Talk:Postnuptial agreement
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Edits[edit]
Made a couple of edits to this page.
- Talk section, changed "contract" to "agreement" as different jurisdictions treat them differently
- Removed "Postnuptials can be got for many reasons" as no reasons were listed so there was little value
- Propose that the section on legal recognition is removed as it is jurisdiction specific and so may as well be dealt with in a jurisdiction-speciic section like the rest of the article. I've moved as passage on US law into the US section for this reason
- Reworded UK law (I don't know US law so didn't look). Corrected some points and worded my interpretation of the case judgment in a more circumspect way.
- General spelling and grammar
Comments welcome as always Shayday~enwiki (talk) 19:49, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Textbooks and annotated texts. Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not a textbook. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach subject matter. It is not appropriate to create or edit articles that read as textbooks, with leading questions and systematic problem solutions as examples. These belong on our sister projects, such as Wikibooks, Wikisource, and Wikiversity. Some kinds of examples, specifically those intended to inform rather than to instruct, may be appropriate for inclusion in a Wikipedia article.
This article is starting to read like a textbook of US family law and it is making the article more complex and messy than it needs to be. Its formidably researched but I wonder how appropriate it is. Comments welcome. Shayday~enwiki (talk) 19:49, 19 July 2016 (UTC)