Wikipedia:Peer review/Dietrich v The Queen/archive1

Dietrich v The Queen


I've listed this article for peer review because despite working on this article for over a year addressing the issues raised when it was delisted from FA, getting it passed as a GA, having it copyedited by the GOCE and spending many more hours addressing the feedback after listing at FAC, it was not re-promoted to FA. I specifically would love any opinions from FA reviewers or those with featured content on specific ways to address the feedback left at the FAC. Happy for anymore feedback.

Thanks, — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 11:35, 12 May 2023 (UTC)


 * STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template. And, since you are still seeking your first successful FAC, I suggest seeking a FA mentor and start reviewing FACs now to build goodwill among the FAC regulars. Z1720 (talk) 01:47, 24 May 2023 (UTC)


 * This has been open for a month without comment. Are you still interested in receiving feedback? Z1720 (talk) 21:20, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Z1720 absolutely. Wanting to take to FAC. I failed my last FAC and was told to take it to peer review before bringing back to FAC. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:09, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I suggest asking for comments on the Wikiprojects attached to this article. I also suggest that you review lots of articles at FAC so that you can get to know what is included in FAs and to build good will amongst FAC reviewers. Z1720 (talk) 01:28, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks @Z1720 — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:25, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

It has been another month and still no comments. If you have addressed all the points in the FAC, and you have searched for all available sources at WP:LIBRARY, Google Scholar, and your local library system, then I suggest that you seek out more input from Wikiprojects or nominate this to WP:FAC. Z1720 (talk) 21:24, 22 July 2023 (UTC)


 * @Z1720 no worries. I might spend time working on it then ask the FAC reviewer who recommended sending it here to provide comment. Feel free to close this. No use in me flogging a dead horse. No one wants to comment at present clearly. Thank you. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:25, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll keep this open so that if you get someone from the FAC willing to leave comments, they can do so here. You can also close this yourself whenever you feel that the FAC is done. Z1720 (talk) 01:22, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

UC
Looking over the FAC, it seems that the main issue was the comprehensibility of the article to those without a legal background. I know very little about the law, particularly in Australia, so I might be a good person to take a look from that perspective.

One thing that sticks out is the use of some very long sentences, particularly the first one (which forms an entire paragraph). In general, it's clearest if the average length of a sentence is around fifteen words. In this particular case, the word order sounds quite legalistic but doesn't always match everyday syntax. We could do something like:

Dietrich v The Queen is a 1992 High Court of Australia constitutional case which established a person accused of serious criminal charges must be granted an adjournment until appropriate legal representation is provided if they are unrepresented through no fault of their own and proceeding would result in the trial being unfair. -> Dietrich v The Queen is a 1992 High Court of Australia constitutional case. It established that a person accused of serious criminal charges who lacks legal representation through no fault of their own must be granted an adjournment (postponement of their trial) if proceeding with the trial would make it unfair.

On the other side, the article sometimes uses technical terminology which trades clarity for brevity: we should err on the opposite site. For instance, Previous High Court rulings found representation preferable but not a requisite for a fair trial could become something like Previous High Court rulings decided that, while it was preferable for a defendant to have legal representation, a trial could still be considered fair if they had none.

Some more localised points:


 * I found the first bit of the "Legal" section a bit tricky: the term "set aside" was doing a lot of work, but hadn't been explained.
 * I'm also not totally clear on the link between McInnes' application for legal aid and his need for an adjournment: presumably there was a delay in getting his money?
 * It might be clearer to use his name throughout this section.
 * Can requested for the High Court to hear an appeal simply be shortened to appealed to the High Court?
 * In the "Case" section, it's a little odd to introduce Dietrich's sentence before we learn that he's committed any crimes.
 * he had internally concealed is a bit jargonistic: I understand the squeamishness, but a lot of readers will have no idea what you're talking about. We can say that he had swallowed it (inside...) or, if by the other route, that he had concealed it in his rectum.
 * Do we know why the Court of Criminal Appeal refused to hear Dietrich?
 * It sounds like the words "erred in law" are important to Dietrich being able to go to the High Court. Perhaps a background sentence or so explaining who is able to appeal and why would be helpful.
 * In general, positives are clearer than negatives: can not granting be replaced with refusing?
 * The "Right to representation" section assumes quite a lot of legal knowledge. It would be helpful to be clearer on what "sources of law" are and why they're important here, and why it matters that the US and Canada are common-law jurisdictions. What does the Sixth Amendment of the US Constitution promise, exactly?
 * The "Miscarriage of justice" section is short but quite difficult: I'm not totally clear on the difference between the two sections of the appeal (I think this one is a logical consequence of the one above?)
 * Past cases show the trial of an unrepresented person accused of a serious offence will result in an unfair trial: what are those cases? Is this something that the court stated, or a contextual point in Wikipedia's voice?
 * I would give dates for cases cited.
 * where it had also been submitted section 397 provides a right to appointed representation: not very clear, I'm afraid. Could we slow down and explain what section 397 (of what?) was, and how it fitted into Dietrich's case?
 * What's a statutory provision?
 * The court found this section meant a person is entitled to be represented because a court cannot actively deny representation but rejected the right to have such representation provided by the state.: can we add commas and simplify to {{tq|The court found this section meant a person is entitled to be represented, because a court cannot actively deny representation, but that they did not have a right to have such representation provided by the state."
 * This might be an Australian thing, but I'd generally use that before indirect statements: e.g. {{tq|the court noted that such an approach is useful}}
 * On which: what exactly do we mean by such an approach?
 * {{tq|which cut the budget for legal aid by $70 million}}: it would be more helpful to know where it started or ended up. You might also want to consider giving a USD equivalent.
 * {{Tq|The Attorney-General asked courts to be realistic}}: who is this guy, and what does "be realistic" mean in this context?
 * We mention the "Dietrich test" but never actually explain what it is.
 * More generally, I'm struggling to see where the serious crimes part of the judgement came from. Presumably, it's not OK for someone to receive an unfair trial for shoplifting?

I hope this is helpful: again, I'm very much an outsider to the subject and indeed to legal articles on Wikipedia, so please do take my comments with that in mind. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 16:36, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I realise that it might have been more helpful to ping User:MaxnaCarta in the above. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:59, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @UndercoverClassicist — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:26, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @UndercoverClassicist thank you so much for the comprehensive feedback. Very useful. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:27, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

{{ping|MaxnaCarta}} This has been open for over a month without comment. Are you still working on this, or should this be closed? Z1720 (talk) 15:36, 16 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Happy to close. Ty. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:28, 16 September 2023 (UTC)