Wikipedia:Peer review/Section 116 of the Australian Constitution/archive1

Section 116 of the Australian Constitution
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because it failed an FAC earlier this year due to prose issues. I think the article meets the other FA criteria (eg is a comprehensive review of the sources) but it needs a good prose review from a second pair of eyes before another submission at FAC. I would be very grateful for that, whether or not it passes FA.

Thanks, Mkativerata (talk) 07:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: This is an interesting article, not far from FA quality in my view. My main concern is that in some areas depth may be lacking, as with the very short Commentary section. In some cases I found the terminology obscure, not easy to fathom, and in other cases specific information, e.g. the referendum results, is not given. Here are a few detailed comments and suggestions:-
 * Lead
 * What does this mean: "the court has looked to the law's purpose rather than its effect"?
 * "...the provision has played a minor role in Australian Constitutional history". Reads as though it needs an "only" before "a minor role". Also, "constitutional" should not be capitalised.
 * Done. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The word "resoundingly" reads a little like opinion, and would be better withdrawn, or replaced with something factual like "by large margins" (though you don't indicate the margin for the first referendum).
 * Done. As some would dispute whether the 1944 margin was wide, I've removed the adverb without replacement. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Text of the provision and location in the Constitution
 * Second paragraph: should this read "...any Commonwealth office of public trust, per the resolution's wording?
 * I've made an error in transcribing the section. It must be a typo: f and r being close on the keyboard. I've checked the rest of the section and it is transcribed correctly. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * "This location is incongruous". Again, this reads like editorial opinion. If it comes from the source, this should be clarified.
 * The gist is adequately conveyed by a later statement. "Incongruous" is supported by the source but as it's a bold word it's probably better to leave it out and rely on the later "erroneous". --Mkativerata (talk) 06:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * "The Australian Constitution does not include a Bill of rights, while the limited protections that the Constitution confers have been circumscribed by their drafting and judicial interpretation." I am not sure that the purpose or significance of this sentence will be apparent to the general reader. It sounds like a general comment on the nature of the Australian constitution, and I'm not clear about its precise relevance to the matter in hand.
 * Removed. I only added this sentence very recently to try to contextualise the US/Australia differences, but you're right, reading the paragraph with a bit of distance it probably confuses rather than contextualises. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Meaning of "religion"
 * "...the definition of religion needed to be flexible but recognise the need to be sceptical of disingenous claims of religious practice". Needs a "should" before "recognise"
 * Done. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * While I appreciate the wish to improve the presentation via images, a picture of the Scientology building in Los Angeles does seem to be stretching the concept of relevancy.
 * Removed. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Prohibiting the free exercise of any religion
 * Bearing in mind the opening to the preceding section, I think the first sentence here needs to be redrafted along the lines: "The protection of the free exercise of religion was also interpreted narrowly in early High Court judgments".
 * Done.


 * "Commentary"
 * This section seems very brief, given the 110-year history of this provision and the controversy it has engendered.
 * I've expanded it by adding some new commentators and expanding some of the existing ones (especially Williams).


 * Referendums
 * Should we not have some indication of the margin of failure in the 1944 referendum? In more general terms, results of referenda are often affected by irrelevent factors, such as the overall popularity of the incumbent government. The late 1980s were the latter years of the Hawke administration - is it possible that the 1988 result was skewed by this factor? Again, we are not told the margin of the defeat.
 * I've added the 1944 results, and reasons for the 1988 outcome. Williams, writing 20 years later, (Williams is in my view the most reliable source) attributes the 1988 outcome on Section 116 to the Coalition's campaign against it rather than any external political factors. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I hope these comments are helpful. As I do not watch peer reviews, if you wish to raise any point with me please contact me via my talkpage. Brianboulton (talk) 17:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)