Talk:Cream Holdings Ltd v Banerjee

Cream Holdings Ltd v Banerjee 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
March 3, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 12, 2010.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that in Cream Holdings Ltd v Banerjee and the Liverpool Post and Echo Ltd, Lord Nicholls decided that the disputed test applied by the High Court judge was not necessarily wrong, but allowed the appeal 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.

Bailii citations[edit]

Useful, particularly in the infobox. However:

Many were added right into the middle of sentences.
Many were added before full stops rather than after, also wrong.
Some were added to the lead; the lead should either be cite-free or cite-full. The method used here is cite-free; sticking the article in a middle ground simply ensures it doesn't comply with either acceptable standard.
The references being used are problematic. The judgments are massive; you're giving a 135-page EWCA judgment as a source and going "there you go, you can find it in there - if you look hard enough", which makes it technically verifiable (although not really, since they're unnecessary) but practically annoying for the reader.Ironholds (talk) 23:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]