Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Dietrich v The Queen

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by BorgQueen (talk) 16:55, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Dietrich v The Queen

(
)
  • ... that in Dietrich v The Queen, the High Court of Australia found a judge can indefinitely adjourn a trial if a lack of legal representation would result in an unfair trial for the accused? Source: http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/BalJlNTLawSoc/1993/36.pdf
    • Reviewed:
    • Comment: I've listed myself as the author. However I did not create this article. Stephen Bain did so in 2005. However no significant edits have been made by anyone else over the last year except for by my GA review and Findbruce who tidied some refs and did copyedit. The entire article was fundamentally re-written from the ground up by me, which is why I stated I was the author. But for full disclosure, I provided this further information.

Improved to Good Article status by MaxnaCarta (talk). Self-nominated at 06:14, 8 November 2022 (UTC).

  • Comment This appeared as a bold link on OTD however, there is an active debate going on for whether this restriction should be removed so don't autofail it. Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:26, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment Thanks for your kind words MaxnaCarta but you did the work bringing the article to GA and deserve the credit. -Find bruce (talk) 21:41, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Just to make things clear, this nomination is on hold pending the results of this discussion at WT:DYK. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:38, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: Kind of you to update. Appreciate it. I actually did not realise it had featured on OTD. I must concede it does seem unfair an article gets to be on the main page twice in quick succession and its probable my nomination will fail due to this. A shame given I worked very hard for an entire year to get it to GA status, but if that's how the cookie crumbles so be it. Thanks for the help. MaxnaCarta (talk) 11:27, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
If this one's going to run, it's going to need some spot checks - there were copyright issues raised at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Dietrich v The Queen/archive2 (apparently by MaxnaCarta under a previous username), but I'd say it's best to make sure that all of those got purged in the rewrite. Hog Farm Talk 16:38, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
@Hog Farm:, nice to see you again! It has been a while. I was new to editing when we first met, and I tripped the copyvio filter with I think a sentence or two from a journal article. I try not to stuff up the same way twice and have not had a similar issue since. User:Goldsztajn did the review, and I was grateful to have an editor of such experience and tenure give me great advice. The review took a month and the entire article has been re-written from the ground up. Not much of the old article survived my rewrite. The entire referencing system has changed also. While there are no copyvio issues, I do not know why this DYK nom is still active. It's been almost two months now, and I thought it was declined on the grounds it has been featured on the main page via an automated OTD feature. If it's eligible to go again, awesome. But it's only two months or so since it was on the main page, so if that is a disqualifier, happy to withdraw. No biggie. Nice to see you around. I hope one day to bring this article up to featured, so if you fancy giving it a scan I welcome any feedback you would raise at FA review on the article talk page! Cheers and happy holidays, MaxnaCarta (talk) 22:08, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
  • @MaxnaCarta: The discussion has closed, and the rules have changed so that articles that have appeared as a bolded link on On this day can now be nominated for DYK at least a year after their most recent appearance. Given that the article's most recent appearance on OTD was in 2022 but last appeared several years before it, would you like to ask for an exemption on WT:DYK given the circumstances, or would you be fine with the nomination being closed? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:36, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
    @Narutolovehinata5: Please may I have an exception and proceed with my nom? I worked super hard to get this article to GA, well over a month. I am super proud of its quality also, having been reviewed by such a tenured editor I was put through my places and stand by it earning a second time around on the MP. Thank you so much for all your work in that discussion and for getting back to me. Appreciate it. MC MaxnaCarta (talk) 23:02, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Excellent article! However it was featured on OTD on November 13, 2022. That is a bit too recent. Sorry! BorgQueen (talk) 16:47, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Dietrich_v_The_Queen&oldid=1131761668"