Talk:Sue v Hill

Forgive My Ignorance But . . .

Shouldn't this be Sue vs Hill? -WarthogDemon 19:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It's my understanding that court cases are "v.", not "vs". As it stands, this page is missing the period after the v. See Brown v. Board of Education for an example. -- RattleMan 19:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Didn't notice that. Odd. Well, thanks for clearing that up for me. ^^; -WarthogDemon 19:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It's "v." (with a period) in the United States; but for Australian cases the WikiProject Australian law has decided to simply follow the Australian Guide to Legal Citation, which uses "v" without a period, and not "v." or "vs". --bainer (talk) 00:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Problems?

I stumbled on this page while looking for something else. After looking at it, I started to add some info and convert some nonworking wikilinks to refs of external material. Doing that, I stumbled across what appear to be problems with this page.

The cite of this case as {{Cite Case AU|CLR|199|462|1999}}, which appears a couple of times in the article, produces a link leading to 404 error for me -- a {{dead link}}. I found what appears to be the transcript of this case here.

The cite of this case as {{Cite Case AU|CLR|217|545|2003}} also produces a link leading to 404 error for me -- a {{dead link}}. I found what appears to be the transcript of this case here. -- Boracay Bill 02:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice if someone could fix this - I don't understand how the case citing thingy works otherwise I'd do it myself! DirectEdge 12:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

On Hold

See assessment here. Miranda 23:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

What is a good article?

Copied from User:Miranda/SuevHill.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.
6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): N/A c (non-free images have fair use rationales): N/A

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

Post Analysis Review Key (only used by reviewer)

Issue addressed

Issue not addressed

GA Review of Sue v Hill

Title

Issue addressed miranda 02:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Should be Sue v. Hill per MOS.

(Note: This is wrong. The full stop is an American convention, and is not used in Australian legal citation. Rebecca (talk) 05:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC))

I researched this and found that the legal name "Sue v Hill" is correct. Miranda 05:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

As Rebecca alludes to, at the WikiProject Australian law we decided to follow the Australian Guide to Legal Citation, which most universities and legal publications in Australia follow, and it doesn't use full stops after the "v" (nor do any other Australian conventions). --bainer (talk) 07:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Lead

Issue not addressed miranda 02:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

-For an article that is less than 32kB, one or two paragraphs is sufficient for the lead.

-Try avoiding using the word "it".

-"The High Court found that, at least for the purposes of section 44(i), the United Kingdom is a foreign power to Australia, and as such the United Kingdom no longer had any legislative, executive or judicial power over Australia." - Run on sentence.

-a candidate: who are we talking about?

-section 44(i): why is this red linked?

Evaluation of Infobox

Issue not addressed miranda 02:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

-I can't access the first citation: (1999) 199 CLR 462.

-Instead of linking with direct links, please provide citations per WP:CITE

-For readers who aren't familiar with law or aren't in Australia, you might want to link what "CJ" and "JJ" means

-Please cite the case opinions, because many may think this is original research

-Section 44 of the Australian Constitution. - redlinked

Background to the case

Issue not addressed miranda 02:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

-Should be "Background" IMHO

Australian independence from the United Kingdom

Issue not addressed miranda 02:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

-One citation for this article. Needs more citations.

-First paragraph: OR. How is it a topic of much debate? Are there news stories confirming this?

Second paragraph: The Imperial Conference of 1926 resulted in the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927, which replaced the single crown of the British Empire with multiple crowns (worn by the same monarch), and also the Balfour Declaration 1926, which granted the Dominions equal status to the United Kingdom.

-Years aren't wikilinked per WP:MOS

-Kind of wordy IMHO. Should be "Act X resulted in Y and Z". People can find out what the acts mean in individual articles.

-Again, citations would be good here

Third paragraph: "However, it was the Australia Act 1986 which finally ended all legal ties between Australia and the United Kingdom.[1]"

-Should be "X did Y" instead of "it was X that did Y" per clarity.

The Act, enacted by the Parliament of Australia at the request of the Parliaments of the states of Australia (and matched by an identical act passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom), ended the ability of the United Kingdom to make laws for Australia, ended the doctrine of repugnancy insofar as it applied to the states, and ended all remaining avenues of appeal to the Privy Council from Australian courts, except for a provision within the Constitution which would allow appeal to the Privy Council with the authorisation of the High Court of Australia.

-Run-on. Parliament of Australia and the Parliaments of the states of Australia? Are these different or are these the same? Should be for the lower court "Australian State Parliaments"

-"ended X, ended Y, and ended Z" should be "ended X, Y, and Z". The exception should be in a separate sentence.

-This section lacks cites.

-"The High Court has repeatedly indicated it will never issue such authorisation." needs to be backed up or deleted per WP:NOR and WP:CRYSTAL

1998 election

Issue not addressed miranda 02:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

-Several run-on sentences

-Terry Sharples - is this going to be a future article?

Sections 2, 3, and 4

Issue not addressed miranda 03:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

-Same issues apply here. Throughout the article, several run-ons. Lack of citations. Years aren't hyperlinked per MOS. Dates are hyperlinked with Month Day, Year, per MOS.

-Quotes: Refs should be at the end of the quote per WP:CITE.

References

Issue not addressed miranda 03:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Cites don't have accessed dates. Fails WP:CITE

Decision

Looking through this article, I would have quick failed. But since it's near Christmas, this article will be placed on hold for seven days. After the elapsed time period, I will re-assess to see if any improvement has been made to the article. miranda 23:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Post-Analysis Decision (1/7/0)

Seven out of eight issues have not been addressed. Thus, this article is not promoted to GA status. miranda 03:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

GA Review: Part Duex, September 2009

GA nomination relocated above.--Grahame (talk) 01:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sue v Hill/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Well-written?

Yes. Mootros (talk) 13:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Factually accurate and verifiable?

Yes. Mootros (talk) 17:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Broad in its coverage?

I have reservations about the broadness of references. In particular, the section called "Judgement" relies entirely only on one references. I include the following link which neatly summaries the judgement especially the difference among the judges. The danger is that this reference is highly technical and should be supported with sound scholarly interpretation where possible.

This could be easily fixed. Upon which I think this article is fit to pass. Mootros (talk) 17:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done I've added the book as the ref where appropriate, no rewording of the article was particularly necessary. 203.206.85.236 (talk) 08:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Confirming change from IP to wiki account Sanguis Sanies (talk) 09:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Neutral?

Yes. Mootros (talk) 17:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Stable?

Yes. Mootros (talk) 14:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Illustrated, if possible, by images?

Yes, one relevant image, with appropriate right. Mootros (talk) 14:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Sue v Hill

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Issues unaddressed; delisting. Hog Farm _Talk 16:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Significant unsourced text. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.