Talk:R (Jackson) v Attorney General/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 15:54, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 15:54, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

Sorry for the delay, Christmas, New Year and other things seem to have conspired to hold up this review.

I've done a quick read of the the article and on the "plus side" its certainly informative and generally at or about GA-level, but I also found it rather vague in places and there were terms that did not seem to be explained. I'm now going to go through the article one more time, starting with the Background section and finishing with the WP:Lead. Pyrotec (talk) 16:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Background -
- untitled subsection -

Looks OK.

- Divisional Court & Court of Appeal -

I added "in January 2005" to the former and "in February 2005" to the later as both subsections made no reference to dates or timescale.
Otherwise, both subsections look OK.

House of Lords -

I corrected various inconsistent placements of citations, i.e. placed after commas and semicolons, not before.
Otherwise, this section looks OK.

Significance -

.....stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 20:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Grandiose

"the doctrine was seen only as an English principle in MacCormick v Lord Advocate[22]" I think is confusing. Up to that clause, I assumed Jowell was arguing that Hope was importing a Scottish principle. Now I'm unsure whether it's that way round or the other: the clause seems to mean the MacCormick case considered it an English and not Scottish principle. However, it could mean that MacCormick was the only case to see it as an English principle, in addition to the Scottish one found in other cases. Either way this needs to be clarified and I suggest the clause become a full sentence. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this comment of yours, Grandiose. I'm working my through the article so I'll pick that up (again) when I get to the Significance section. However, it seems that the nominator has done no editing on wikipedia since 29 Oct 2012, so I'm not sure whether anyone will address that point - we'll have to wait and see. Pyrotec (talk) 17:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I may be able to address some of the concerns with the article, depending on what they turn out to be and the amount of time I have available. As you will know some nominators return and some don't. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite happy to follow up all suggestions (I know I've been away for a while, but I should be available to at least finish raising this article to Good Article standard) and will get started with the mentioned sentence. Michael An on 19:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've attempted to clarify the comment on recognition of Parliamentary sovereignty in Scotland. I am trying to communicate that there are suggestions that Parliamentary sovereignty might not be recognised (at all) in Scottish courts, hence why a Scottish Law Lord might have suggested there are limits to the doctrine. Michael An on 19:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]