Talk:Rantzen v Mirror Group Newspapers (1986) Ltd and others

Rantzen v Mirror Group Newspapers (1986) Ltd and others 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
June 13, 2018	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on June 20, 2018.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the winner in Rantzen v Mirror Group Newspapers was awarded "Mickey Mouse money" by the jury, which was reduced on appeal for being disproportionate?

Law Low‑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.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Journalism Low‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism 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.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Rantzen v Mirror Group Newspapers (1986) Ltd and others/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: QatarStarsLeague (talk · contribs) 23:40, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 23:40, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@QatarStarsLeague: Any movement on the review yet please? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:51, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are 3 different forms given for the case's name: a full length version in the infobox, an abbreviation at the outset, and a greater abbreviation. Not sure as to the protocol on case titles, but if we are going to use all three, I think we should specify whom exactly used the shortest abbreviation. The courts or the press, or both?
My main stick is with the lack of elucidation from the jury. We know their decision, the libel occurred, but did they offer as to why they felt the article was;t considered fair comment? I would add that based on the Background section, a reader might be led to reach a conclusion opposite that of the jury.
Lastly I'm not sure that the Keywords section of the infobox follows the Wikipedia manual of style; it seems a little bit unfledged.
Good, compact article...just a few things to patch up. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 22:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@QatarStarsLeague: Thank you for the review. I have updated the article in accordance with your suggestion. However the problem with the second point is simply because English juries are banned from discussing publicly what they talked about in deliberations and if any do, then they are breaking the law. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:35, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]