Talk:Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Baxter Healthcare Pty Ltd/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Fantastic article. Informative, detailed, well-written, and well-referenced - very nearly a straight pass for GA.
Couple of very small quibbles though:
- The article quotes Wright and Seddon before explaining who they are
- There's a malformed reference under "Joint judgement"
Once those are fixed, this is an easy pass. Rebecca (talk) 17:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks very much for that review. I fixed the malformed reference and the quote from Wright (now explaining who he is in the first mention of him and just saying "Robertson Wright" or "Wright" thereafter). I can't find the Seddon one though - as far as I can tell he's first quoted in "Criticism", under "Reaction to judgment".
- On the topic of Seddon, I had one concern with quoting his criticisms, which is that he is an employee of Blake Dawson, the firm that represented Baxter. I don't think this is a problem given his academic credentials, but I thought it best to point it out.
- Do you think FA could be a realistic shot? I'm not really familiar with the GA/FA process yet. --Mkativerata (talk) 17:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- It might be worth explicitly mentioning at that point that Blake Dawson was the firm that represented Baxter; I'd say it's relevant, and something I missed on my reading. You're right about the Seddon reference; I was thinking of the malformed cite, which you just fixed. If you can add that pointer about Seddon, then I'll pass the article straight away. As for FA status - I think it's definitely well on the way, and you could certainly nominate it. You'll need to expect much tougher scrutiny though (some of which can be incredibly finicky) - though personally I think I'd probably support it for FA as is. Rebecca (talk) 17:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, I've put it at footnote 38 for now because I thought the explanation was too lengthy for the body of the article. But more than happy to find a way to put it in the article body if you think that's more appropriate. --Mkativerata (talk) 17:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Might be better in the text of the article, but I'm not much bothered either way. In any case, article passed for GA. Rebecca (talk) 17:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, I've put it at footnote 38 for now because I thought the explanation was too lengthy for the body of the article. But more than happy to find a way to put it in the article body if you think that's more appropriate. --Mkativerata (talk) 17:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- It might be worth explicitly mentioning at that point that Blake Dawson was the firm that represented Baxter; I'd say it's relevant, and something I missed on my reading. You're right about the Seddon reference; I was thinking of the malformed cite, which you just fixed. If you can add that pointer about Seddon, then I'll pass the article straight away. As for FA status - I think it's definitely well on the way, and you could certainly nominate it. You'll need to expect much tougher scrutiny though (some of which can be incredibly finicky) - though personally I think I'd probably support it for FA as is. Rebecca (talk) 17:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)