# Talk:R v Thomas

GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation):  b (all significant views): 
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: 
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)

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)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on R v Thomas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110910023538/http://pakistanconstitution-law.org:80/category/11-the-qanun-e-shahadat-order-1984/ to http://pakistanconstitution-law.org/category/11-the-qanun-e-shahadat-order-1984/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:45, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

It has been a while since this article has been reviewed, so I took a look and noticed the following:

There are uncited statements, including entire paragraphs.
Much of the article is cited to primary sources. Wikipedia articles rely upon secondary sources, and I think some of the trial sources will need to be switched out.
The lead does not summarise all major aspects of the article.
Should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 23:16, 9 November 2025 (UTC)


### R v Thomas
Article (edit | visual edit | history) ·  Article talk (edit | history) ·  Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result pending 
There are uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Much of the article is cited to primary sources. Wikipedia articles rely upon secondary sources, and I think some of the trial sources will need to be switched out. The lead does not summarise all major aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 00:40, 18 November 2025 (UTC)