Talk:Greenwich judgment/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Barkeep49 (talk · contribs) 22:44, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Reviewer Comments

I am concerned that this article is a fair ways off from meeting the GA Criteria despite what is seems to be a lot of work done by the nominator. In particular despite familiarity (but not expertise) with law and and some level of expertise with education (US not UK), I find this article very hard to read and substantial rewriting would be necessary to meet Criteria 1. While brief is OK for Good Article it also feels like it fails 3a. The combination of these two (and any editing that might be necessary on revisions to meet 3a) is why I am going to give a quickfail. Areas I would suggest improving before relisting for GA:

• Look at the LEDE and in particular tighten the first sentence
• What was the backstory that caused this judgement to be issued in the first place?
• It's not at all clear who issued the judgement. What did it say?
• This feels like an article whose clarity and understanding could benefit from a few diagrams to illustrate the terms. This is not required but would be a way of addressing its clarity.
• The sources are nearly all government links. While reliable, I would suggest a healthy infusion of information from secondary sources, including media coverage of the topic, could be (or are) needed.
• Consider listing at Peer Review prior to listing for GA status to help with any clarity issues.