# Talk:Zali Steggall

I think the above GA review was a bit bizarre. The reviewer suggested text (which was adopted) saying that Julian Assange faced extradition to the US over "publishing rights"!!! Clearly it was on charges of espionage. Publishing rights makes zero sense. I doubt the reviewer had any idea about Australia's electoral system. And as to NPOV, it is clear that so-called editors continue to snidely insert information that in their petty worldview will harm Steggall. It is clear that this has continued since 2019 and in all likelihood will continue because she is such a bugbear for the hapless Liberals. For my part I will continue to read the article closely to stop any of this poisonous bias seeping into the prose. For the record, I have never voted for Steggall and probably never would. I edit this article because I have a personal interest in the subject and I enjoy catching ferrets. Jack Upland (talk) 05:54, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

@Jack Upland, if you have concerns about the GA review process then perhaps nominating it for a GA reassessment may be in order. I'm sure if it is nominated for reassessment that there would be editors willing to improve the quality. TarnishedPathtalk 06:12, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
I don't think there's any need for that. I just think that we need to comb the article for any inaccuracies and not rest on the laurels of the GA. I mean, that reference to Assange was completely egregious. And this was suggested by the reviewer!!! I'm also not happy about the description of the elections results. All we need to say is what margin she won by. The details are unnecessary, and the way they are presented is confusing if not downright misleading. I think the only reason we have the results in such detail is that an editor previously tried to say she got in on Labor preferences even though no source says that (see above). This kind of editing is not neutral and is not encyclopedic. I also recently removed a reference to the "Climate 200-funded teal movement" on the grounds that the sentence was ungrammatical and anachronistic. I could have also said it was not neutral. We already mention Climate 200. We don't need to mention it multiple times. We also mention other funding sources, so the assertion that Steggall is dependent on Climate 200 funds makes no sense. The accusations made by witch-hunters often disintegrate under the strain of their internal contradictions and collapse under the weight of their biased expectations. But none of this crap belongs in a Wikipedia article. Getting another ignorant bureaucrat to review the handiwork of the previous ignorant bureaucrat will achieve nothing except coat the article with another layer of crap. The answer lies with us, people who are Australian, or who know and care about Australia, who have some modicum of understanding of Australia's electoral system, who are unbiased enough to see that though Steggall might not be the world's greatest politician, she is not an overweight nude model, she is no more compromised by her funding sources than any other politician in Australia, and her greatest crime in the eyes of her detractors is that she took Tony Abbott's seat off him and inspired other women to follow her lead and has therefore been — now in 2025 — one of the architects of the greatest defeats the Liberal Party of Australia has ever seen. So I will continue, alone or with assistance, to improve this article, despite the pernicious interference of the Wikipedian hierarchy.--Jack Upland (talk) 17:30, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
I've got the article on my watchlist, so if I see any of what you've mentioned above I'll rectify it. TarnishedPathtalk 22:02, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Good.Jack Upland (talk) 01:28, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

It is correct that she doesn't have a law degree. This bio says she has a diploma of law: [1] Jack Upland (talk) 03:54, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Exactly what I thought. Maybe you could add that link. Errantios (talk) 04:22, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
How did you know?--Jack Upland (talk) 05:19, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
Admission as a solicitor in any Australian state or territory ordinarily requires (a) an Australian law degree plus some legal-professional studies or (b) a legal-professional diploma.  Since she did not have (a), presumably she had (b), which you have found to be the case. Errantios (talk) 12:10, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
I meant how did you know she didn't have a law degree?--Jack Upland (talk) 02:03, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
Only a BA is in the infobox. Errantios (talk) 11:04, 12 September 2025 (UTC)