Jump to content

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

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

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC) [1].

Dietrich v The Queen

[edit]
Notified: Stephen Bain, Bilby, WT:AUS, WT:LAW, diff of talk-page notice 10-09-2021

Review section

[edit]

This is a 2005 promotion (last reviewed in 2009) that does not seem to meet the modern featured article criteria, particularly with respect to sourcing and comprehensiveness. Firstly, I'm not sure it's a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature": there are plenty of scholarly articles and books that aren't cited, e.g. [2], [3], [4], pgs. 95–98 of [5], and pg. 150 of [6], for no apparent reason. This might be excusable if the article was already very comprehensive, but it isn't: most obviously, one would expect an article about a legal case to walk through the the various opinions rendered in some detail, but the opinions of Mason/McHugh and Toohey aren't even mentioned and the rest of the "Judgment" section takes only a very cursory look at the legal reasoning. We also get very little about the historical context in which this case was decided or the legal context (e.g. previous/subsequent Australian fair-trial cases) in which it arose. The sourcing that does exist consists mainly of either citations to primary sources, such as the case itself, and newspaper articles that offer little legal analysis; the few scholarly sources used are used sparingly. Since the article hasn't been edited once since notice of these concerns was given almost two months ago, I think its featured article status should be reviewed. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:12, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Extraordinary Writ: I have made subtantial changes already, significant inclusion of a few journal articles, re-wrote the introduction, expanded most sections and also the entire thing needed re-formatting with proper headings. Personlly I feel it's looking significnantly better, but I will keep at it over the weekend. We have very few legal articles as FA, I am keen to help this one stay FA!. Cheers Such-change47 (talk) 13:31, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Such-change47: - I see at least part of your additions have been removed by Diannaa as copyright violations. Do NOT add copyright violations, especially not to a FA. Hog Farm Talk 15:52, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: - wow. It's a few sentences, that I paraphrased, not closely, and provided an attribution for. There is no way i violated cooyright and this person has done this before to someone else, for copying from a court judgement which certainly is not copyright. Thousands of words i added still stand luckily. I read the copyright warning and policy really carefully. I have not breached it, and the reverter accused me of copying, which is different from paraphrasing. I am well aware that even a vandal would stand less chance of a permanent block than a copyright violator, so i take it very seriously. Such-change47 (talk) 19:16, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do a source-article comparison myself later tonight, but given that Diannaa is one of our very best copyright editors, I'm inclined to trust their judgment (and yes, I can see the text added in the deleted revision, as I am an administrator). Hog Farm Talk 19:27, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is my understanding that court cases are public domain; can we do some further checking on this? Diannaa ?? I can't see the deleted text ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:54, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Australian copyright law is way out of my comfort zone, but I would guess that they're protected by crown copyright. (That's assuming that it was only the court case that was used: the journal article Diannaa mentioned is certainly not public-domain.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:00, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks; I could not see the edit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:04, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) This is a Crown Copyright situation. The removed material was from a block quote within the linked article, quoting the decision New South Wales v Canellis. Even if not copyrighted, it is problematic, as the direct quote taken from the court's decision was given in wikivoice with a citation to the decision itself, with no indication that it was quoted material at all. Hog Farm Talk 21:09, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In Australia, the Crown owns the copyright on government works (including court cases). They are protected by copyright for 50 years from publication. Many works are released under a Attribution 3.0 Australia (CC BY 3.0 AU)] license, but this one is not.— Diannaa (talk) 22:24, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: You are totally right, Diannaa is the expert, I was wrong. i am going to quick-sharp get used to the difference between my usual academic/legal writing where attribution is all that is quired to prevent academic misconduct, and the high copyright standards of Wikipedia. @Diannaa: gave me some great tools. I will 1, take even more care and 2 after carefully drafting to ensure i steer clear of breach, use her tools to compare my work and self check for breaches to ensure i do not get flagged again. Thanks to both. Such-change47 (talk) 13:27, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Such-change47, happy to see your continued work! Do you believe this star is salvageable with time, or should we proceed to the FARC phase (which does not preclude additional work)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @SandyGeorgia: Having assessed the criteria i think the article has already been saved. I have added 20-30% more to the article, it has had a thorough review, journal articles added...i will continue but my thought is that its safe to stay FA. Note, i did not create this article, no vested interest in it staying. It is just that there are barely any law featured articles at all. Let us keep this one. Such-change47 (talk) 22:12, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for the response and the effort! I won't be able to review until after Christmas ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Anytime @Sandy:, a pleasure to help contribute in this way! Such-change47 (talk) 23:02, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A copyedit/jargon check will be needed, attention to Wikilinking is needed, and MOS:LQ and MOS:ITALICS reviews are needed, but before that is done, I cannot make heads nor tails of the citation method, which seems to be an unnecessary mix of three different methods, with errors. DrKay might you have a look? I still don’t speak sfns well enough to know what’s wrong here.
    I believe I have cleaned up the citation errors (removing some instances of original research in the process). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:07, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Such-change47, have a look at WP:WIAFA, 2b; I consolidated the short choppy sections.
  • In the “Subsequent issues” section, we have Dietrich changing his name to Hugo Rich … but the image placed well earlier in the article is confusing, as we don’t know at that point that he changed his name. Also, were his further convictions as Dietrich or as Hugo Rich?
  • “remaining condoms came out during the night” … ?
  • The WP:LEAD could benefit from expansion.
  • See MOS:ELLIPSES.
  • How is "serious offence" defined?
  • The text at the top of the High Court appeal (see WP:MSH) section is uncited, but seems to come from here. How is that not copyvio?
    • @SandyGeorgia: - The two bullet points and the sentence beginning "The Court allowed the appeal," is definitely copyvio, the rest of that chunk is either fine or from something else, so far as I can tell. The source is definitely in copyright, as it contains a copyright notice from 1992 and there is no evidence of a release here. @FAR coordinators: , I really think that this should be considered for a move to FARC, given that there have already been two instances of copyright violations noted. This can be reworked and taken to FAC again, but I'm not sure that FAR is a great place to be trying to clean copyright violations out. Hog Farm Talk 04:14, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Extraordinary Writ mentions, the list of sources has not been incorporated, so the article still fails 1b, and relies heavily on the Court decision, without analysis.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:10, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It has a fair use image, which Nikkimaria might need to check. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:25, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is this person still living? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:38, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not say he has died, and this seems to indicate he has not. (Should we be incorporating the Hugo Boss info?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:08, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Non-free images are harder to justify for living people, since it would be theoretically possible for a new one to be created or for them to release one. Given that, I would want to see a stronger FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:37, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the three Move to FARCs above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:49, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and copyvio. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2022 (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_review/Dietrich_v_The_Queen/archive2&oldid=1067341207"