h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A540703
(Gee I wish this could be the shorter h2g2.com version...)

Here's my latest entry, on constitutional interpretation in Australia. I wrote it for my legal history course.

I'm a bit worried about the number of footnotes (~40) but they are all necessary references. What is the h2g2 policy on this, could any scout or sub tell me? What *must* be referenced, and what can be left out.

Also on a formatting issue, should the blockquotes be formatted any differently? I used the GuideML tag, but some of the guide entries are italicised, too. Just wondering.

Anyway, tell me what you think...

Cheers,
Rob.

This entry seems a triffle long. Perhaps it should be split into multiple entries, each dealing with a major policy shift, or time period. this would also mean that forums would be more tightly focused, and the number of footnotes per entry would automatically reduce. but I will leave this chioce entirely up to you.

This is an excellent entry in terms of content and thoroughness.

My main concern is that is dives in quite abruptly to a fairly involved topic. I'd like to know more about the constitution of Australia itself before reading this splendid article about its interpretation, probably as a separate article but one which would be referenced from this one. For instance, what are the basic structures provided for - of the parliament, the role of the Queen and Governor-General, all that jazz. Maybe this is running, and I'm not clear on the walking yet.

Has this article been written for the Guide or is it an essay (for instance) written for a course? Of course, as long as you wrote the essay it can still be published here too - but it's worth thinking about the difference between writing for a general audience and writing an essay to show your examiner that you've understood a section of a Political Studies course.

I'll repeat, though, that it's an admirable piece of writing. Just dificult to read without a run-up

GVI

Yes, it is an essay... I've been trying to post all my essays, because that saves me writing whole new entries... but I am a bit concerned because of the depth and length etc. of that type of writing.

I have a shorter, lighter piece giving the history of the High Court that I will post soon. It's probably more relevant...

But since I haven't yet taken Constitutional Law, I don't feel confident in writing an entry on it...

Perhaps adding a link to an off-site copy of the document? What do you think...?

Thanks for reading,
Rob.

OK, here's a link to the other entry's thread: http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/F48874?thread=110920&post=953333#p953333 Cheers, Rob.

typo: 'Constititional' in the Header should be 'Constitutional'

An article with 41 footnotes /is/ something heavy, and the quotes (Deakin v Webb (1904) etc) within the text don't make it an easy read , nor do they mean anything to me as a non-Australian non-lawyer. Would be different you could just point out what the bottom line in these cases was!

Anyway, these are my 2pence, and you may come back on me if I ever should get around to write something about High Pulse Repetition Frequency Air Surveillance Radars or the like

Hey Rob ---

Are you still wanting to pursue Peer Review with this entry?


Mikey

I guess not, Mikey, I have another, more suitable entry on the topic now.

I like this, pity you dont want to pursue it. When are you going to put A545050 up for review ?

Too late... it's been reccommended already!

kewl

So what are we going to do with this thread now? Move it back to the entry perhaps?

I suppose you could move it to the entry. That way people know it was pulled from Peer Review because there's another one on the same topic, etc.

Editorial Note: This conversation has been moved from 'Peer Review' to 'Constititional Interpretation in Australia'.