Talk:Australian constitutional law

Australian constitutional law was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 29, 2005	Good article nominee	Listed
September 18, 2007	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

Australia: Law C‑class Mid‑importance

	Australia portal Australian constitutional law is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian law (assessed as Mid-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Huh?

Latitudinarian? Read down? What the hell do these words mean? I can't figure out the meaning. What do these words mean? 07:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

From a quick review of various online dictionaries, the most suitable explanation is as follows:

Latitudinarian: "A person who is broad-minded and tolerant; one who displays freedom in thinking"

As for "Read down", from what I gather of other usage, it implies an interpretation that is not as strong or far-reaching as what may be allowed by a literal interpretation. Tzarius (talk) 12:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Raptnula Master of Constitutional Law University of Queensland - NOT factual information - must be changed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.172.49.90 (talk) 02:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA status reviewed — delisted

In order to uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. Unfortunately, as of September 18, 2007, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAC. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GA/R.

This article is well written, but has problems with sources and citations. It actually contains only two inline citations and is incompatible with p.2(a-b) of good artilce criteria. The article even contains {{Unreferenced}} tag in the References.

In addition the artilce has a "Conclusion" section, which may be appropriate for a research artilce, but not for the encyclopedia (see WP:LAYOUT). So I decided to delist it boldly. Ruslik 12:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dietrich Decision

I think that the case "Dietrich v. The Queen" and the resulting interpretation of the constitution deserves a mention under implied rights. The case established that a lawyer is required for a fair trial and reaffirmed that a fair trial is an established right. This is an important right and (I believe) largely applied by courts as a means of ensuring legal aid funding for accused person's in dire straights (read: broke).

What do others think? The case did not establish that an accused has a right to a lawyer at public expense but it did in effect require that the accused be provided with one (quite a backwards way of putting things).

The Wikipedia article on the Dietrich Decision mentions "implied rights" in the opening paragraph and the relative lack of cases in this section of the article may warrant its inclusion, even if only for discussion purposes.

124.169.225.156 (talk) 11:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

This article has only 2 references. I think it also includes a lot of original research. It should eather be improved with rferences or removed.--Mnh123 (talk) 22:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It most certainly looks that way - almost like this is an entire essay; the "Conclusion" section being a dead give-away. I am also concerned about the way the article tries to reference itself (e.g. phrasing such as "in this article, blah blah"). I will try and cite what I can, and hopefully get some assistance with cleaning up the original research and style of prose. Jwoodger (talk) 03:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]