Talk:Greene v Associated Newspapers Ltd

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Greene v Associated Newspapers Ltd article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Greene v Associated Newspapers Ltd has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 4, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 15, 2010.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that in Greene v Associated Newspapers Ltd, the Court of Appeal of England and Wales held that the test for granting interim injunctions in defamation cases was inflexible but applied it anyway?

Freedom of speech Mid‑importance

	Freedom of speech portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Freedom of speech, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freedom of speech on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Freedom of speechWikipedia:WikiProject Freedom of speechTemplate:WikiProject Freedom of speechFreedom of speech articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Mid‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Makes sense to me --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 02:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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