Talk:R v Thomas

The good article status of this article is being reassessed to determine whether the article meets the good article criteria. Please add comments to the reassessment page. ^Date: 00:40, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

	R v Thomas 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 January 17, 2007 Good article nominee Listed September 21, 2007 Good article reassessment Kept
Current status: Good article

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Australia: Victoria / Law High‑importance Australia portal R v Thomas is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Victoria (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Australian law (assessed as High-importance). Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^What's this? at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Victoria. The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance. Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of crime and criminal biography 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. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as High-importance). Human rights Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights 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. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Law High‑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. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

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)[reply]

GA review — kept

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, Ruslik 09:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on R v Thomas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110910023538/http://pakistanconstitution-law.org:80/category/11-the-qanun-e-shahadat-order-1984/ to http://pakistanconstitution-law.org/category/11-the-qanun-e-shahadat-order-1984/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:45, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article review

It has been a while since this article has been reviewed, so I took a look and noticed the following:

• There are uncited statements, including entire paragraphs.
• Much of the article is cited to primary sources. Wikipedia articles rely upon secondary sources, and I think some of the trial sources will need to be switched out.
• The lead does not summarise all major aspects of the article.

Should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 23:16, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

R v Thomas

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result pending

There are uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Much of the article is cited to primary sources. Wikipedia articles rely upon secondary sources, and I think some of the trial sources will need to be switched out. The lead does not summarise all major aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 00:40, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]