Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Section 116 of the Australian Constitution/archive1

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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 11:40, 2 May 2010 [1].

Section 116 of the Australian Constitution edit

Nominator(s): Mkativerata (talk) 21:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article on an interesting provision of the Australian Constitution. I've been a little hesitant about whether the article is FA material because it is quite short. But it is certainly comprehensive. I've gone through everything of substance that has ever been written on section 116, including Quick & Garran's seminal text from 1901. I don't think much more can be written about the subject. As the article says, the provision is (surprisingly) insignificant. It would be possible to go into the individual cases on section 116 in more detail; however, I am concerned that more discussion on the case law would give the article an overly legalistic focus. Hopefully one day comprehensive separate articles can be written about those cases. Mkativerata (talk) 21:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No dab links or dead external links. Ucucha 21:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments, leaning towards oppose I feel that insufficient attention has been given to the prose here. There's a clear problem with the lede, which should not be one paragraph. Take for example "The Constitution of Australia commenced on 1 January 1901." I don't think "commenced" is the proper term. There are a fair number of similar malaprops, enough to make me think this article might be better off going back for peer review before coming here.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I've broken up the lead. I've changed "commenced" to "took effect": I used "commenced" deliberately because that's the terminology used for legislation in Australia, but I've changed it to "took effect" here because section 4 of the Constitution speakes of the Constitution "taking effect" so that phrase is perhaps more accurate here.--Mkativerata (talk) 22:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. The prose does seem to be spotty in areas, and I'm mildly concerned about what seem to be opening sentences to a number of paragraphs that very likely are not "in" the following references. I'll sit back and wait for other views.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-arranged some footnotes to make it clearer that the opening sentences are supported by a footnote that follows. One or two of the opening sentences are lead-style summaries of the paragraphs that follow. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:MSH, Section 116 is repeated in several section headings. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed (I hope). Thanks. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not happy at this stage.

Can't there be an external link to the constitution? The Section should be quoted, surely? [Ah, it is, but further down. The opening seems to be in slight conflict with it.] "The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth." Why does the lead say "from making certain laws? This is vague, when the actual text would be better.
"However, Section 116 is narrower than its US counterparts, and does not prohibit laws made by the States of Australia." You mean "does not prohibit the states from making such laws"? "Such" is essential.
"These approaches have been criticised by some academics." Who? Where is the ref.? And very briefly, on what basis? Maybe you don't need a ref in the lead, but it doesn't seem to add any substance as currently worded.
Not "the judiciary's narrow approach", but "the High Court's ...". Please be specific.
"The Federal Government has twice proposed the expansion of Section 116 ...". Which government? The Keating govt? The Chifley govt? Or do you mean "The federal parliament"? Tony (talk) 09:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much Tony. I'll make those changes. But in the meantime I think I should withdraw this nomination and do some more hard yards: if these are the problems with the lead then there will obviously be many more to follow and I should find them myself or through peer review. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A peer review or GA nom might be helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:39, 2 May 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.