Talk:Managerial prerogative

	Australia portal Managerial prerogative 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 politics (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.

Business High‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by Macwhiz, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on August 29, 2010.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

Unbalanced

This article appears to heavily favor a management point of view. The alternate view from the trade unions is represented by three sentences... that don't even clearly articulate a view. I know this is a very loaded subject, but as the article currently stands I think it is, at best, riding the line of being slanted. // Macwhiz (talk) 00:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Worldwide view

It wasn't until I got to the end of the article that I realized that the author probably intended this article for an Australian audience. It seems to me that one of two things has to happen:

This article needs to be rewritten so that it is clearly about an Australian political topic, and include sufficient context for non-Australians to understand and enjoy the article; or
The article needs to be rewritten to describe a global phenomenon, and clearly delineate and describe how that phenomenon is treated in multiple countries, including Australia, with specifics and context for each country.

The way it's written right now, it's sort of a mess. // Macwhiz (talk) 00:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copy edit

Performed long overdue copy edit. Because this page wasn't written with a strong national tie, I've Americanized the spellings. I updated the references, adding links where possible. I removed several statements that were supported only by brief parenthetical references that could not be verified and were not accompanied by a footnote. As a result, the article is now mostly tied to one reference work. Given the other issues present, and how short the article is, I was this close to suggesting this article for deletion. Perhaps there's some place it could be merged? // Macwhiz (talk) 00:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Managerial prerogative. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:43, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]