Talk:R v Thomas

R v Thomas was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 17, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
September 21, 2007	Good article reassessment	Kept
December 6, 2025	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

Australia: Victoria / Law Mid‑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.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Victoria (assessed as Mid-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.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
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.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
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.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
It is stable.
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):
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

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Latest comment: 8 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Latest comment: 7 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

R v Thomas

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: Two weeks with no effort to address any of the concerns. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:23, 6 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.