Talk:Crucifixes can be displayed in state schools, European court rules

Review of revision 1198093 [Passed]

Revision 1198093 of this article has been reviewed by C628 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 20:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Looks good to me. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 1198093 of this article has been reviewed by C628 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 20:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Looks good to me. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

'That' is not a swear-word :)

Just kidding with the header. Seriously, 'that' should be included here. Oxford Collocations Dictionary lists 'on the grounds of' as a collocation, but not 'on the grounds' alone. The CALD explicitly states that 'that' should be used between 'on the ground' and a clause (example four of def. 5 of ground). I think 'that' should still be inserted. Kayau (talk · contribs) 11:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• "That" is, I would point out, a four-letter-word. In journalistic style it should be removed where possible. I see in the article as-it-stands now several instances where I could remove it. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 13:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
  • While I'm obviously a noob at journalistic conventions, I don't think concision should override grammar. The CALD, a respected dictionary, believes that 'that' should be used after 'on the gruonds'. On the contrary, the first sentence of paragraph 2 of this article should have 'that' omitted because example nine of def. 1 in CALD indicates that 'that' is optional after 'say'. Kayau (talk · contribs) 15:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

  In this instance omitting "that" makes the sentence sound incomplete (at least to my ear). Yes, we should be concise, but that doesn't override grammatical concerns. There are other places in the article where "that" could be more successfully removed without affecting grammar or meaning. Tempodivalse [talk] 16:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Kayau, I think you'll do fine around here. Just remember Rule 13. The more people apply "omit needless words", the better. Let me have a look for your cited examples - such is allowable within archiving conventions. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 16:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• I've made a few additional tweaks, including the one that seems to have been so irksome. They're pending sighting. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 16:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Sighted, thanks. Tempodivalse [talk] 17:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Incidentally, I'd recommend reading Eats, Shoots and Leaves. It's one of the most amusing 'sustained rants' I've encountered on punctuation, spelling, and grammar. The author swears by Strunk's, and cites Shakespeare bemoaning actors ad-libbing punctuation. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 18:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Brian McNeil :) Eats looks interesting, according to the WP article. I've got to read that some time. Kayau (talk · contribs) 12:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)