Template:Did you know nominations/Judicial independence in Australia


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Gatoclass (talk) 17:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Judicial independence in Australia

 * ... that ...Chief Justice Murray Gleeson suggested that public confidence in the independence of Australian judges largely consists of taking things for granted? Source: http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/speeches/former-justices/gleesoncj/cj_9feb07.pdf pages 5 & 11.
 * Reviewed: The Aboriginal Mother

Created by Find bruce (talk). Self-nominated at 01:00, 7 January 2019 (UTC).


 * Thanks for the review . QPQ is not required (currently 2 DYK credits) but in any event, having suggested alternate hooks I can't take the review of The Aboriginal Mother any further. What I did do was finish the review of 2001 Harrah's 500 which was stuck for the same reason & suggested some alternate hooks to Giovanni Cosimo Bonomo so that review could progress. Each of the tags was placed shortly before the relevant reference, so I am not sure that further reference was required per WP:CITEDENSE, but it was no big deal to duplicate the reference at the points you tagged.
 * In terms of hooks, Gleeson states at pg 5 "Much of what we call public confidence consists of taking things for granted". I presume you are referring to pg 11 where he says "Australians largely take for granted the political independence of judges" the context of this however is the statement from pp 10-11 "There is a useful practical indicator of the judiciary's general reputation for impartiality. ... the assumption is that the outcome of an enquiry will be accepted more readily by the public if it can be described as judicial. It is obvious that one of the attractions to government of former judges to conduct enquiries is the aura of impartiality that is brought by their former status". While I do not agree that political must be inserted to reflect the source, I am happy to put it forward as an alternative. Happy to develop other alternatives if there is anything that struck you as a suitable subject. Find bruce (talk) 03:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * In terms of hooks, Gleeson states at pg 5 "Much of what we call public confidence consists of taking things for granted". I presume you are referring to pg 11 where he says "Australians largely take for granted the political independence of judges" the context of this however is the statement from pp 10-11 "There is a useful practical indicator of the judiciary's general reputation for impartiality. ... the assumption is that the outcome of an enquiry will be accepted more readily by the public if it can be described as judicial. It is obvious that one of the attractions to government of former judges to conduct enquiries is the aura of impartiality that is brought by their former status". While I do not agree that political must be inserted to reflect the source, I am happy to put it forward as an alternative. Happy to develop other alternatives if there is anything that struck you as a suitable subject. Find bruce (talk) 03:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)


 * ALT1:... that Chief Justice Murray Gleeson suggested that public confidence in the political independence of Australian judges largely consists of taking things for granted?
 * Symbol confirmed.svg No worries. All good now, QPQ has been done but wasn't required. Quotes are now all cited closely. I prefer ALT1 as I consider it is closer to the source, but can see the argument for the primary hook. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:26, 10 January 2019 (UTC)