Jump to content

Talk:Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather plc

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleCambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather plc 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
DateProcessResult
April 20, 2010Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 30, 2010.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that in Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather plc, Lord Goff suggested that Rylands v Fletcher was not an independent tort, but instead part of nuisance?

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather plc/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: S Masters (talk) 08:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    Article is stable.
  6. 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):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Comments:

Not specific to GAN, but a tighter style of writing. In particular, I feel that commas are needed after a year is mentioned, treating it as a parenthetical, which requires a comma after it. Major style guides require this, see comma. It is not a requirement but it will be picked if the article moves towards FA, so we might as well get it sorted now. -- S Masters (talk) 09:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't an article I can see moving to FA, really; it's not important enough that there's much material on it. Ironholds (talk) 10:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1980 a European Directive was issued in 1980 requiring nations..." - Is it necessary to repeat 1980?
  • Wikipedia is not a dictionary, do not wikify common words like negligence.
    Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 08:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is not a dictionary, no. Wikipedia is also not inhabited by lawyers. Given the being "negligent" holds different meanings legally and to the layman, I thought it a good idea to link to the legal article. Ironholds (talk) 08:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair comment, I suggest you do it on the first mention, but leave any repeats unlinked. -- S Masters (talk) 09:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okie-dokes, will do. Ironholds (talk) 10:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.
  • There is overlinking. Only wikify words once, on first mention. The lead can be an exception. Please remove repeated links.
    There's no requirement to only link words once that I know of. Ironholds (talk) 08:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The policy regarding repeat linking is at WP:REPEATLINK. Although there are exceptions, "where a later occurrence of an item is a long way from the first", this mainly applies to FA length articles, and many GA reviewers ask for these to be removed. It also makes the article more visually appealing. -- S Masters (talk) 09:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough; I'll get on to that in a sec. Ironholds (talk) 10:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 10:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Summary: Overall, this article has met almost all the requirements for a Good Article. Unfortunately, it has some minor issues that need to be rectified. I will allow seven days for these to be addressed, before making any further decision.

Final comments: Thank you for all your hard work in making this a better article. I am now satisfied that it meets all the requirements for a Good Article, and I am happy to pass it. -- S Masters (talk) 07:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency of spelling in the article.

[edit]

I wish to raise the matter of the consistency of spelling within this article, currently sitting as a GA. The article predominantly concerns a matter of English law, and the spellings used within the article are mostly consistent with British English. However, the spelling of the word judgement throughout the article is the American English variant, which drops the first "e" to become judgment Can I please ask for guidance on whether the spelling should be made fully consistent throughout the entire article, or whether mixed use of British and American English is deemed acceptable? I did check the MOS but it says that Wikipedia prefers neither British or American English over one another. Thank you for your guidance. Dane|Geld 21:30, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SMasters: I noticed you're head of the Guild of Copy Editors, and that you reviewed this article for its GA status. Would you be able to help me with the point about spelling consistency, please? Many thanks. Dane|Geld 11:19, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cambridge_Water_Co_Ltd_v_Eastern_Counties_Leather_plc&oldid=1199463899"