Talk:United Brands Company v Commission of the European Communities

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.

European Union Low‑importance

	European Union portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the European Union 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.European UnionWikipedia:WikiProject European UnionTemplate:WikiProject European UnionEuropean Union articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

International relations: Law Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations 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.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject International law.

Kindly explain your objections![edit]

@Rosguill: Please explain your objections:

"This article may require copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone, or spelling." -- The article is well-written, succinct, neutral and without spelling errors.

"This article needs additional citations for verification." -- This short article, still a stub, already has 5 significant citations.

United Brands is the leading case on Art 102, and the page deserves development, not butchering. Arrivisto (talk) 09:18, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Arrivisto: Sources 1 and 2 appear to be primary source documents that aren't even about the subject–rather, they are legal texts which were themselves cited in the proceedings of this court case. It may well be important to cite them, but it's not a substitute for citations to sources that cover the subject in its entirety. #4 appears to also be a primary source report of the legal proceedings. #5 is not even a citation, it appears to be a note pertaining to the naming of citations #1 and #2. #3 may very well be a solid secondary or tertiary source, although the lack of page numbers or a link to the source or its ISBN number makes it quite difficult for readers to track it down. The article needs more secondary/tertiary-source citations, and should also include links or page numbers to make the citations easier to use. The article's grammar is ok overall, but there are still some errors: for example, there's a sentence in the Facts section that just says "It was important to ensure ." Additionally, it could use some copyediting for tone, as its currently a bit too technical and some sections could use more context (for example, is the second paragraph of the lead referring to the ruling itself, or to the general principles of European law? And if it's the latter, why is it in the lead?). Finally, I had to cut out an entire paragraph due to copyvio concerns, so that needs to be reintroduced without violating copyright. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:21, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]