The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi! I'll be reviewing this article, using the template below. If you have any questions, feel free to ask them here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:24, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article now meets the GA standard. Congrats to GMH Melbourne and anyone else who worked on it! —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per my usual practice, I've gone through and made prose tweaks directly to save us both time. If there are any changes you oppose, just let me know! Pass.
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
No uncited passages/paragraphs.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
Some of the citations are formatted a little oddly (I'll make detailed suggestions in due course) but all sources are reliable Australian journalistic sources and/or court records.
I am concerned that large sections of the article appear to be sourced exclusively from the court document, specifically, the judge's statement following a plea of guilty. While it's certainly reliable, it is a primary source, and I want to check to see if there's relevant policy regarding WP:NOR that applies here. If you can dig a relevant policy up, that would be good too. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:20, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I would consider this as a secondary source as it is a judge detailing the events after he had heard from 'primary source accounts' through the course of the sentencing process. This would make the Judge's sentencing report a secondary account of the events. The judge's sentencing report is also reliable and independent of the subject. This would differ from a person testifying on the witness stand or submitting an affidavit which would certainly not adhere to WP:NOR.
I have found the following policies relating to the use of court documents that may be of help:
WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD: While some primary sources are not fully independent, they can be authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, expert-approved... primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used. Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source.
WP:PRIMARYCARE: Under the An article about a person heading, it says court documents shouldn't be used as the document may be about another person who happens to have the same name. I think it's safe to say that this isn't the case here due to the significant overlap between the details in the article and the sources.
WP:BLPPRIMARY: This doesn't really apply as it is only for BLPs. It does say though not to use court documents for BLPs.
Looking at WP:PRIMARY and comparing it to WP:SECONDARY, a primary source is described as original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. A secondary source is described as thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event, which is, in my opinion, exactly what the Judge's sentencing report is. ––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 03:24, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for these! Reading over the basic policy (WP:NOR) carefully, I think we're ok. I'm not entirely convinced that the judge's sentencing report is secondary and not primary, but I do think you have been fairly judicious (pun intended!) about how you used it. I may make some small trims here and there as I do my prose review to ensure we're not aping the structure of the sentencing report too directly, but as a whole, pass. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:51, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Earwig finds nothing significant, but given paraphrasing concerns in first GA review, hold for manual check. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:30, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing found by manual check after prose tweaks. Pass.
No images, which isn't ideal for a GA. However, I can understand why there would be difficulty finding appropriate ones for this article. Let's consider if there's any which could reasonably be included. Hold for now. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:30, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have spent hours searching and have sent numerous emails trying to get a free image, however I am now just remembering that fair use exists for a historical portraitof a person no longer alive. I'll add an image now. ––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 01:06, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That seems reasonable to me - the rationale is sensible and I think fair use applies here. A bot will likely come along shortly and reduce the resolution of the image; assuming that will happen, pass on both image criteria. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:11, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
7. Overall assessment.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
