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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
The picture was categorised under meta as a boarding home or similar, which I would think is the correct image - if any - to use for this case. If there's a clearer or better picture though that'd be good. RichsLaw (talk) 23:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would be very unusual for the article to feature a picture of an unrelated hotel (Asserbohus), instead of a picture of Axeholme House itself. I'd say it's probably best to do without a picture in this case, because the case isn't really even about boarding houses in general. TheFeds00:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Generally UK case law articles tend to feature a picture related to the case; upon reflection it's probably better to do without one unless one of Axeholme House turns up, though I'd disagree boarding houses aren't a central point of this case. RichsLaw (talk) 10:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
