Talk:Supreme Court of Justice (Austria)/GA3
GA Review[edit]
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.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Nominator: User23242343 (talk · contribs)
Reviewer: Grnrchst (talk · contribs) 11:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
When I opened this review, I initially thought the article could be brought to GA through some tweaks, but the further I looked into it, the less I thought this article met the good article criteria. As of this nomination, I think this article is still a long way from meeting the criteria and unfortunately qualifies for a quickfail. I will attempt to demonstrate my rationale in some of the notes I collected while reading this:
- I will start off by noting that both the previous GA nomination and FA candidacy brought up a dearth of use of reliable English language sources, despite copious options to choose from in a cursory search of Google Scholar.[1] In particular, two sources were highlighted as substantial contributions to understanding of the supreme court, but I can see that neither have yet been added to the article:
- Ratz, Eckart (2015). "The Supreme Court of Justice of the Republic of Austria". Frontiers of Law in China. Retrieved March 6, 2022.
- Schmitz, Georg (2003). "The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Austria 19181920". Ratio Juris. 16 (2): 240–265. doi:10.1111/1467-9337.00235. ISSN 0952-1917.
- I would also highlight the following source as a potential source of information for this article:
- Liebscher, Christoph (2014). "European Public Policy and the Austrian Supreme Court". Arbitration International. 16 (3): 357–366. doi:10.1023/A:1008924916249.
- The English language sources that are currently integrated into the article aren't cited much, usually only once or twice. This seems like an oddly small amount, especially given the amount of potential information that could be sourced from them. Were there little information about the Supreme Court available in English, such reliance on German sources would make sense, but there's clearly a lot of sources out there, so why aren't we using them?
- This lead section is far too short for an article of this length. At the very least, another full-length paragraph needs to be written for it. Consider checking the manual of style for lead sections and giving it an expansion based on what you feel might be missing. I will note that the lead currently includes very little about the court's powers/responsibilities and nothing at all about its history, so maybe start there.
"While the general courts deal with all civil and criminal cases."
This sentence is currently unsourced, which is odd, considering it previous did cite sources.- It reads very odd that there is an entire dedicated "Miscellany" section for a single sentence about the existence of a library in the courthouse.
- I notice that the history section is largely about the structure and jurisdiction of the court over time, but there is little to nothing about its historical ruling on high-profile cases or how it was used by successive regimes. This is something I'd expect from a history section for a supreme court.
- The First Republic section is very repetitive, just restating that the Supreme Court changed little during certain transitional periods without any more information.
- Why is there no section for contemporary history? It reads very odd that the history section just stops in 1945, because the court's structure wasn't altered from that of the first republic. Is the history of the Supreme Court after 1945 just not worth telling?
In conclusion, I think this article fails to meet the GA criteria 2b and 3a. It is in desperate need of more robust sourcing and I think actually going through some better sources on the subject would end up fulfilling the issues I've found with completeness. There's very big gaps that I would expect to be filled in a good article about a Supreme Court, and there is just no way that these couldn't be through more dedicated sourcing. I would highly recommend going through more English language sources on the subject and adding them in the article; there is no shortage of these, there is just no reason not to be citing more of them and more often. Once the sourcing and completeness issues have been addressed, I would be more than happy to take another look, but I just don't think it's there right now. I wouldn't feel right passing it or even holding it in its current state. Apologies that you've waited so long for this outcome, I do hope you can continue to improve this article and get it to where I know it can be with some more time and effort. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)