Passed. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 11:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator: MaxnaCarta (talk · contribs) 03:45, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Alexeyevitch (talk · contribs) 12:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I will be reviewing this article soon. I just read this article and I'm happy to review it. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 12:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much @Alexeyevitch, I really appreciate it. Some of my sources are paywalled, anything you need feel free to let me know and I can send it to you via email. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:58, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Feel free to email and add {{ygm}} to talk page. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 09:16, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexeyevitch all done. Thanks. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work. I haven't recivied an email so far regarding unaccessible sources, I am referring to the pages in the sources specifically. I will begin an OR check soon. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 02:35, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexeyevitch which specific sources do you want please, there's a few — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:28, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hemming (2022), p. 57, 74-75, Patrick (2023), pp. 116-118. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 05:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexeyevitch hemming is open access, the reference link goes to the main article page and there is a PDF on that page. Available here. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:42, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I'll be back later today with additional comments. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 23:35, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexeyevitch thanks! Appreciate your time. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So is the second, available here. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have passed some which meet the criteria. I am putting other criteria on hold (for now).

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Suggestion: Why not link Barwon Prison in the lede, Following Pell's release from prison on 7 April 2020, there were various reactions. Pope Francis of the Vatican stated he..., prehaps can be reworded to mention "head of the catholic church" or something. Why not link East Melbourne in the lede? I think it's more relevant than linking the city of Melbourne itself.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	No WtW discovered Lede is concise with content later supported by reliable sources Layout is correct Passed
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Suggestion: add archived URLs. Ref layout is correct. Passing this criteria.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Contains a list references with no issue of reliability. Passed.
	2c. it contains no original research.	I've just verified content in the provided references (1 hr. ago), all good now.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig spots some things of concern: evidence was credible and reliable could be changed to evidence was reliable and credible. choirboys at St. Patrick's Cathedral in East Melbourne after.. prehaps could be reworded. the jury to be satisfied beyond too similar to source. Should be OK.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Passed
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No issues
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No issues of neutrality.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Content is stable, no edit wars etc.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Yes.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Yes.
	7. Overall assessment.	Article is in a great shape. Congrats!

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.

The process of appeal is difficult to understand, so perhaps this might be helpful:

• The High Court has to rule on the legal rational of the Victorian Court of Appeal not the facts themselves. It was not examining from scratch whether Pell was innocent or guilty, but in the first place whether the appeal was judged correctly from the legal viewpoint;
• Having decided that the legal rationale was wrong, then the High Court applied the correct test.
• In applying the correct test, the High Court followed the steps the Appeal Court used to weigh evidence and see whether that logic still held: it could not look at evidence fresh or to Perry Mason what actually happened.
• In the Pell case, there was a lot of "unchallenged" evidence by witnesses at the Cathedral: the High Court found that the Court of Appeal had erred in the way it disregarded that evidence. No matter how credible the alleged victim A was, when there are enough credible eyewitnesses saying it did not or could not happen the way that the prosecution charged, because they were there, then there must be reasonable doubt, it seems.

So, in theory, if the Appeals Court looked at evidence A, B and C and come to some conclusion, then if they have applied the right legal principles then the High Court must allow the decision to stand, even if the High Court judges (had they been the appeal judges) would have come to some other conclusion. But where there has been the wrong legal theory applied then the High Court must plod through the Appeals Court's findings step by step and determine whether applying the right legal principles would make a difference. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 13:56, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have added extra citations and material especially in the new section "The judgment". I was surprised that the article as it was had GA status, as I think (without it being wrong!) it failed to make some basic legal distinctions clearly that legal readers need, nor detail the specific improbabilities that general readers need. Anyway, I think/hope both those things are improved now. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 04:29, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]