Talk:Pell v The Queen

Pell v The Queen has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: October 21, 2024. (Reviewed version).

Law Mid‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Australia Low‑importance

	Australia portal Pell v The Queen is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Catholicism Low‑importance

Pell v The Queen is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to the Catholic Church. For more information, visit the project page.CatholicismWikipedia:WikiProject CatholicismTemplate:WikiProject CatholicismCatholicism articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Catholicism task list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : see Draft articles
Assess : see Category:Unassessed Catholicism articles; Category:Unknown-importance Catholicism articles
Cleanup : Blessed Virgin Mary (see the talk page)
Collaborate : Invitation template needed, see Category:WikiProject invitation templates
Copyedit : Cuthbert Tunstall
Expand : Angelus; Roman Catholicism in Kosovo; Bishop Adolph John Paschang; Cum sæpe accidere; Altar Society; American Board of Catholic Missions; Bernard Häring
NPOV : Americanism (heresy); Ensoulment
Photo : see Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of Catholicism
Stubs : see Category:Stub-Class Catholicism articles; Category:Catholic Church stubs
Update : Peer review; John Aloysius Maguire
Verify : Archdiocese of Glasgow; Archbishop of Westminster; Bishop; Saint Mungo; Sanctification; Westminster Cathedral
Other : Watch recent changes for Catholicism articles

A fact from Pell v The Queen appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 22 October 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the verdict of Pell v The Queen could not be reported on properly for two months?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2024/October. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Pell v The Queen.

Wikipedia

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: promoted by Feminist talk 06:25, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that in Pell v The Queen, the High Court of Australia unanimously overturned Cardinal George Pell's conviction for child sex offences?

Source: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-04-07/george-pell-wins-high-court-appeal-child-sex-abuse-convictions/12048726

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Palace Theater Light
Comment: Open for alternative hooks

Moved to mainspace by MaxnaCarta (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 13 past nominations.

— MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:59, 27 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Any takers? It's been three weeks since I nominated. My nomination remains valid, but I'm hoping to attract the eyes of someone scrolling past given the length of time it has been since I nominated. Happy for a QPQ from someone. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment about the hook and BLP: George Pell died on 10 January 2023, so he is no longer a living person. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Recently dead or probably dead (WP:BDP) says:
Generally, this policy does not apply to material concerning people who are confirmed dead by reliable sources. The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the subject that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or particularly gruesome crime.
It has been over 20 months since the subject's death so I don't think the BLP policy applies to him anymore. If it did apply to him, then WP:DYKHOOKBLP would be applicable. WP:DYKHOOKBLP says:
Hooks must adopt a neutral point of view. Hooks that unduly focus on negative aspects of living persons should be avoided. Note that this is a stricter requirement than BLP as a whole: a sentence that might be due weight in the article can become undue if used in the hook, as all of the surrounding context of the individual's wider life is missing.
The hook could be seen as putting focus on negative aspect of the subject's life (in mentioning the conviction even though it also says the conviction was overturned), but as WP:BDP does not apply, I do not think WP:DYKHOOKBLP is violated.
MaxnaCarta (talk · contribs), thank you for writing this important article on a difficult subject matter. Cunard (talk) 08:59, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Verified that the article is long enough, that there are no plagiarism concerns through the Copyvios tool and spotchecking, and that the hook is sourced in the article. Cunard (talk) 08:59, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reopening this per WT:DYK. WP:DYKHOOKBLP clearly applies this per my explanation there.--Laun chba ller 09:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ALT1: ... that the verdict of Pell v The Queen could not be reported on properly for two months? was approved there.--Laun chba ller 10:39, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Passed. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 11:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pell v The Queen/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: MaxnaCarta (talk · contribs) 03:45, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Alexeyevitch (talk · contribs) 12:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I will be reviewing this article soon. I just read this article and I'm happy to review it. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 12:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much @Alexeyevitch, I really appreciate it. Some of my sources are paywalled, anything you need feel free to let me know and I can send it to you via email. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:58, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Feel free to email and add {{ygm}} to talk page. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 09:16, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexeyevitch all done. Thanks. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work. I haven't recivied an email so far regarding unaccessible sources, I am referring to the pages in the sources specifically. I will begin an OR check soon. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 02:35, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexeyevitch which specific sources do you want please, there's a few — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:28, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hemming (2022), p. 57, 74-75, Patrick (2023), pp. 116-118. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 05:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexeyevitch hemming is open access, the reference link goes to the main article page and there is a PDF on that page. Available here. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:42, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I'll be back later today with additional comments. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 23:35, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexeyevitch thanks! Appreciate your time. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So is the second, available here. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have passed some which meet the criteria. I am putting other criteria on hold (for now).

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Suggestion: Why not link Barwon Prison in the lede, Following Pell's release from prison on 7 April 2020, there were various reactions. Pope Francis of the Vatican stated he..., prehaps can be reworded to mention "head of the catholic church" or something. Why not link East Melbourne in the lede? I think it's more relevant than linking the city of Melbourne itself.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	No WtW discovered Lede is concise with content later supported by reliable sources Layout is correct Passed
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Suggestion: add archived URLs. Ref layout is correct. Passing this criteria.
	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).	Contains a list references with no issue of reliability. Passed.
	2c. it contains no original research.	I've just verified content in the provided references (1 hr. ago), all good now.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig spots some things of concern: ~~evidence was credible and reliable could be changed to evidence was reliable and credible.~~ ~~choirboys at St. Patrick's Cathedral in East Melbourne after.. prehaps could be reworded.~~ the jury to be satisfied beyond too similar to source. Should be OK.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Passed
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No issues
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No issues of neutrality.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Content is stable, no edit wars etc.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Yes.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Yes.
	7. Overall assessment.	Article is in a great shape. Congrats!

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.