Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dietrich v The Queen/archive1

Dietrich v The Queen edit

Support The article is accurate, unbiased and a true account of a significant case in Australian legal history, well written and detailed and to achieve the level of quality it has, would have taken a lot of effort given the difficult nature of writing case law. --Never29 13:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Needs images, if possible. Also, it'd be better if the referencing was more extensive and easier to see which facts related to which references. The latter two (of three) references don't work. --Oldak Quill 14:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Quill, re images - I doubt this is possible for two reasons; (1) availability and (2) legality. Further, given the context there is no added informative benefit to the reader of having a picture about a case involving the criminal prosecution of an individual who is not famous or notable, it is the legal judgment here that is notable, being a landmark High Court case.

references - Perhaps there is some confusion with the references. You are right that the article is jam packed with facts, the majority of which come from the original High Court judgement. This is referenced in the infobox. All of the "facts" in the judgement were excepted as evidence; (i would assume that if a court of law accepts a fact as evidence, that should be enough to verify it?) Referencing each fact to the judgement may prove problematic - the judgment is some 36,000 words! I understand this may be confusing to somebody with a non-law background, trying to assess its quality. I wonder if your opposition would be reversed if the judgment was also referenced in the "References" section of the article? But also take into account my previous comments on this matter. Thanks for taking the time to consider the article. --Never29 16:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~Mild oppose:~~ There is an image of the Australian court, which is one of the image possibilities. The plaintiff, however, should have some court photographs (photos from his arrest(s)) that would be public (assuming that Australia, like the US, Canada, and UK, releases government photos). If none of those are available, a photo of one of the prisons might be good. At any rate, having only a single image does seem at least one too few. The prose is good, and the story is interesting. The only thing missing in the writing at this point is a comparison to other nations (optional). Although these comparisons are implied and stated in passing in the description, a short historical background on the right to counsel in constitutional democracies might strengthen and isolate the topic better. Geogre 14:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I expanded the section about the right to counsel in other countries (particuarly the United States), and added a low-resolution copy of his mugshot which was published in the newspapers. This had to be claimed as fair use, only the United States releases government material into the public domain. There may be more images later, Rich is to stand trial soon (next year, I believe) on another matter, and there is likely to be much publicity. --bainer (talk) 01:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support: My mild objection has been answered. I'm surprised a bit that there isn't a license for government stock in Australia, but not awfully so. Fair use is probably easily maintained. Geogre 17:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Government (and other) images can be used under the fair dealing provisions of the Copyright Act 1968, but this is limited to certain purposes which are not compatible with the GFDL. There is a fantastic image of Rich robbing a bank near my house earlier this year on theage.com.au. Will try to chase up the copyright status of this, though I suspect it is owned by the bank and the chance of licensing will be nil. --bainer (talk) 10:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support: fantastic article.--cj | talk 09:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support, having written most of this, I'm obviously quite pleased with it ;) --bainer (talk) 10:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Slightly on the short side, but covers the content well, and is by far the best article we have on an Australian law topic. Kudos to Thebainer for writing it. Ambi 10:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support And very well written, interesting article. Agnte 13:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Concise, reads well, interesting, seems comprehensive, and updated to the present. --Tsavage 19:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Object.
- ~~Where does "indigent defendants" come from? It seems important but it is just stuck in some brackets.~~
- ~~Use of a contraction (ex. didn’t).~~
- ~~The Victorian Crimes Act 1958, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the United States Bill of Rights are quoted in the body but do not appear in the references.~~
- Poorly constructed sentence: "Unlike some other international treaties, Australia has not incorporated the ICCPR into its domestic law with any specific legislation (unlike, for example, World Heritage laws – see Commonwealth v Tasmania)." and "The High Court ordered that the verdict of the original be overturned, and ordered a retrial".
- ~~Completely unsourced quotation "to declare that a right which has hitherto never been recognised should now be taken to exist." (and unclear on who asked the court to do that?)~~
- Inconsistent reference system. Why are some footnoted and some not? The section number of the quoted Victorian Crimes Act 1958 is given but not for the US Bill of Rights quote, or the Cda Charter quote.
- ~~Section headings do not conform to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings). Use of sub-headings is questionable.~~ What does "The right to a fair trial" and "Miscarriage of justice" have in common? are these supposed to be the defense arguments? Funny that they had a trial on whether the trial was fair. --maclean25 06:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've added more footnotes to make it absolutely clear. The United States Bill of Rights is not divided into sections, and so sections are not given. Section Ten of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (which was wikilinked to) is likewise indivisible into sections, it already is a section. However, I've added references to them anyway.
I've also reworded a couple of sentences, and changed some of the section headings, were these the ones you had problems with? --bainer (talk) 08:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing my concerns so quickly. With the headings it was the use of the word "The" which was not needed (of course it is the case, I was not expecting another case). "Arguments" is fine, so would "Case" or "Trial". Consider renaming "Background to the case" so that it is parallel with the other major headings ("Arguments", "Judgment", "Consequences", "References") But really, it was the "Miscarriage of justice" that seemed awkward. Just from browsing the table of contents it appears that is what happened: that it was a miscarriage of justice. But after reading the paragraph it turns out that was just an argument (a commentary or an opinion). That led me to also question the previous sub-heading "The right to a fair trial". I just want to make sure the sub-headings are parallel and dividing the section appropriately. --maclean25 09:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Generally (in this and other law articles I've written) the "arguments" or "case" section is split into subheadings along the lines of the arguments which were actually heard before the court. It may be a little confusing in this instance because of the rather generic names of the arguments, but they are mentioned in the first paragraph of the "arguments". --bainer (talk) 21:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support:An interesting read, and a potentially difficult page to write, full of legal minefields and jargon. However, this is well written and explained. Giano | talk 11:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ALoan (Talk) 14:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support, looks excellent. I'm not sure why the last two references are formatted differently and are apparently not cited anywhere? If those references weren't used, they should be removed. Tuf-Kat 17:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]