# Talk:R (Jackson) v Attorney General

This review is transcluded from Talk:R (Jackson) v Attorney General/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 15:54, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 15:54, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


### Initial comments
Sorry for the delay, Christmas, New Year and other things seem to have conspired to hold up this review.
I've done a quick read of the the article and on the "plus side" its certainly informative and generally at or about GA-level, but I also found it rather vague in places and there were terms that did not seem to be explained. I'm now going to go through the article one more time, starting with the Background section and finishing with the WP:Lead. Pyrotec (talk) 16:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Background -
untitled subsection -
I added "in England and Wales", since the Hunting Act 2004 only applies to England & Wales.
Otherwise, this subsection looks OK.
Divisional Court & Court of Appeal -
I added "in January 2005" to the former and "in February 2005" to the later as both subsections made no reference to dates or timescale.
Otherwise, both subsections look OK.
House of Lords -
I corrected various inconsistent placements of citations, i.e. placed after commas and semicolons, not before.
Otherwise,  this section looks OK.
Significance -
.....stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 20:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC

Untitled subsection
Looks OK.
Limits to parliamentary sovereignty -
I believe that this subsection, as now amended, is compliant but I'm going to refer back to Grandiose (see below). Pyrotec (talk) 18:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Justifying limits to the 1911 Act & Parliamentary sovereignty as a judicial creation -
These two subsections look OK.
Lead -
This, as per WP:Lead, has two main functions: it should both introduce the topic of the article and summarise the main points, although there are other subsidiary requirements in WP:Lead that should also be meet.
In general, the current lead seems to fullfill these requirements. However, there appear, to my eyes, to be two "arguments/issues" in the body of the article that are not summarised in the Lead: Standing (law) and Jurisdiction. The first issue might be somewhat trivial, and perhaps on the grounds of Relative emphasis it possibly could be overlooked, but is the second issue and should it appear in the Lead? Pyrotec (talk) 21:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


#### Comments from Grandiose
"the doctrine was seen only as an English principle in MacCormick v Lord Advocate[22]" I think is confusing. Up to that clause, I assumed Jowell was arguing that Hope was importing a Scottish principle. Now I'm unsure whether it's that way round or the other: the clause seems to mean the MacCormick case considered it an English and not Scottish principle. However, it could mean that MacCormick was the only case to see it as an English principle, in addition to the Scottish one found in other cases. Either way this needs to be clarified and I suggest the clause become a full sentence. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs)  17:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for this comment of yours, Grandiose. I'm working my through the article so I'll pick that up (again) when I get to the Significance section. However, it seems that the nominator has done no editing on wikipedia since 29 Oct 2012, so I'm not sure whether anyone will address that point - we'll have to wait and see. Pyrotec (talk) 17:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I may be able to address some of the concerns with the article, depending on what they turn out to be and the amount of time I have available. As you will know some nominators return and some don't. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs)  19:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm quite happy to follow up all suggestions (I know I've been away for a while, but I should be available to at least finish raising this article to Good Article standard) and will get started with the mentioned sentence. Michael Anon 19:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
I've attempted to clarify the comment on recognition of Parliamentary sovereignty in Scotland. I am trying to communicate that there are suggestions that Parliamentary sovereignty might not be recognised (at all) in Scottish courts, hence why a Scottish Law Lord might have suggested there are limits to the doctrine. Michael Anon 19:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Pyrotec (talk) 21:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


### Initial comments (continued)
At this point, I've almost concluded by Initial comments, so I'm putting the review On Hold. Firstly, I'm looking for confirmation, or otherwise, from Grandiose that the England & Wales vs Scotland view has been satisfactorily addressed; and, secondly, some consideration (or not) of whether Jurisdiction needs to be summarised in the Lead. Pyrotec (talk) 21:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I've added a sentence on the combined jurisdiction and standing questions given that the topic of the article is the case and it therefore seems logical to include at least an outline of all the issues discussed, including the conspicuous absence. (Although I could easily be persuaded that the primary importance of the case is the sovereignty question and that the issues are therefore not sufficiently significant to be mentioned in the lead.) Michael Anon 21:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


### Overall summary
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  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.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

I'm awarding this article GA status. Congratulations on getting the article up to this standard. Pyrotec (talk) 17:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the review, Pyrotec (and for your comments, Grandiose). Michael Anon 19:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)