Talk:Tattoo Parlours Act 2013

Australia: Queensland / Law Low‑importance

	Australia portal Tattoo Parlours Act 2013 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 Queensland (assessed as Low-importance).
	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, or the State Library of Queensland.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography 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.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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.

Edits of this date

All content in this article was checked against the sources appearing, and any content that did not appear in those sources (unsourced material) now bears an appropriate inline tag. Based on this review of sources, the article appears in large part to be text material drawn directly from the text of the titular Act itself. However, the Act did not appear as a reference (only as an external link), and at one point it was added (to avoid leaving a factual point unsupported). The Act citation, as a primary source, requires violation of WP:OR to interpret and use directly, and so should not simply be added further, cosmetically, to remove tags (and certainly not be added as a presumed source); rather, secondary sources must be found that support each quoted and unsourced statement.

Hence, as of this date, the article appears to stands as a further example of editor {{original research}} through its direct use and interpretation of a primary legislative source, and one that repeatedly violates WP:VERIFY by presenting factual material without stating its sources. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 14:28, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]