Talk:R v Thomas
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- It is well written.
- a (prose):
b (structure):
c (MoS):
d (jargon):
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references):
b (inline citations):
c (reliable):
d (OR):
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- It is stable.
- It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
- a (tagged and captioned):
b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA):
c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
- a (tagged and captioned):
- Overall:
The only reason why I put a - on 4a is because the governments of Australia and the United States are not represented in the Background of the case. Other than that, this is a good article. Diez2 01:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Categories: Wikipedia good articles | Wikipedia CD Selection-GAs | Uncategorized good articles | GA-Class Good articles | WikiProject Australian law articles | GA-Class Australian law articles | Unknown-importance Australian law articles | GA-Class Australia articles | High-importance Australia articles