Talk:Hollis v Vabu/GA1
GA Review
[edit]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 |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Voorts (talk · contribs) 02:56, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Starting review.
I am quick-failing this nomination because it is a long way from meeting criteria 2 and 3. In particular, the article is not broad in its coverage because it does not adequately discuss the significance of the case and because the sources currently cited for the proposition that the case is significant are inadequate. There appear to be three claims of significance in the article, each with some problems:
Hollis v Vabu has been cited over 832 times according to LawCite, placing it among the top 200 most cited decisions of the High Court.
The source cited is dated as being accessed in 2020, links to a dynamic search page, and does not actually state either of the two facts in the article sentence.- Citation to a Fair Work Commission opinion on the gig work economy. The sources cited are the case itself, and a link to an ABC article that does not mention Hollis.
The decision will be of importance to legal claims soon to be brought against the Australian arms of Deliveroo and Uber.
The article cited to does not discuss Hollis.
As Wikipedia has a preference for secondary sources, I'd recommend looking for some articles in law reviews that discuss the significance of the case. To be broad in its coverage, the article also needs to have at least some examples of RSes that discuss the case in significant detail. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)