Wikipedia:Featured article review/Dietrich v The Queen/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by YellowAssessmentMonkey 01:06, 30 March 2009.

Dietrich v The Queen

 * Notified: WP:AUS; WP:LAW; and 

Some paragraphs and sections in the article seem unreferenced. I'd also prefer one or two sources which are not directly from the "law world"; maybe from newspaper articles or news websites. D.M.N. (talk) 16:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I should be able to make a decent shot at this. There's one good "non law" source that I think I can track down, and I have a number of good academic and legal sources which should be able to reference most of the article, with one that may well be able to update the "consequences" section. I'll see what I can do over the next few days. - Bilby (talk) 06:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * DNM, if you or someone else could go through and mark all the statements which you/they feel need referencing with, I'll find relevant citations in my source material. I feel it's easier doing this way as it highlights issues for me to look at, rather than myself going and looking for said issues. Regards, Daniel (talk) 05:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. I'm really not sure about the last two paragraphs of the "The right to a fair trial"... I think that may need a rework, wikilinks adding if possible. The article has improved a lot since I added this FAR. D.M.N. (talk) 16:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've finished adding references - I checked each claim against either an existing ref (a few were incorrectly sourced) or found a new one that supported it. I also expanded the consequences section a bit, which is where I could pull in more non-law sources. And, as suggested, I had a look at the last paragraphs in the "Right to a fair trial" section, and while I'm not sure it fixes it, I felt a quote from the court would help clarify one of those paragraphs (it seemed to me that it needed to be brought back to the case), and I had a shot at some gentle rewording of the last paragraph of the section. :) - Bilby (talk) 11:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks much better. In which case, I think we can withdraw this FAR. D.M.N. (talk) 14:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.