Talk:Charitable trusts in English law
Latest comment: 14 years ago by S Marshall in topic GA Review
 | Charitable trusts in English law 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. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 31, 2010. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that in English trusts law, beneficiaries of charitable trusts have no direct control? | |||||||||
 | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
GA Review
edit- This review is transcluded from Talk:Charitable trusts in English law/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: —S Marshall T/C 00:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Well-written:- (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
- (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
- Verifiable with no original research:
- (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
- (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); and
- (c) it contains no original research.
- Broad in its coverage:
- (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
- (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
- Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
- Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
- Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
- (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
- (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
Comments: An interesting, well-written and well-researched article. Apart from some minor copyediting things I spotted, which I fixed on the spot, this was very, very close to a straight pass. I'll only ask for one addition, for clarity's sake:- please can we have a translation of cy-près? It looks like Middle French, to me.—S Marshall T/C 01:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Will do; I've got a citation in Cy-près doctrine in English law specifically for that. You're right, by the way; it's a Norman French abbreviation for cy pres comme possible (as close as possible). Ironholds (talk) 18:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Fantastic. I'm pleased to pass this article as a GA. At this point, I ought to remind you to review someone else's GAN when you can. :) Regards—S Marshall T/C 20:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)