CFMMEU v Personnel Contracting Pty Ltd has been listed as one of the
Social sciences and society good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: May 16, 2023. ( Reviewed version). |
A fact from CFMMEU v Personnel Contracting Pty Ltd appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 25 November 2022 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The result was: promoted by
Kavyansh.Singh (
talk)
07:37, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Created by MaxnaCarta ( talk). Self-nominated at 03:54, 23 October 2022 (UTC).
Policy compliance:
Hook eligibility:
QPQ: Done. |
Overall:
A QPQ isn't needed. I think that the hook should have "an independent contractor" rather than just "a contractor". I also don't see where it says in the article that it's the "first judgement".
SL93 (
talk)
15:19, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
@ Goldsztajn I hope you are well! I note that you indicated you would be happy to review another GA nomination someday! I thought I would let you know that this is my next GA goal. However, I won't be nominating for quite a while. It probably needs at least 50% more text, a picture or two, and a thorough proofread before I formally submit. If, and only if, you feel like it, please do have a skim and raise any red flags you can find. However, before submitting and making you do all the finding, I will be assessing every line against the feedback you provided in Dietrich, and so hopefully all the improvements you identified in the last can be made by me this time. There is the added benefit that I wrote this from scratch and no one else has significantly given input - so organisation and structure is much easier than the last which was a jumble of different texts I was not the contributor of. My aim is that you have to give as little feedback as possible in the next review, not because I do not want it, but because as the nominator I feel I should need less and less handholding and to get become more independent at writing - not all GA reviewers will be prepared to dedicate as much time to a review as you did the first. MaxnaCarta ( talk) 00:19, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
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 |
Reviewer: Tamzin ( talk · contribs) 23:48, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|
Beginning this today or tomorrow. @ MaxnaCarta: See Talk:Joseph (art model)/GA1 for an example of my GAN approach, and please let me know if anything about that doesn't work for you. -- Tamzin cetacean needed (she|they|xe) 23:48, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
:)
See below for a final thought on Jamsek. --
Tamzin
cetacean needed (she|they|xe)
21:20, 16 May 2023 (UTC)In conjunction with the CFMMEU who acted as his union representative,— either a comma after "CFMMEU" or put "who ... representative" between parentheses or dashes.
of the [[Fair Work Act 2009|''Fair Work Act 2009'' (Cth).]]
— is the period part of the act's name? If not, move outside parens.The shift in the High Court's treatment of employment relationships meant the approach would not be to treat the construction of employment contracts like any other
people engaged as independent contractors have been done so incorrectly— ?
Only a few sources here, so I'll check them all. Using sources present as of Special:Permalink/1154806643. = verifies. "verifies, but". = minor verification issue. = nontrivial verification issue.
Uncited:
Chief Justice Allsop and Justice Lee questioned the idea of allowing unskilled workers to be paid as contractors at less than the minimum wage employees are entitledmay be slightly too close a paraphrasing of
The Chief Justice of Australia’s Federal Court has questioned the law that allows unskilled workers to be paid as contractors at less than industry minimum wages[1]. Could you rephrase please?
queried paying unskilled workers paid as independent contractors less than the wage to which employees are entitled, but pointed out they couldn't deviate from precedent
CFMMEU v Personnel Contracting Pty Ltd has been listed as one of the
Social sciences and society good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: May 16, 2023. ( Reviewed version). |
A fact from CFMMEU v Personnel Contracting Pty Ltd appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 25 November 2022 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The result was: promoted by
Kavyansh.Singh (
talk)
07:37, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Created by MaxnaCarta ( talk). Self-nominated at 03:54, 23 October 2022 (UTC).
Policy compliance:
Hook eligibility:
QPQ: Done. |
Overall:
A QPQ isn't needed. I think that the hook should have "an independent contractor" rather than just "a contractor". I also don't see where it says in the article that it's the "first judgement".
SL93 (
talk)
15:19, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
@ Goldsztajn I hope you are well! I note that you indicated you would be happy to review another GA nomination someday! I thought I would let you know that this is my next GA goal. However, I won't be nominating for quite a while. It probably needs at least 50% more text, a picture or two, and a thorough proofread before I formally submit. If, and only if, you feel like it, please do have a skim and raise any red flags you can find. However, before submitting and making you do all the finding, I will be assessing every line against the feedback you provided in Dietrich, and so hopefully all the improvements you identified in the last can be made by me this time. There is the added benefit that I wrote this from scratch and no one else has significantly given input - so organisation and structure is much easier than the last which was a jumble of different texts I was not the contributor of. My aim is that you have to give as little feedback as possible in the next review, not because I do not want it, but because as the nominator I feel I should need less and less handholding and to get become more independent at writing - not all GA reviewers will be prepared to dedicate as much time to a review as you did the first. MaxnaCarta ( talk) 00:19, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
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 |
Reviewer: Tamzin ( talk · contribs) 23:48, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|
Beginning this today or tomorrow. @ MaxnaCarta: See Talk:Joseph (art model)/GA1 for an example of my GAN approach, and please let me know if anything about that doesn't work for you. -- Tamzin cetacean needed (she|they|xe) 23:48, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
:)
See below for a final thought on Jamsek. --
Tamzin
cetacean needed (she|they|xe)
21:20, 16 May 2023 (UTC)In conjunction with the CFMMEU who acted as his union representative,— either a comma after "CFMMEU" or put "who ... representative" between parentheses or dashes.
of the [[Fair Work Act 2009|''Fair Work Act 2009'' (Cth).]]
— is the period part of the act's name? If not, move outside parens.The shift in the High Court's treatment of employment relationships meant the approach would not be to treat the construction of employment contracts like any other
people engaged as independent contractors have been done so incorrectly— ?
Only a few sources here, so I'll check them all. Using sources present as of Special:Permalink/1154806643. = verifies. "verifies, but". = minor verification issue. = nontrivial verification issue.
Uncited:
Chief Justice Allsop and Justice Lee questioned the idea of allowing unskilled workers to be paid as contractors at less than the minimum wage employees are entitledmay be slightly too close a paraphrasing of
The Chief Justice of Australia’s Federal Court has questioned the law that allows unskilled workers to be paid as contractors at less than industry minimum wages[1]. Could you rephrase please?
queried paying unskilled workers paid as independent contractors less than the wage to which employees are entitled, but pointed out they couldn't deviate from precedent