Talk:R v Bailey

message: I'm coming from GAN, but I don't really feel like doing a formal review, so here are some comments for another reviewer to consider. I am unfamiliar with the structure of English courts, so I don't know if the court this is coming from makes this case inherently notable, but it is troubling that this article has no secondary sources commenting on the principles this case stands for.  One would expect, if this case is notable, that it would be covered in a law review article or casebook note or treatise somewhere.  I don't see how this could pass without secondary sources. Mangostar (talk) 00:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: WP:Good article usage is a survey of the language and style of Wikipedia editors in articles being reviewed for Good article nomination.  It will help make the experience of writing Good Articles as non-threatening and satisfying as possible if all the participating editors would take a moment to answer a few questions for us, in this section please.  The survey will end on April 30.
* Would you like any additional feedback on the writing style in this article?
* If you write a lot outside of Wikipedia, what kind of writing do you do?
* Is your writing style influenced by any particular WikiProject or other group on Wikipedia? 
At any point during this review, let us know if we recommend any edits, including markup, punctuation and language, that you feel don't fit with your writing style.  Thanks for your time. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Survey 

message: :GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is 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.
#:Fair representation without bias: 
#It is stable.
#:No edit wars etc.: 
#It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
#:a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
#Overall: 
#:Pass/Fail: 
Will add my comments soon. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry you had to wait so long, are so frustrated and feel that way. The only reason why I decided to review the article was out of pity - 2 months is a very long wait as far as I'm concerned just for a GA review. And btw, I'm well aware of how common law is taught - but thank you for assuming otherwise. It is not a matter of how it is taught, but the failure to include the opinions of other reputed minds in the field (whether it be in the form of lawyers, judges or former judges; all of whom are generally the only reputed authors in law, as I'd have expected you to know). Perhaps you are under the impression that no other textbook or essay refers to (and discusses) this case, beyond merely reproducing it. It is indeed a shame you're giving up so easily, because unless you're suggesting common law (by coincidence) is somehow completely different for you (in comparison to everyone else), I see no basis for your decision. Again, I apologise for the wait, and frustration that you feel at this moment for seeing your article failed, but I well-understand how things are done, and am not asking something that is outside of your capabilities. Anyway, whatever it is, good luck! Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and you mention 3 editors - I can only speak for myself as not being under such a category. It is possible your view may have merit for the other 2 editors, but I don't know them, nor wish to comment on them for the same reason. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

text: If you're being sarcastic, are you suggesting that there should be low standards?? Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Lets all try to go with good faith, i love those words, maybe Rod is making a geninue point, only one GA, that does say something. ;-) Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 22:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it does; going with good faith, perhaps there's a notable difference in quality. And in case there is any confusion about the spelling in this article, it is firmly meant to be English (UK) - NOT USA. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Assessment/Review being conducted by Ncmvocalist