Talk:R v Secretary of State for Home Affairs, ex p O'Brien/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: hamiltonstone (talk) 23:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC) This article is neutral, stable, well-written, appropriately referenced and appears to cover all aspects of the subject, if somewhat briefly. There are not images, so image review is not relevant. I am passing at GA level without any changes being required. Three comments for further improvement:[reply]

Somewhere in the article body it needs to be made completely clear to which of the cases the title "R v Secretary of State for Home Affairs ex parte O'Brien" applies - divisional court, court of appeal or Lords? Obviously this is fairly fundamental, however in the context of the historical nature of the article, i did not think it should hold up GA.
"The Labour Party whittled it down when it was being prepared..." This needs to be written more precisely. "Whittled down": meaning they cut a deal during informal discussions? Amended it during passage or in committee? And how was the original bill altered to achieve the result?
This goes to my last comment, which is that the article could get better simply by going into more detail about the case - do we know why they attempted the case without an affidavit (surely they knew this would not succeed), or how they then succeeded in getting he affidavit? If O'Brien being in prison was the problem the first time, and he was still in prison, what changed that meant they succeeded in getting the writ? Just a few things like that.

Nevertheless, good work, and all new, interesting material to me. Thanks, hamiltonstone (talk) 23:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]