Talk:Dietrich v The Queen

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dietrich v The Queen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060210030141/http://www.aph.gov.au:80/senate/committee/legcon_ctte/completed_inquiries/1996-99/legalaid/report/c07.htm to http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/legcon_ctte/completed_inquiries/1996-99/legalaid/report/c07.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091115084049/http://www.news.com.au:80/story/0,27574,26344221-2,00.html to http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,26344221-2,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:45, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

FA issues redux

Noting the issues raised 4 years ago, the lead is no longer than it was then. Also, the article lacks some context - extra material such as Dietrich's background, and similar cases before/after. Did it have an impact. Also some uncited sentences. It would be good to get on main page. Paging @Bilby and Shirt58:....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

@Casliber: I'll do my best to help out. Looking to see if I can find reliable references about Customs Act 1901 mentioned in the article that aren't simply restatements of that Act or its history. <sings> ♪♫ I did my best, it wasn't much ♫♪ </sings> Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:44, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I note that this frequently used source appears to be in the nature of a blog, and though reliable enough in the ordinary sense of the word, may not be a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes.

Due to work and other commitments I may not be be be deliver on this promise. I'll keep working on it. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:26, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I've got a week left of teaching for the semester. After that I'll try and do as much as I can. - Bilby (talk) 04:34, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

FA concerns

I don't think this is FA quality atm. The case was an important one, but the only legal analysis is from a journal article soon after the case was decided. There is no other scholarly analysis even though as the lead notes, this is an important case in Australian jurisprudence. The other followup material only consists of newspaper articles that have no legal insight Bumbubookworm (talk) 05:31, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Bumbubookworm (talk) I think the topic is notable enough that it warrants FA status, but after a careful perusal it does not meet the current quality standards. I am actively reviewing now. Hopefully it can be saved. Such-change47 (talk) 02:23, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

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)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... 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)

Judgement v Judgment

Hi MaxnaCarta, firstly, great work on this article! I am wondering though why the judgement spelling. My understanding has always been that the first e is not used in law. Eg the case citation uses judgment, and the Fed Court. MOS:SPELLING has "In Australian and British law, a judge's decision in a case is always spelt judgment. On the other hand, the forming of opinion or conclusion by an ordinary person is usually spelt judgement."

I was going to change the 3x "judgement" in the article but thought I should discuss with you first. Thanks and congrats on the GA! JennyOz (talk) JennyOz (talk) 13:21, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @JennyOz. You’re right, there’s no need for an e. I really appreciate the collaborative approach. So kind. Enjoy your day. MaxnaCarta (talk) 19:01, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Interesting actually. Macquarie and Oxford spell it judgement. Judgment is for US. Yet judgment is used sometimes by Aussie courts. So too is judgement. Honestly given that from what I can see judgement is considered Australian spelling let’s just leave it as is. MaxnaCarta (talk) 19:05, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

In the decision [1] judgment is used 29 times, judgement nil. Similarly a search on AustLII shows only 150 decisions in the High Court using the spelling "judgment" [2] and 7,405 without an e.[3] On that basis I'm with @JennyOz and your first response to use judgment Find bruce (talk) 00:47, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

@Find bruce fair call. It's a non issue for me. Happy for it to change. MaxnaCarta (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

FAR concerns

Extraordinary Writ, per this discussion, have your concerns at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Dietrich v The Queen/archive2 all been addressed ? (Addressing prior concerns is a prerequisite to FAC.). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:15, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

• Consistency in citation formatting: why does this citation (unlike the others) have both a page number and paragraph? Dietrich v R [1992] HCA 57, p. 399, [39]. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I think the current version is definitely much better than what was at FAR in terms of comprehensiveness/sourcing, which were my main concerns at the time. That said, I agree with Caeciliusinhorto that this probably needs a good copy-edit and a trip to WP:PR before it's ready for FAC: some of the prose is a bit on the dense side, and there still seem to be some places where the sourcing can be improved and/or additional content added. If a peer review gets opened, I'd be happy to provide some more detailed comments there. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:53, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Sandy (1) yes citations should be consistent (2) quoting both is current usage in Australia is to quote both the the page & paragraph number (3) the citation of p 399 is wrong as the Commonwealth Law Reports is at pages 292-377. 314 may be a reference to the Australian Law Reports page. I will go through and add the CLR page number for the other citations. The reasons for both are long & complex, but in this era the medium neutral citation [1992] HCA 57 which is available for free to anyone, only have paragraph numbers while the official or authorised report (1992) 177 CLR 292 only have page numbers and not paragraph numbers, hence the current compromise of citing both. --Find bruce (talk) 03:05, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I should also have added that paragraph numbers in this era also require the judge to be named. Find bruce (talk) 03:24, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

@Extraordinary Writ:, SandyGeorgia, Find Bruce, honestly, getting this article back to FA is my ultimate goal, but I was nowhere near nominating it yet! So please don’t feel like I am rushing to bring it back. There is always time, and I’d rather get it done right, than right now. The last thing I want is for any of my promotions to end up being re-reviewed shortly after.

While I am quite proud of the work I have done, (and all three of you have been instrumental in prodding me in the right direction), I know it’s not quite ready yet. It needs a bit more polishing and also expansion. That said, if anyone wishes to kind of go through the article for me and pretend this is an FAC-lite, I’d be grateful. I’d prefer to do the work at my own pace. Once I nominate officially, I obviously need to be working to address issues rather quickly so as to not waste reviewers time. Anything particular from you EW? Asking because I often use your FA’s as a model example, given they are law articles and recently promoted. Many FA’s are quite old and may not pass todays scrutiny, so I try to find recently promoted articles for guidance. Also - have lodged a request for a copy edit. I always considered myself quite prudent, but apparently those extra eyes are indeed essential because a few small errors got detected on one of my other articles after it appeared as a DYK. MaxnaCarta (talk) 08:57, 11 February 2023 (UTC)