Talk:Supreme Court of Justice (Austria)/GA2

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

Reviewer: Mujinga (talk · contribs) 11:49, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Review

 * Sorry you had the previous false start with another reviewer, I'll give some comments today Mujinga (talk) 11:49, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Earwig gives no copyvio although sources are (mainly in) in German Mujinga (talk) 12:19, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Featured article candidates/Supreme Court of Justice (Austria)/archive1 threw up some interesting feedback which could have been integrated. For example, any thoughts on adding Ratz and Schmitz?
 * Also BluemoonSet made some helpful comments at the recent discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations
 * Looking around at court-related GAs such as Court of King's Bench (England), Indiana Supreme Court and Oregon Supreme Court or related supreme court articles such as Federal Constitutional Court or Supreme Court of the United Kingdom might be helpful to think about structure. As one example, there could be a list of current judges.
 * The text has unreferenced sections (as pointed out at FAC) and this is a GA quickfail. I'm prepared to wait for an answer on this, but unless things are referenced in the next few days it will be better to fail and wait for the article to be in a better state to be reviewed. I'm saying this per GA criterion 2b. Currently unreferenced parts are:
 * While the general courts deal with all civil and criminal cases as well as so-called "non-adversary proceedings" (Außerstreitverfahren), such as inheritance or guardianship matters.
 * A successful appeal-at-law not only overturns but utterly erases the ruling of the appellate court, sending the case down the ladder again. Decisions of trial courts − although not of appellate courts − that result from a trial court's invocation of an unconstitutional statute or an illegal ordinance can be challenged before the Constitutional Court by filing an "extraordinary appeal-at-law".
 * Between shortly after 1300 and shortly before 1800, the Habsburgs had gradually transformed their empire from a personal union of numerous independent realms and territories into a highly centralized unitary state.[42] Feudal structures had been replaced with rules-based bureaucracies, hereditary local potentates with professional civil servants. The consolidation and modernization of jurisprudence, on the other hand, had been allowed to lag. Civil and criminal procedure as well as the criminal code proper had made great strides forward during the reigns of Maria Theresa and Joseph II in the late 18th century, a period of rapid and profound reform.[43] In the early 19th century, Emperor Francis II had revolutionized the civil code. In terms of its organizational structure, however, the Court system was still essentially medieval.
 * Stopping here for an answer on the above Mujinga (talk) 12:39, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Stopping here for an answer on the above Mujinga (talk) 12:39, 11 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Supreme Court of Justice (Austria)/archive1 threw up some interesting feedback which could have been integrated. For example, any thoughts on adding Ratz and Schmitz? – Ratz is paywalled and Schmitz handles a different court. The article already cites various English and German language academic books as well as historical and contemporary laws, so I don't see an urgent need to add more – especially not barely accessible or extraneous – sources.
 * Also BluemoonSet made some helpful comments at the recent discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#New_reviewer_issue – BluemoonSet's comment did not slip under my radar; I updated the justices and did attempt to further improve the prose. If I missed something I would kindly ask you to highlight what.
 * Looking around at court-related GAs such as Court of King's Bench (England), Indiana Supreme Court and Oregon Supreme Court or related supreme court articles such as Federal Constitutional Court or Supreme Court of the United Kingdom might be helpful to think about structure. As one example, there could be a list of current judges. – the Court has 60 justices, which would effectively render such a list unmaintainable. Furthermore, the only justice to have a standalone article is the president of the court and her article is a stub. Otherwise I'm absolutely open for suggestions on how to improve the article's structural organization.
 * The rest is ✅. Colonestarrice (talk) 16:11, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Fail
OK I'm going to fail this article and I'll give my reasoning here. I started the review by checking for quickfails and noticed that there were several unreferenced passages. This is a quickfail under criterion 2b as I stated above. Since we just met when we each had a fake GA review done and we had quick, useful communication about it, I thought rather than failing the article i would give you a chance to fix the three passages. Unfortunately you haven't done this in a way which is verifiable for two of the three:


 * While the general courts deal with all civil and criminal cases as well as so-called "non-adversary proceedings" (Außerstreitverfahren), such as inheritance or guardianship matters.
 * You've put six (!) references on this one sentence, with no indication where in those references exactly the citation is backed, so I cannot verify this sentence.


 * A successful appeal-at-law not only overturns but utterly erases the ruling of the appellate court, sending the case down the ladder again. Decisions of trial courts − although not of appellate courts − that result from a trial court's invocation of an unconstitutional statute or an illegal ordinance can be challenged before the Constitutional Court by filing an "extraordinary appeal-at-law".
 * You've put two references on the first sentence, both of which are online lawbooks, I can't verify this sentence and in any case would suggest using secondary sources for this claim. The second sentence is backed by reference to an online lawbook in german with 151 articles, so I can't verify that sentence.


 * In the early 19th century, Emperor Francis II had revolutionized the civil code. In terms of its organizational structure, however, the Court system was still essentially medieval.
 * You've put a page-numbered book reference on these two sentences, I couldn't access it to verify myself, but I can AGF it is correct.

Moreover, when I suggested you look at some sources recommended in the failed FA submission, you said "Ratz is paywalled and Schmitz handles a different court. The article already cites various English and German language academic books as well as historical and contemporary laws, so I don't see an urgent need to add more – especially not barely accessible or extraneous – sources." I find this a rather odd answer, since for the German language books on the article are inaccessible to me. By using a combination of a resource request at WikiProject Resource Exchange and the The Wikipedia Library Im sure you could get these two sources. I was able to get them both without bother (I do have institutional access though). You are right that the Schmitz is about a different court, nevertheless it might have been worth checking it anyway since it comes out so high on the google scholar search. I did check it and the mentions of the supreme court are minimal. The Ratz however is certainly worth adding, it's written by a former president of the court and the abstract reads:

The aim of this article is to give an overview of the tasks and the function of the Supreme Court of Justice in interaction with the other two “Highest Courts” of the Republic of Austria on the one hand, and the European Court of Human Rights as well as the Court of Justice of the European Union on the other hand. For this purpose introductory remarks will examine the Austrian understanding of the judiciary as a state power and judicial independence. The closing part of the article will particularly look into the role of the Supreme Court as highest instance in criminal matters.

Sorry to fail the article, but it clearly needs work. Best of luck with it in future. Mujinga (talk) 12:28, 13 May 2022 (UTC)