Talk:Unfair dismissal in Australia/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Vaticidalprophet (talk · contribs) 10:46, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is unfortunately too far from the GA criteria for a full review. Specifically, it clearly fails the breadth criterion for GAs. The article is only 348 words long (plus some bullet points), despite being on a subject with extensive literature and comprising 32 citations alongside two further-readings. There are clearly many available references to build out a GA-quality article that gives an in-depth treatment on this subject; this is not a borderline case where a short article could arguably represent a sparse literature. I recommend expanding the article from the sources before returning to the possibility of quality assessment. Vaticidalprophet 10:46, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What aspects of coverage in those sources, in your view, are missing creating this lack of ‘breadth’?

I’m conscious with legal topics it’s quite important to not get caught in the weeds. There will often be tomes written about a doctrine’s nuances, but such nuances aren’t necessarily encyclopaedic to include.

I don’t think brevity is necessarily a problem if the topic has been addressed in full, albeit at a high-level of discussion.

are you looking for legislative history? political background? prior doctrines at common law?

Thanks Jack4576 (talk) 11:29, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly there does need to be some trimming between "full book" and "encyclopedia article", but currently the article is very sparse on issues like the history of the practice, the political background, high-profile cases if any, etc. The article is not currently at risk of overdetail -- it would be useful to swing further to that direction, even. Vaticidalprophet 23:19, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]