This review is transcluded from Talk:Fair Work Ombudsman v Quest South Perth/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: MaxnaCarta (talk · contribs) 23:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: KwanFlakes (talk · contribs) 12:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Picking up and beginning this review. Thank you for improving and expanding this article @MaxnaCarta. Since I am still new to GA reviewing an experienced reviewer will also be taking a look. I should have some initial comments in the next 48 hours. KwanFlakes (talk) 12:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay @MaxnaCarta, I’ve had a couple of major things come up this week so will be unable to get to this properly until after the weekend. Thanks for your patience! KwanFlakes (talk) 15:02, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. Thank you. Ping me when you need some action. Cheers. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 10:50, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@KwanFlakes, appreciate your help. All feedback has been actioned. Thanks! — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:03, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the work you've done @MaxnaCarta. I've made a few more minor changes and am ready for another reviewer to do a double-check. You should receive another update once that process is complete. Not long now! KwanFlakes (talk) 06:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@KwanFlakes thanks! Yes, it’s always worth having another editor take a look if you are unsure. Appreciate your work. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:15, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @MaxnaCarta, thanks again for your patience. See comments below.KwanFlakes (talk) 08:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the first paragraph of the Background section it is unclear whether the prohibition is contained in div 6 or s 357. While I can see from the legislation that all of div 6 (ss 357–359) relates to this, it could be good to clarify.KwanFlakes (talk) 08:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is part 3, division 6. Within which, is section 357. I re-wrote this to state: Section 357 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) prohibits an employer from misrepresenting employment as an independent contracting arrangement — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:06, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

”Protections, rights, and conditions” is a little vague, especially after what appears to be a similar sentence in the lead. I feel that it could be worth going into a little more detail about the NES here.KwanFlakes (talk) 08:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added: This would include the provisions within the National Employment Standards, a set of eleven minimum entitlements for employees in Australia, in addition to the minimum wage. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:09, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the second paragraph of the Background section, {{tq|“with the benefit of this being that they would be no longer entitled to the protections, rights, and conditions of Australian labour laws” seems to say that they would be stripped of all protections as contractors, as opposed to most of them. Perhaps reword to clarify.KwanFlakes (talk) 08:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, changed to "most". You are correct. Even contractors are entitled to certain protections. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:10, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Similar issue to the above with the line “without disclosing the disadvantages of losing their workplace rights” in the next paragraph, though less concerned with this instance than the other. Still likely worth rewording or reworking somehow.KwanFlakes (talk) 08:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

nice pickup, changed to employee entitlements. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:10, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure how necessary or widespread definition markers like “(the Act)”, “(the Ombudsman)”, “(the Federal Court)”, or “(High Court)” are, especially as only one of each of these is referred to throughout.KwanFlakes (talk) 08:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stops me repeating "The Fair Work act 2009 or Fair Work Ombudsman, or The Federal Court of Australia, over and over. The markers are less for definition, and more an abbreviation of sorts to keep the overall word count lower and the text clearer. Happy to change if you foresee their use as a barrier. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:12, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had a concern about Bromberg J being referred to in text by the nickname “Mordy” rather than “Mordecai”, however I can see that that’s oddly the name of his page on the wiki, so I guess it doesn’t matter? Seems a bit odd to me.KwanFlakes (talk) 08:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it might actually be best to refer to the judges only by their surname anyway, as is the case in Dietrich v The Queen. There the full names are listed in the infobox but references to judges in-text are only by surname. KwanFlakes (talk) 08:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are thorough, nice pickup. First names removed — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:13, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be worth either renaming the section titled “Federal Court case” to something like “Federal Court case and first appeal” or “Federal Court cases”? Splitting the section into two seems like an option, but they would be very short. I feel that this is necessary to clearly delineate the case history in the article.KwanFlakes (talk) 08:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be better for the FW Act be linked in the lead first, instead of the Background section.KwanFlakes (talk) 08:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@KwanFlakes thank you, I will action. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actioned — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:01, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I can take a look at this article. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 07:03, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:56, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After re-reading the article a few times, I will have to say it is very well written. All sources are reliable, no neutrality issues, no copyright issues, stable, fairly broad without going into unnecessary detail. I agree with many of KwanFlake’s copyedits. I will say that independent contractor should be linked the first time it appears in the background second and unlink the second time it appears. Also add some more links in the lead (labor hire, independent contractors, full bench). Also link Chief Justice French in the last section. Other than that, I wonder would it be possible to include some sort of “reactions” section in the article? Such a section is quite common in these types of articles. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 15:23, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MaxnaCarta any progress on these comments? Hoping to get this GA review finalised soon. KwanFlakes (talk) 15:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @KwanFlakes, will get this done by 10pm AEST 8/8. Sorry, work's been mental. Ty so much. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d I have actioned the links. I actually don't know of any significant coverage where the reactions were covered. Hoping the article as it stands meets the core standards to pass GA. Thanks to both! — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fine with me. @KwanFlakes, unless you have further comments, feel free to close this review! Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 08:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d and @KwanFlakes I would like to thank both of you very much for your time. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Overall well-written and close to meeting this requirement. See comments provided above.
   Happy with the changes made and content that this criterion has now been met.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Spot check of references: 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 10, 11. All good. NOR complied with. Copyvio shows 45.9% but I'm satisfied that it has only picked up quotes also published elsewhere, and no copyright violation has occurred.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Provides a good overview and sticks to the topic, placing a good balance of emphasis on the background, first case, and appeals.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Does not place undue weight on either argument, placing proper emphasis on the facts and outcome without taking a side.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   One public domain image and one licensed under CC. Caption is suitable.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: