Talk:Hollis v Vabu

Hollis v Vabu was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (August 28, 2023, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Australia: Law Low‑importance

	Australia portal Hollis v Vabu is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian law (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Crisis couriers uniformed riders.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:23, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Unsuccessful. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hollis v Vabu/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Voorts (talk · contribs) 02:56, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~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)[reply]

The discussion above 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.