Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Baxter Healthcare/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:53, 30 January 2010 [1].

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Baxter Healthcare edit

Nominator(s): Mkativerata (talk) 06:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured article because it has passed a GA review and I believe it has a strong prospect of meeting the FA criteria. Mkativerata (talk) 06:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support.Comments.

  1. Can you explain what S fluid is? There is an explanation for PD-fluids, but not for S-fluids.
    Done: S fluids is no longer abbreviated - "sterile fluids" all the way through. --Mkativerata (talk) 17:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I think 'Legislation' subsection should be before 'The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission'.
    Agree and done. --Mkativerata (talk) 17:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Prior to Baxter, the leading case on derivative governmental immunity in Australia was Bradken Consolidated Ltd v Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd. Please, specify the year when this case was decided.
    Done. Now "the 1979 High Court judgment in Bradken". --Mkativerata (talk) 17:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The Federal Court of Australia (Allsop J presiding) found in Baxter's favour at first instance. Please, specify the date.
    Done. --Mkativerata (talk) 17:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Allsop J's judgment was upheld unanimously on appeal to the full bench of the Federal Court. How many judges are in the full bench? From the next section is follows that only three. Is the federal court so small? As I understand at the first instance the case was decided by a single judge?
    Done, I think. I've specified and wikilinked the three presiding judges. The Federal Court has dozens of judges, but its "full bench" for each case is just any three of its judges who didn't hear the case at first instance. --Mkativerata (talk) 17:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Wynyard Investments v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) Please, specify the date when this case was decided. In addition can you briefly characterize this case?
    Done, I hope. --Mkativerata (talk) 17:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. or to prevent a divesting or proprietary, contractual or other legal rights and interests Should not it be "of" here? (instead of "or")
    Done - my typo not the judges'. --Mkativerata (talk) 17:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. not merely commercial or policy in nature I suggest "not merely commercial or political in nature".
    Done, kind of, by saying "policy interests or rights". The phrase used by the source is "the protected rights or interests must be legal in nature, and not merely commercial or policy interests or rights". I've rephrased a little to make the representation of the source more accurate without too closely adopting its words. --Mkativerata (talk) 17:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. whether derivative governmental immunity will extend to private sector providers carry out governmental functions Should not it be "carrying out" here?

Ruslik_Zero 15:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks very much for all the points. --Mkativerata (talk) 17:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Much neglected area: support.

  • "Monopoly" and probably "statute" seem common enough not to link. WP is not a dictionary.
  • "state and territory governments"—isn't this a generic usage, irrespective of the capitalitis all over legal texts? See MoS on caps."Australian Government Solicitor", but "senior counsel" and "section 2B" (the last of which has always irritated me—WP doesn't care what bizarre local customs are perpetrated).
    • Decapitalised states and territories; capitalised Senior Counsel and legislative Section refs (definitely contrary to Australian local legal custom, but you're quite right, I hadn't even considered that it might not be accepted MOS standard.) --Mkativerata (talk) 03:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Queensland"—is a reader going to consult the whole article on that state? Either don't link (assuming the reader knows something about Australian jurisdictions) or link to a more specific target—a section or a daughter article.
    • De-linked Queensland but kept the linkings of other states where the article definitely refers to the state or its government rather than an institution of it (eg in naming the States that were joined to the case). Actually I've delinked all the states, the links probably distract from more valuable links that are nearby (eg links to the law firms and barristers who appeared in the case). --Mkativerata (talk) 03:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some choppy paragraphing; e.g., Federal Court litigation. Probably one para better here.
    • Have combined a few paras here and there to reduce the choppiness. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "state governments"—suddenly territories are not included.
    • have included territories where talking about derivative immunity generally, but not when talking about the facts of the case specifically (as neiher territory was a party to the case). --Mkativerata (talk) 03:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • More comfortable (and grammatically logical) to link "Justice Kirby" rather than just the second word?
  • "Seddon also criticised the outcome of the case itself"—is "also" helping?
  • "governmental immunity"—erky! immunity of governments?
    • I've tossed and turned on this one a number of times, whether to go with "Crown immunity" or "governmental immunity". I decided to go with the latter as (1) the Robertson Wright source uses that term and makes a compelling argument (referring to case law on the point) why it is more accurate (see footnote 1) and (2) it will make more sense to international readers. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This looks good. Tony (talk) 02:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks heaps for the comments. Let me know if you disagree with anything I've said/done in response. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do hope you'll be putting your talents to producing and improving more Austr. legal articles. Tony (talk) 10:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
    • Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper
    • Okay, I realize you're using a template for the cite case bit, but it's not exactly reader friendly in telling folks what this arcane link IS. Would it be possible to add something like Australian Court Records/etc after the link?
      • I've manually changed all of the case law footnotes to not use the template (I didn't like the template much anyway). Each footnote now refers to the name of the case, the court, the year, the number of the report, and links to the judgment itself. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • One dealink shown in the tools. this one
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks heaps for that. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In some countries, the term "sovereign immunity", "qualified immunity" or "limited immunity" is used. Not applicable here?

  • I've not seen any of those three terms used in contemporary Australian law. The literature and case law seems to split between "Crown immunity" and "governmental immunity". But it is largely the same thing as sovereign immunity. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In some articles, there has been heated discussion about a criticism section. Is inclusion of a criticism sub-section automatic disqualification from being an FA or is it permitted? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think having a criticism section on a court ruling makes more sense than it would in many other cases, since it's a specific decision; I can't see where the information would as helpfully go otherwise. Rebecca (talk) 15:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: WP:NBSP attention needed throughout (Section and No. should be joined by a non-breaking space to avoid line wrap). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:18, 30 January 2010 (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/Australian_Competition_and_Consumer_Commission_v_Baxter_Healthcare/archive1&oldid=1138455177"