Talk:Vicious Lawless Association Disestablishment Act 2013
Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Vicious Lawless Association Disestablishment 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
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
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
All content in this article was checked against the single source appearing, and any content that does not appear in that source (unsourced material) now bears an appropriate inline tag. Based on this review of sources, the article appears in largest part to be text material (including in its extensive quotations) that is drawn directly from the text of the titular Act itself. However, the Act does not currently appear as a reference (only as an external link). The Act citation, as a primary source, and one requiring violation of WP:OR to interpret and use directly, should not simple be added, cosmetically, to remove tags (and certainly not based on presumption as source); rather, secondary sources must be found that support each quoted and unsourced statement.
Hence, as of this date, the article stands as an extensive 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 quoted and factual material without stating its sources. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 14:28, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The lead section of this has so much extra information that is not included in the body of the article that I could almost say that the lead section was missing. I added the Lead extra info clean-up tag, but I could have added a Lead missing tag, instead, considering how bad the lead is. The lead should introduce and summarize an article, not just contain the legislative history of the law concerned. The first sentence should explain why this now superseded legislation is still notable, why it was introduced, repealed and what it achieved while it was law, not just what it was intended to do before being passed. See MOS:LEAD to understand how the lead section should be structured and organized. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 10:31, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=logo}
