Talk:Dietrich v The Queen/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Goldsztajn (talk · contribs) 13:06, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I'll take this. I'm a little concerned about WP:PRIMARY issues here; am going to look at that aspect first. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 13:06, 14 October 2022 (UTC)


 * @Goldsztajn no worries. I do think it’s important to note obviously as a court decision, the judgement itself written by members of Australia’s highest court will be an important source. MaxnaCarta (talk) 19:52, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you have access to this?


 * Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 08:28, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I've had an initial look through the article; it's definitely not a quick fail, but I feel there is still a substantial amount of work required. In general, my "style" of reviewing is that I'm happy to do simple copy-editing (grammar, punctuation) myself and anything that's technical (layout, referencing).  If there's more extensive work of that nature required or an issue that is more viewpoint related, I'll indicate.  The first thing for me that needs work, which I've started on, is converting the reference system; it is convoluted and using a mixture of practices.  Have a look at the article and let me know if you can see the changes I've made; if not I'm happy to outline it. Also, there's a mixture of report usage with regard to Australian cases; my understanding (correct me if wrong), but the ALR system is commercial, yes? Given Wikipedia's intentions, I think it would be better if we could use an open source reference, such as AustLII.  The benefit of that is that there is also a readymade  template to use. I've made a couple of conversions, again let me know if you are comfortable with this. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 04:17, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Happy to do any work required @Goldsztajn. Not sure what you mean by the Austlii system sorry. AGlC has been used for all cases. Austlii is the name of a database maintained by the university of New South Wales. Most law cases are indexed on Austlii and that may be the template you’re referring to. Every case citation has been done using the correct Australian method. Cheers! MaxnaCarta (talk) 12:33, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Goldsztajn I’m quite lost with the new citation style that’s in the article now? I’ve never seen that used in Wikipedia all split up like that. Bibliography is also misspelled. Are you wanting every reference converted over to this system? Most of the featured articles in the law category use the basic referencing system I used. MaxnaCarta (talk) 12:36, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Goldsztajn please could you tell me which of the GA criteria need attention in order to pass? When you say significant work, other than referencing what do you feel is required to pass? If you write me a specific list of actions I need to take to pass, I’ll have them done asap. 😊 MaxnaCarta (talk) 12:40, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi @MaxnaCarta - sorry if I was oblique. If you want to see some examples of the referencing system have a look at The Holocaust in Albania or Member states of the International Labour Organization. Here's how I see the stages of the review going:
 * Correct/standardise the referencing system - which includes separating the footnotes from the bibliography (now spelled correctly), ensuring all items in the bibliography are using a template and all footnotes using  templates. I mentioned AustLII because it is an open source, whereas ALR requires commercial access. In general, where we have the option, we should point readers to open source materials.  Also, it appears that for cases prior to  1999, the judgements of the High Court of Australia which appear on the Court's website do not provide pinpoint references (eg Dietrich v The Queen), so AustLII appears best source for this article.  Are you able to continue with this process I started?
 * Deal with the WP:Primary issues - there's 19 citations to the case directly, some of these are acceptable, but many are interpretative and, to my reading, should instead have secondary sourcing. I'll make a table listing these and we can discuss.
 * There's a number of statements that are unreferenced, I'll tag these and you can work through them.
 * Separate out the case presented by the applicant and the judgement (these are mixed at present). I'll elaborate on this once we get to this point.
 * Indicate the Crown's case (there's no indication what the Crown's case was). Will elaborate when we get to this point, but at least let me know if you agree with this assessment (ie article needs indication of Crown case).
 * Finalise review.
 * Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 20:06, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * FYI caselaw GAs which separate footnotes from the bibliography: Trinsey v. Pennsylvania, Public Prosecutor v Taw Cheng Kong, Motte v Faulkner, Marbury v. Madison. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 20:15, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi @Goldsztajn. If you wish for me to use that reference style I can do so. I do note a number of featured articles in law do not use that system. I am happy to use it though, and it does look much better. One day in the very distant future presuming I pass this GA review, I want to get this article back to featured. Doing this referencing system now may assist as the more academic subjects often do break it up, and dividing reference lists is also common practice in Australian legal practice. I will work on this throughout the week. Thanks! MaxnaCarta (talk) 00:15, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Goldsztajn it is 11pm here in Oz, I am going to sign off. Have almost entirely finished changing over to your preferred referencing style. As much as I would have preferred a basic citation style, changing has helped with the cleanup somewhat. Now you can see I am truly committed to this having done a few hours work, please can you elaborate on how you want the appeal and judgement divided up? I can just remove any court findings from the appeal section, its already separated. Also, please may I ask if this is really needed for a GA? I did not know the criteria for GA was so strict, I anticipated more of this feedback at the FA stage if I got there :) MaxnaCarta (talk) 12:17, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Goldsztajn I have finally, at long last, finished the conversion of references. I have removed a significant number of references to the case, and where interpretative, have chosen a journal article instead. All tags have been addressed. Regarding the crowns case, we actually do not know what that was. The crowns case is seldom addressed in judgements. Rarely is it relevant I suppose! The prosecutions case was merely that he smuggled drugs into the country. We do not see any discussion of the prosecutions side in the original judgement, nor much in commentary. I reckon the most important is the appeal made by Dietrich and the judgement in response by HCA. I have separated these by the way. I believe the article should now meet the GA criteria. If there are outstanding issues, please do list and I will address. I would like to thank you so much for all your help thus far. This is the first article I have really ever worked on properly and so getting it to GA status is a major milestone for me. Thanks for assisting me get closer. I actually now like this referencing system and will use it for my future articles.
 * Cheers MaxnaCarta (talk) 03:02, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, and the austlii judgement for Dietrich did not have pinpoint references all the way through from 1-100. Instead, they restarted the pinpoints for each section. So I included that pinpoint and then in brackets put which section of the judgement that pinpoint belonged to. MaxnaCarta (talk) 03:03, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi @MaxnaCarta - thanks for doing the work on the referencing system. I think given the history of this article, it's particularly important to get things right now, rather than leaving them for later. Please give me two days to make a full check of the referencing and do a read through so I can come back with further comments. Happy that you appreciate the referencing system - I do think it assists readers immensely when presented this way. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 05:21, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Goldsztajn you're right - it was a total mess when I came across it and it more or less needed re-writing from the ground up. No stress about timing. Thanks! MaxnaCarta (talk) 05:42, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Goldsztajn I see you’re still reviewing. Thanks for your continued efforts so far. I appreciate all the help you’ve extended so far. Thanks! MaxnaCarta (talk) 09:30, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi @MaxnaCarta - I've been a little delayed in the non-virtual world, please give a few more days. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 21:31, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Goldsztajn Not a worry, have you identified any barriers to passing I can work on in the interim? MaxnaCarta (talk) 22:42, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Goldsztajn I hope you are going well and please can get back to me soon? Thanks heaps. MaxnaCarta (talk) 00:15, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi @MaxnaCarta - I'll be back at this over the coming weekend. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 05:46, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Australian legal style
Fundamentally reference style should be consistent within the article and use Australian legal style, such as the Australian Guide to Legal Citation or one of the variations thereon. The style used by the High Court is based on this. The modification to this is that Latin abbreviations such as Op. cit. are generally depreciated in Wikipedia. So far as I am aware is the only template that uses Australian legal style. In this style the use of square or round brackets for the year is important - square brackets are used where the year is critical to the citation, round brackets where a volume is given. In citing a particular part of a judgment, paragraph numbers are indicated in square brackets, page numbers have no brackets. Where separate reasons are given, it is preferable for the reference to indicate which judgment is cited. This is essential in relation to paragraph numbers which may otherwise be ambiguous. Square brackets can sometimes be problematic because of their coding use in Wikipedia, in which case using  and   will usually avoid the problem. --Find bruce (talk) 23:48, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Legal journals
Citing legal journals is problematic - while the format is straight forward & consistent with cases, there is no template to cite journals in Australian legal style which is incompatible with CS1. Creating a template is on my to do list, but hasn't happened yet. It is generally only possible to do by manually formatting the reference.--Find bruce (talk) 23:48, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Particular reports
In Australia there are three types of citations (1) medium neutral citation − while most people think of AustLII, but there are other sources using the same citation eg the High Court and Jade  AustLII is relatively recent (first started in the early 90s, popularised by ~2000) & this has various effects - for example in Dietrich  the paragraph numbers and medium neutral citations have been added by Austlii, where in Nguyen paragraph numbers are in the judgment. These versions are subject to formal revision prior to publication but such revisions are infrequent and minor. They should be used wherever available (2) authorised reports - the Commonwealth Law Reports (CLR) are the authorised reports of the High Court. (3) Unauthorised reports, such as the Australian Law Reports (ALR) can be useful, but should not be cited where there is an authorised report. In my view the ALR references should be replaced by at least the CLR references. I have access to an extensive law library. Australian copyright law permits fair use of copyright material for the purpose of research or study and I can provide a copy of the report for that purpose to an editor and or reviewer.

In my view Wikipedia as a freely available encyclopedia, where reliability depends upon verification, freely available sources should be included where these are available. Common practice in recent times is to cite both the medium neutral citation & the published report. is set up to do so using .--Find bruce (talk) 23:48, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Short references
Short form citations are problematic. The difficulty with is that is uses Harvard style which is quite different to Australian legal style. It can be made to work but the short form reference would be something like (2020) 269 CLR 299 at 314−5, [36]. As far as I can recall this template is not commonly used on Australian legal articles for Wikipedia, but an example of making it work is Victoria v Commonwealth (September 1975). It is a valid editorial choice to use to refer to page numbers see WP:OPCIT, but I question whether it is appropriate to use for paragraph numbers. The difficulty with either approach is that it reduces accessibility to open sources.

There is no one right answer as it is often a question of balance. Personally I favour using a reference with the page number for each reference, such as in Reserved powers doctrine, but it's a matter of editorial choice. --Find bruce (talk) 23:48, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Final stretch
Hi - here are my final set of comments. If this is showing, it means it's an issue that I'm not concerned about in terms of the pass/fail of the GA, but feel could be addressed. If this is showing, it means it's an issue I consider requires addressing to pass GA.

Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 19:55, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

- I've addressed all significant issues. You know, at first I was taken aback at how much work you found for me to improve. But as I reach the tail end, I am glad my first GA review was not a quick tick and flick exercise. I have come away with a much, much better understanding of a truly good article after this and I can see why so many encourage getting a green blob in order to best understand why we are here. I hope this brings me a little closer. Cheers. MaxnaCarta (talk) 03:57, 1 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi @MaxnaCarta - yes, I'm probably on the more rigorous side of the reviewer spectrum, but FWIW I really appreciate your good faith collaboration in the process. I've only got one final issue - I do find the section "Implications for provision of legal aid" too slanted towards Davies' perspective. If that could be qualified in some way - eg "Although by the late 1990s issues around the provision of Legal Aid were also significantly affected by broader budgetary decisions of the Federal and state governments." (this could be cited to Gibson p.57, Kingston 1998 and Doherty 1999). Other than that, GTG. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 12:13, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Goldsztajn I've added an extra paragraphed, with one reference for now. I have learned so much writing this. I actually feel my off-Wikipedia writing will improve because of your helping hand. I'm in legal practice, and academic writing has always been a shortfall of mine. Let me know what you think! MaxnaCarta (talk) 23:36, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi @MaxnaCarta - thanks for adding the extra paragrpah, for me, we're GTG and it's now GA...congratulations. More than happy to collaborate with you on other items. Feel free to ping me or leave me a talk page message. Kind regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 07:09, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Part one A
 * - The decision holds that the right to representation is essential to a fair trial. I think we need to be precise. However I did clarify the first sentence to state: Dietrich v The Queen is a High Court of Australia constitutional case which ruled where the right to a fair trial is prejudiced by a lack of legal representation, the trial may be indefinitely stayed until such representation can be obtained.

Part one B
 * - Done

Part two A
 * - Doyle reference removed
 * - Far out. You have one heck of an eye for detail! Thanks for catching. Changed to Fairall. First sentence of the last paragraph of page 240 is where that is, to assist you in checking source integrity.

Part two c
 * - Regarding contemporary application, I do not see why the two cases mentioned need a secondary source. All I have stated is factual and not controversial. I stated the case is regularly cited and provided two examples of it being cited without additional commentary or argument, and the material is largely a direct quote. That said, I will remove and perhaps consider including these back in later if I can locate secondary material. I have added the groves article and some commentary, and it's referenced. This reference is excellent and I will certainly look at expanding this further in the future, as will definitely be necessary when I one day try to get this to featured! Thanks for finding such a great modern reference. Contemporary sources are hard to locate.
 * - "In order for an accused" quote sourced to Fairall article.
 * - "In a five to two decision" I mean this is definitely not interpretive. It's what they said. However I have referenced Durie at page 48. More references never hurt.
 * - "Court found this section meant". Thanks! referenced to Durie page 48, third paragraph. Corrected cannot.
 * - "The Court noted the differences" - added Fairall reference. Tightened sentence and made it make sense.
 * - "The Court compared this with" - I interpreted this from the source, no secondary. As unsourced and challenged, I have removed this sentence.
 * - Third paragraph of right to representation subsection has been referenced.
 * Part three A
 * - I am happy to leave this for now, provided it is not a barrier to passing. Even if this passes GA, I anticipate quite a lot of work in future to make it as perfect as it can be though, and I appreciate this!

Part three B
 * - Removed "as noted by" and their names. Only reason for this is that the wording is close to what was said but not a direct quote, thought it is best to attribute directly to the speaker/writer but happy to remove.

Part six
 * - Removed all footnotes from lead, except the direct quote
 * - Removed excessive subheadings
 * - Airport and internal of Pentridge removed
 * - Added the Covenant per the treaty page
 * - Changed Barwick caption
 * - Changed Mason caption
 * - Yes, i want to illustrate with Dietrich too but sadly other editors refused to allow fair use even though he is in jail with no chance for anyone to take another photo. Silly considering his mugshot is widely used all over the media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaxnaCarta (talk • contribs) 1 November 2022, 03:57 (UTC)