Talk:Australian Fair Work Commission rules that farm workers on piece rate entitled to minimum wage

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Notes for reviewer[edit]

Statement from the FWC about the wage not being fit for purpose can be found on page 4 of the PDF. Organisations for and against can be found on page 2. --LivelyRatification (talk) 23:11, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@LivelyRatification, if no one gets to this by tomorrow, I should have the time take a look at it. Unfortunately, it's just way too late tonight for me to review. —chaetodipus (talk · contribs) 06:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All good, completely get that! Thanks for the help :) LivelyRatification (talk) 06:45, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Review of revision 4649020 [Passed][edit]

Thanks for letting me know - mainly did that because the initial quote was a bit vague (The National Farmers' Federation had opposed the changes, arguing it could drive farmers out of business), so I thought it'd be best to quote directly, but I'll keep that in mind for future! --LivelyRatification (talk) 08:22, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re: only one source[edit]

I've seen this on this and the first published copy of Write-in candidate leads in Buffalo, New York mayor election (regard here), that there is only one independent secondary source being cited for the entire article, the rest being original reporting dredged from either a PDF in this article, or a tweet and results post in the other. While I trust in the journalistic integrity of all active contributors here, it sets a dangerous precedent which I hope to avoid. Note this article includes information pulled from both primary sources (bill, report, commentary by the gov & left-leaning website) and two news organisations (AP & KYMA-DT). --JJLiu112 (talk) 01:49, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's not ideal - while I think that there have been some other articles published on the topic now, at the time I wrote this piece, only the ABC had covered it, and with the Buffalo article, the NYT source had to be removed. In these specific circumstances, I'd say that it was acceptable, but it's certainly something I'd generally like to avoid, so I sympathise with your concerns there. LivelyRatification (talk) 01:56, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In this instance (this article), perhaps it would be better not to publish it at all? I distinctly recall an instance you wrote on something akin to a very niche council decision, I believe a new roof or routine funding allocations, where there was only coverage by one local paper and then the council itself. With all due respect, perhaps if it's an event not worth the time of other journalists across Australia, never mind the world, it would be best not to publish it here? User:Bddpaux writes: "Would a school teacher in Manila care about this? What about a waiter in Sydney or a young mother in Hong Kong?" --JJLiu112 (talk) 02:05, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no, this was an instance where it very much did recieve journalistic coverage, just that these articles had not been published at the time I wrote this. The Guardian, SBS News, and the Financial Review all ended up writing about this issue, as well as a number of local papers. In this specific case I would argue that the issue was quite notable, but I do see your general point. A lack of coverage can often mean a lack of newsworthiness. LivelyRatification (talk) 02:15, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I must apologise. You're so forward-thinking, you are. --JJLiu112 (talk) 02:36, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]