The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC) [1].
This is a 2005 promotion (last reviewed in 2009) that does not seem to meet the modern featured article criteria, particularly with respect to sourcing and comprehensiveness. Firstly, I'm not sure it's a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature": there are plenty of scholarly articles and books that aren't cited, e.g. [2], [3], [4], pgs. 95–98 of [5], and pg. 150 of [6], for no apparent reason. This might be excusable if the article was already very comprehensive, but it isn't: most obviously, one would expect an article about a legal case to walk through the the various opinions rendered in some detail, but the opinions of Mason/McHugh and Toohey aren't even mentioned and the rest of the "Judgment" section takes only a very cursory look at the legal reasoning. We also get very little about the historical context in which this case was decided or the legal context (e.g. previous/subsequent Australian fair-trial cases) in which it arose. The sourcing that does exist consists mainly of either citations to primary sources, such as the case itself, and newspaper articles that offer little legal analysis; the few scholarly sources used are used sparingly. Since the article hasn't been edited once since notice of these concerns was given almost two months ago, I think its featured article status should be reviewed. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 01:12, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply
Such-change47, happy to see your continued work! Do you believe this star is salvageable with time, or should we proceed to the FARC phase (which does not preclude additional work)? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:23, 22 December 2021 (UTC) reply
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:10, 26 December 2021 (UTC) reply
I agree with the three Move to FARCs above. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:49, 1 January 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC) [1].
This is a 2005 promotion (last reviewed in 2009) that does not seem to meet the modern featured article criteria, particularly with respect to sourcing and comprehensiveness. Firstly, I'm not sure it's a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature": there are plenty of scholarly articles and books that aren't cited, e.g. [2], [3], [4], pgs. 95–98 of [5], and pg. 150 of [6], for no apparent reason. This might be excusable if the article was already very comprehensive, but it isn't: most obviously, one would expect an article about a legal case to walk through the the various opinions rendered in some detail, but the opinions of Mason/McHugh and Toohey aren't even mentioned and the rest of the "Judgment" section takes only a very cursory look at the legal reasoning. We also get very little about the historical context in which this case was decided or the legal context (e.g. previous/subsequent Australian fair-trial cases) in which it arose. The sourcing that does exist consists mainly of either citations to primary sources, such as the case itself, and newspaper articles that offer little legal analysis; the few scholarly sources used are used sparingly. Since the article hasn't been edited once since notice of these concerns was given almost two months ago, I think its featured article status should be reviewed. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 01:12, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply
Such-change47, happy to see your continued work! Do you believe this star is salvageable with time, or should we proceed to the FARC phase (which does not preclude additional work)? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:23, 22 December 2021 (UTC) reply
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:10, 26 December 2021 (UTC) reply
I agree with the three Move to FARCs above. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:49, 1 January 2022 (UTC) reply