Talk:House v The King

Question

If this case has the "second highest number of citations among High Court cases", shouldn't this article be longer? A case with such a high number of citations must surely be quite important. Looking at the articles within Category:GA-Class Australian law articles, the articles there are quite a bit longer and don't consist of such a high proportion of quotes. Idk if I will review this GAN. I'm not an expert in this subject matter. These are just the things I could see as a non-expert in Australian law. Steelkamp (talk) 08:42, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I generally aim to keep entries as concise as possible, while covering all the important aspects

I don't think there's necessarily any relationship between a case's number of citations and the length required to explain it as a subject encyclopedic-ally. Some cases, of which this is an example, are only known for small extracts of principle; and aren't really discussed in any other context

Happy to hear alternative views Jack4576 (talk) 09:02, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

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.

---

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

Reviewer: Premeditated Chaos (talk · contribs) 02:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Not counting the lengthy quote in the judgement section or the 5-point list of errors, this article is only 355 words. I cannot believe that such an apparently notable case, with so many citations in other cases, can be broadly covered in less than 400 words. For example, the article bluntly states "The law regarding appeals of sentences has developed in complexity since House v. The King." - In what way? How did House tie into that?

On top of that, the sourcing is significantly beneath what I would expect for such a notable case. We cite the self-published Wordpress website of a defence barrister in NSW - what qualifies him as a subject matter expert? (Not every person working in a given field is necessarily a SME) The paper cited concludes with "I am available every day should you require further assistance", which is curious - was it written as a personal letter? The Judicial Commission is reliable, but it's primary. The Edmonds source appears to be a Masters thesis (Under WP:SCHOLARSHIP, see "Dissertations" for why we prefer to avoid those). The Federal Court source is again primary. What I would expect in a properly-sourced article on this kind of topic would be independent analysis by legal scholars on its significance and impact.

The article cannot meet the GACR in its current state, and will need much more work to be able to do so. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:13, 17 August 2023 (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.

Thank you for your time User:Premeditated Chaos. Federal court judgements are secondary sources when they discuss cases, not primary sources. This is a common misconception.

I accept the remainder of your evaluation. I doubt such "independent analysis by legal scholars on its significance and impact" exists, (based on my Austlii searches and google scholar searches), and thus it is impossible for me to improve this article to the state you insist upon. In the absence of further suggestions for improvement I intend to give up on this page, as under your evaluation I think it would be impossible to bring this to GA. :

Additionally, I think it problematic to describe the Judicial commission as "primary" to the subject of this article. In what sense is an independent judicial body a 'primary' source for a decades old decision of the High Court? I don't understand.

Kind regards Jack4576 (talk) 08:57, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Jack4576, I'm willing to accept that I was incorrect with regards to labelling some of the sources, but other source-based objections still stand, including the use of a Masters thesis, which is a larger problem. On top of that, the substance of my objection was the content of the article, which is incredibly skimpy for something that presents itself as a significant legal case. Almost the entire judgement section is a large quote in legalese. Not summarizing it misses the point of having a Wikipedia article - for the laypeople for whom this kind of legal language may be difficult to parse. There's the bald statement about how the law has evolved, with no explanation as to how House ties into that. I have no idea whether or not there's enough sourcing to make it expandable, but in its current state, it isn't broad. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Premeditated Chaos I said I accept the remainder of your evaluation.

Regarding the article's content, I don't think an article on a significant legal case need be long. It is possible for an important case to only be narrowly applied, and for only small parts of it to be relevant. This is one such case. Aside from aspects noted within 'significance', there is scant little else to this subject that is relevantly encyclopedic.

I disagree that the quote is 'legalese'. It contains legal language, sure, but I don't think it amounts to legalese. It reads to me as a relatively straightforward and self-explanatory quote. Its also a very important quote, as its the part of this judgement that the case is known and cited for. Hardly any other paragraphs within the judgement of this subject remain relevant to the modern reader. The facts of the case, for example, aren't really relevant at all. Hence their perfunctory inclusion only.

Regarding how the law has evolved, and 'how House ties into that'; I don't know what you mean by 'ties into', or what is needed to be explained in that regard.

Regarding this article being insufficiently 'broad', I think its important to remember that the subject of this article is the case itself, not Australian decision-making, and not Australian sentencing generally. I don't see how it'd be possible to expand this article without undue inclusion of off-topic information.

Regardless, I'm happy with the article in its current state and don't have much intention to make any alterations. Other editors are free to do so based on your feedback, if they accept it and so wish. I think I'd rather dedicate my time to other efforts. I respectfully disagree with the importance of some of the points you've raised; although some of the others are certainly defensible and valid. Thank you for your time in any case. Jack4576 (talk) 14:58, 17 August 2023 (UTC)