House v The King was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (August 17, 2023, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
If this case has the "second highest number of citations among High Court cases", shouldn't this article be longer? A case with such a high number of citations must surely be quite important. Looking at the articles within Category:GA-Class Australian law articles, the articles there are quite a bit longer and don't consist of such a high proportion of quotes. Idk if I will review this GAN. I'm not an expert in this subject matter. These are just the things I could see as a non-expert in Australian law. Steelkamp ( talk) 08:42, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Premeditated Chaos ( talk · contribs) 02:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Not counting the lengthy quote in the judgement section or the 5-point list of errors, this article is only 355 words. I cannot believe that such an apparently notable case, with so many citations in other cases, can be broadly covered in less than 400 words. For example, the article bluntly states "The law regarding appeals of sentences has developed in complexity since House v. The King." - In what way? How did House tie into that?
On top of that, the sourcing is significantly beneath what I would expect for such a notable case. We cite the self-published Wordpress website of a defence barrister in NSW - what qualifies him as a subject matter expert? (Not every person working in a given field is necessarily a SME) The paper cited concludes with "I am available every day should you require further assistance", which is curious - was it written as a personal letter? The Judicial Commission is reliable, but it's primary. The Edmonds source appears to be a Masters thesis (Under WP:SCHOLARSHIP, see "Dissertations" for why we prefer to avoid those). The Federal Court source is again primary. What I would expect in a properly-sourced article on this kind of topic would be independent analysis by legal scholars on its significance and impact.
The article cannot meet the GACR in its current state, and will need much more work to be able to do so. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 02:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
House v The King was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (August 17, 2023, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
If this case has the "second highest number of citations among High Court cases", shouldn't this article be longer? A case with such a high number of citations must surely be quite important. Looking at the articles within Category:GA-Class Australian law articles, the articles there are quite a bit longer and don't consist of such a high proportion of quotes. Idk if I will review this GAN. I'm not an expert in this subject matter. These are just the things I could see as a non-expert in Australian law. Steelkamp ( talk) 08:42, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Premeditated Chaos ( talk · contribs) 02:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Not counting the lengthy quote in the judgement section or the 5-point list of errors, this article is only 355 words. I cannot believe that such an apparently notable case, with so many citations in other cases, can be broadly covered in less than 400 words. For example, the article bluntly states "The law regarding appeals of sentences has developed in complexity since House v. The King." - In what way? How did House tie into that?
On top of that, the sourcing is significantly beneath what I would expect for such a notable case. We cite the self-published Wordpress website of a defence barrister in NSW - what qualifies him as a subject matter expert? (Not every person working in a given field is necessarily a SME) The paper cited concludes with "I am available every day should you require further assistance", which is curious - was it written as a personal letter? The Judicial Commission is reliable, but it's primary. The Edmonds source appears to be a Masters thesis (Under WP:SCHOLARSHIP, see "Dissertations" for why we prefer to avoid those). The Federal Court source is again primary. What I would expect in a properly-sourced article on this kind of topic would be independent analysis by legal scholars on its significance and impact.
The article cannot meet the GACR in its current state, and will need much more work to be able to do so. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 02:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC)