Talk:Rantzen v Mirror Group Newspapers (1986) Ltd and others/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: QatarStarsLeague (talk · contribs) 23:40, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 23:40, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@QatarStarsLeague: Any movement on the review yet please? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:51, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are 3 different forms given for the case's name: a full length version in the infobox, an abbreviation at the outset, and a greater abbreviation. Not sure as to the protocol on case titles, but if we are going to use all three, I think we should specify whom exactly used the shortest abbreviation. The courts or the press, or both?
My main stick is with the lack of elucidation from the jury. We know their decision, the libel occurred, but did they offer as to why they felt the article was;t considered fair comment? I would add that based on the Background section, a reader might be led to reach a conclusion opposite that of the jury.
Lastly I'm not sure that the Keywords section of the infobox follows the Wikipedia manual of style; it seems a little bit unfledged.
Good, compact article...just a few things to patch up. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 22:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@QatarStarsLeague: Thank you for the review. I have updated the article in accordance with your suggestion. However the problem with the second point is simply because English juries are banned from discussing publicly what they talked about in deliberations and if any do, then they are breaking the law. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:35, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]