 | Fair Work Ombudsman v Quest South Perth is currently a Law good article nominee. Nominated by — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) at 23:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC) An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria. Further reviews are welcome from any editor who has not contributed significantly to this article (or nominated it), and can be added to the review page, but the decision whether or not to list the article as a good article should be left to the first reviewer. Short description: 2015 judgment of the High Court of Australia |
 | A fact from Fair Work Ombudsman v Quest South Perth appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 29 January 2024 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by
Rjjiii
talk
09:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- ... that in
Fair Work Ombudsman v Quest South Perth, the High Court of Australia found the use of a labour-hire company to deprive employees of minimum entitlements constituted a sham? Source:
https://www.smh.com.au/business/small-business/high-court-finds-quest-engaged-in-sham-contracting-mischief-20151203-gle1fe.html
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Letter to the American people
- Comment: * I am very welcome to suggestions for a different hook. The facts in summary are: a hotel tried to convince three employees to sign an agreement to work as contractors. This deprived them of their minimum entitlements. This sort of arrangement is called 'sham contracting' in australia. I do not love my hook. Proposed amendments welcome.
- QPQ Template:Did you know nominations/Letter to the American people
Moved to mainspace by MaxnaCarta ( talk). Self-nominated at 22:50, 3 December 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Fair Work Ombudsman v Quest South Perth; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
- Not a review but a potential alt hook:
- ALT1: ... that an Australian High Court case found a hotel chain to have used third-party contractors to avoid paying employees their required benefits? ––– GMH Melbourne ( talk) 12:26, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks! I prefer this hook. —
MaxnaCarta (
💬 •
📝 )
08:24, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
-
New enough, long enough. ALT1 short enough, interesting, and sourced AGF; might be worth naming the case but I'll let the prepbuilder decide that. Every paragraph ends with a cite. No neutrality issues found, no maintenance templates found, no valid copyright complaints. QPQ done. Let's roll.--
Laun
chba
ller
09:35, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
-
- Thanks! I prefer this hook. —
MaxnaCarta (
💬 •
📝 )
08:24, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- 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)
Reviewer: KwanFlakes ( talk · contribs) 12:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- Not a problem. Thank you. Ping me when you need some action. Cheers. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 10:50, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Hi @MaxnaCarta, thanks again for your patience. See comments below. KwanFlakes ( talk) 08:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
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)
”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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
- 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)
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)
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)
- @ KwanFlakes thank you, I will action. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
- It is reasonably well written.
- 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.
- a (
reference section):
- 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.
- a (
major aspects):
- 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.
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have
non-free use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
- Good article nominees
- Good article nominees on review
- Wikipedia Did you know articles
- C-Class law articles
- Low-importance law articles
- WikiProject Law articles
- C-Class Australia articles
- Low-importance Australia articles
- C-Class Australian law articles
- Low-importance Australian law articles
- WikiProject Australian law articles
- WikiProject Australia articles
| Fair Work Ombudsman v Quest South Perth is currently a Law good article nominee. Nominated by — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) at 23:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC) An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria. Further reviews are welcome from any editor who has not contributed significantly to this article (or nominated it), and can be added to the review page, but the decision whether or not to list the article as a good article should be left to the first reviewer. Short description: 2015 judgment of the High Court of Australia |
|
| A fact from Fair Work Ombudsman v Quest South Perth appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 29 January 2024 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| |
|
| This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by
Rjjiii
talk
09:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- ... that in
Fair Work Ombudsman v Quest South Perth, the High Court of Australia found the use of a labour-hire company to deprive employees of minimum entitlements constituted a sham? Source:
https://www.smh.com.au/business/small-business/high-court-finds-quest-engaged-in-sham-contracting-mischief-20151203-gle1fe.html
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Letter to the American people
- Comment: * I am very welcome to suggestions for a different hook. The facts in summary are: a hotel tried to convince three employees to sign an agreement to work as contractors. This deprived them of their minimum entitlements. This sort of arrangement is called 'sham contracting' in australia. I do not love my hook. Proposed amendments welcome.
- QPQ Template:Did you know nominations/Letter to the American people
Moved to mainspace by MaxnaCarta ( talk). Self-nominated at 22:50, 3 December 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Fair Work Ombudsman v Quest South Perth; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
- Not a review but a potential alt hook:
- ALT1: ... that an Australian High Court case found a hotel chain to have used third-party contractors to avoid paying employees their required benefits? ––– GMH Melbourne ( talk) 12:26, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks! I prefer this hook. —
MaxnaCarta (
💬 •
📝 )
08:24, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
-
New enough, long enough. ALT1 short enough, interesting, and sourced AGF; might be worth naming the case but I'll let the prepbuilder decide that. Every paragraph ends with a cite. No neutrality issues found, no maintenance templates found, no valid copyright complaints. QPQ done. Let's roll.--
Laun
chba
ller
09:35, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
-
- Thanks! I prefer this hook. —
MaxnaCarta (
💬 •
📝 )
08:24, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- 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)
Reviewer: KwanFlakes ( talk · contribs) 12:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- Not a problem. Thank you. Ping me when you need some action. Cheers. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 10:50, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Hi @MaxnaCarta, thanks again for your patience. See comments below. KwanFlakes ( talk) 08:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
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)
”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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
- 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)
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)
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)
- @ KwanFlakes thank you, I will action. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
- It is reasonably well written.
- 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.
- a (
reference section):
- 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.
- a (
major aspects):
- 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.
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have
non-free use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
- Good article nominees
- Good article nominees on review
- Wikipedia Did you know articles
- C-Class law articles
- Low-importance law articles
- WikiProject Law articles
- C-Class Australia articles
- Low-importance Australia articles
- C-Class Australian law articles
- Low-importance Australian law articles
- WikiProject Australian law articles
- WikiProject Australia articles