Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dietrich v The Queen/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11 May 2023 [1].

Dietrich v The Queen

[edit]
Nominator(s): MaxnaCarta (talk) 02:16, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an important decision of the High Court of Australia. A former featured article, it was placed up for review in December 2021 and eventually delisted as it failed to meet the modern FAC criteria. Over the last 15 months it has undergone a total renovation from the ground up. I am nominating for FAC as I believe every issue raised in the delisting has been thoroughly addressed. The article has not only undergone a full re-writing by myself, but valuable assistance has been given to me by many other experienced editors. Over 4 weeks it was reviewed and eventually passed as a GA article. Since then one of the original editors supporting delisting from FA status has made edits to the article and it has undergone a full copyedit. I now propose the article covers all relevant literature and meets modern FA criteria. Very much looking forward to reviewing and acting on any feedback. Thank you all, MC MaxnaCarta (talk) 02:16, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE to closing COORD: Please be sure to update WP:FFA should this article be promoted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:59, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First-time nomination

[edit]
  • Hi MaxnaCarta, and welcome to FAC. Just noting that as a first time nominator at FAC, this article will need to pass a source to text integrity spot check and a review for over-close paraphrasing to be considered for promotion. Good luck with the nomination. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:31, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Gog the Mild. No worries at all. I see this process is a little different to other nomination processes on Wikipedia and the nomination can take many weeks or even two months. I’ll just keep addressing feedback as it comes. I’ll start by checking every single reference myself so that when someone else does the source review it’s good to go. MaxnaCarta (talk) 21:48, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ling

[edit]
  • Durie, Graeme (1993). Missing identifier (ISSN, JSTOR, etc.)
- Done
  • Grace, David (2001). Missing identifier (ISSN, JSTOR, etc.)
- Done
  • Groves, Mathew (2018). Missing identifier (ISSN, JSTOR, etc.)
- Done
  • Kift, Sally (1997). Missing identifier (ISSN, JSTOR, etc.)
- Done
  • Roche, Declan (2001). Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
- Not done, it's hard to explain but one does not access "pages" for this the way I accessed it. It is an interactive book the way I access it and you click on different concepts and links rather than a book with pages.
  • Wheeler, Fiona (1997). Missing identifier (ISSN, JSTOR, etc.)
- Done
Comment by Buidhe

I do believe the article is reasonably comprehensive, however, there are some places that I marked that need an inline citation per the FA criteria. (t · c) buidhe 21:12, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Buidhe, I will address and ping you once done. If you find any other issues, please do let me know. MaxnaCarta (talk) 23:30, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe these citation tags have now been addressed. Thanks for pointing them out. MaxnaCarta (talk) 09:48, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lingzhi.Renascence did this address your comments? Are there any other issues you wish for me to address? MaxnaCarta (talk) 09:55, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias

[edit]

It's always nice to see former FAs return here, I'll take a look over this. If you would consider a reciprocal review of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Bronkhorstspruit/archive1, which is struggling for attention, I would greatly appreciate it, but don't feel obligated.

  • If "de facto" is being italicised as latin-language text, it should use the {{lang}} per MOS:LANG.
  • Done: Changed to which established an accused facing serious criminal charges must be granted an adjournment until appropriate legal representation is provided if they are unrepresented through no fault of their own and proceeding would result the trial being unfair. The "de facto" part was a little interpretative anyway. I thought I'd changed that already.
  • Can you provide a Wiktionary link for "indigent", as I don't think it is commonly enough known to use without some sort of explanation.
  • Done: I agree with this. Linked to poverty
  • "Dietrich applied for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia on the grounds the Court of Appeal erred in law by holding Dietrich did not have a right to be provided with counsel at public expense, and by not granting adjournment, his lack of representation meant a miscarriage of justice had occurred by finding Dietrich did not have a right for publicly funded representation and by failing to find that a miscarriage of justice had occurred due to this lack of representation." Please find a way to split this sentence up. It is too hard for my little mind to follow in one go.
    Done: Agreed entirely. Reworded to: Dietrich applied for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia on the grounds the Court of Appeal erred in law by holding Dietrich did not have a right to be provided with counsel at public expense. It was argued that not granting adjournment meant a miscarriage of justice had occurred by refusing publicly funded representation meaning he proceeded to trial without being legally represented.
  • "Fairall noted the originating judge's comments.." Who is Fairall?
  • Done: Fairall is the author of the source cited. I actually removed that sentence, it was not necessary.
  • Given the case centres around Dietrich's lack of representation in his original trial, do we have any details of his representation in this case? I can't see any details of this.
  • Comment: It is obvious he ended up getting represented by Fairall (as Stuart Fairall is listed as his representation in the court decision) however there is never any significant discussion in the literature that I can find about how this came to be. So I do not think it needs to be put in. Certainly if I come across any commentary regarding this it would be a good idea though.
  • "..according to Wheeler (1997).." Who is Wheeler?
  • Done: changed to "according to an academic"
  • Sorry, my bad for not explaining this properly. What I was hoping was both; something like "..according to Fiona Wheeler, a constitutional law specialist, the justices regard.." Harrias (he/him) • talk 19:03, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..said the recognition by Dawson the interests of justice could not be pursued in an isolated case.." Something doesn't read quite right here, can you take a look and rephrase?
  • Done: changed to: noted Dawson recognised the interests of justice could not be pursued in an isolated case
  • The article says that "As a result of the majority decision, the court ordered the application to appeal be granted, the conviction be quashed and Dietrich be granted a new trial." But I can't see details on that retrial in the article, am I just being stupid?
  • Comment: Certainly not stupid and I think this is a fair point to raise. Unfortunately, the subsequent proceedings are not discussed in literature. As I understand it through speaking to colleagues and what I could read on the internet (not from reliable sources), he never ended up returning for a new trial. It appears though that he only briefly left prison, he was in and out before eventually being sentenced to life for murder. As that's not really discussed anywhere but newspapers rather than journal articles, I think it's best left out.
  • Wikilink "Attorney-General" on first use (in Case) rather than the current second use (in Implications for provision of legal aid).
  • Done
  • "..about applying principles from Dietrich v the Queen.."Capitalise "the".
  • Done
  • "Deanne said.." Is Deanne meant to be Justice Deane?
  • Comment: No, it's not. The justices are introduced in the first instance with their titles (see majority and dissenting) and then subsequently referred to by surname only. No set guideline for this one. I prefer a surname only rather than a title each time their name is mentioned.
  • My query was based on the different spelling. I wasn't sure if it was meant to be a different person or not. If it is meant to be Justice Deane, then please correct the spelling to match. Harrias (he/him) • talk 19:03, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As a result, courts faced problems when applying the Dietrich test." Why past tense? Do they no longer face these problems?
  • Done: now reads: courts have encountered problems

That's the lot from me. Note that I have primarily reviewed the prose against criteria 1a, 2a, 2b and 4. I note that many of the concerns raised by Extraordinary Writ in the Featured article review revolve around the sourcing and comprehensiveness, neither of which I have looked at in any detail; hopefully whoever completes the source review will be able to look at these in detail. Harrias (he/him) • talk 13:01, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will absolutely QPQ your article. I only just learned that anyone can review FAs. I’ll do my best to leave some comments of use in improving the article. Regarding your concerns, I will absolutely address within 48 hours. Thanks very much! MaxnaCarta (talk) 06:39, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All done @Harrias. Your FAC looks great. I’m praying for two promotions. Fingers crossed. MaxnaCarta (talk) 10:22, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MaxnaCarta: A couple of follow-ups. Harrias (he/him) • talk 19:03, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Harrias! Will address and ping you once done. MaxnaCarta (talk) 21:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Harrias, fixed the issues you raised. Please let me know if you have any other comments. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:57, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and recommend withdrawal - Gog the Mld

[edit]

Recusing to review.

I am going to do a little copy editing as I go. If you disagree with anything or don't understand why I have done something, could you flag it up here?

  • "which established an accused facing serious criminal charges". I am not sure what the unexplained technical term "accused" brings to this. Perhaps 'which established a person facing serious criminal charges' or similar?
  • What is "a stay"? (Other than part of a corset.)
  • "The Victorian Court of Criminal Appeal rejected the appeal". What appeal?
  • What does "applied for appeal" mean?
  • What is a "ground"?

I am assuming that the advice in the FAC instructions "Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor, to assist in the preparation and processing of the nomination" was not followed?

I am teetering on the edge of opposing on the grounds that the article is not yet ready. For example, the first paragraph of "Background" is, IMO, all but incomprehensible to a non-expert, is under linked and needs in line explanation of specialist terminology and institutions. I will give the nominator a chance to chip in before deciding. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:25, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Gog the Mild. Regarding your editing, I welcome assistance from highly experienced editors. I'm always happy for others to chip in on any of the articles I adopt or create.
About seeking a mentor, you're right, I didn't. The reason I did not was because I've had a lot of help from experienced editors the entire way through this. Right when I started editing Wikipedia properly, this article was an FA and was put up to FAR by Extraordinary Writ. A lot of issues were raised, and I spent almost a year addressing the issues raised by the FAR. After this was done, I then spent a solid month (far longer than a normal GA review) working on feedback by Goldsztajn who does have an FA. That editor held me to what I would consider a much higher standard than normal for a GA, and really helped me to address the issues raised at FAR. Other experienced gnome editors helped fix some minor issues, and I did send it for a copyedit (Although I confused copy edit with peer review, rookie error). I thought it would be right to go.
That said, if it is not too late, I am happy for you to mentor or psuedo-mentor? I am very happy to address any specific concerns. Am I right in saying that it is certainly within FA ballpark even if it is not immediately ready for your support? I'm happy to do the work. I will start by acting on the feedback provided so far. Happy to do whatever work is required to earn people's support including yours. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:03, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you please could list any terms within the article you think need in-line explaining, that would be great. Would a note suffice with footnote? Or you actually think what an appeal is should be explained within the text? Thanks. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:09, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild I have made the suggested amendments. The one thing I did have to do was keep the word accused. Though, I changed it from "Accused facing serious charges" to "person accused of serious charges". The word accused is used often throughout, and an alternative does not work except defendant which sounds even more technical and choppy.
Please do have a read through and let me know if you find anything else a casual reader may not be able to interpret. I have had a good read through myself, standing in the shoes of someone without expertise. I do not think the article is overly technical, but happy to be pointed out to anything specific that needs fixing.
Thanks heaps — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:57, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear that a lot of work has gone into this and the article is clearly close to ready for FAC. However, reading and digging a little further convinces me that it needs more work than can reasonably be expected to happen at FAC. I am therefore opposing with a recommendation that the nomination be withdrawn for further work on the article. Unfortunately shortage of time precludes my becoming a mentor, but a list of editors open to the suggestion can be found here - Wikipedia:Mentoring for FAC.
In addition to my comments above and my copy editing I would like to restate that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, where we explain things for a lay audience. Picking a further paragraph at random, the second paragraph of "High Court judgment" is unlikely to make sense to a non-expert, and I am left unclear as to what the last sentence is trying to say. I also note that the paraphrasing is awkwardly close in some cases. Eg "show the trial of an unrepresented person accused of a serious offence will result in an unfair trial" and 'shows that the trial of an unrepresented accused on a serious charge will result in an unfair trial.' And, IMO, court documents, including decisions, are primary sources subject to all of the usual rules; citing to them directly all too easily becomes OR or non-NPOV. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:14, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- per the above I'm going to archive this shortly. Regardless of whether mentoring is taken up, I'd recommend taking to Peer Review before another run at FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:11, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Dietrich_v_The_Queen/archive2&oldid=1154361766"