall
 On hold while the above concerns are addressed --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 01:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

 After the above discussion, I pass this article. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 02:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)