Talk:Qantas Australian airline employees strike for better wages

Review of revision 4802695 [Not ready]

Revision 4802695 of this article has been reviewed by Michael.C.Wright (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 15:41, 23 October 2024 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: Unsourced statements. See below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: I have used {{verify}} as a test on this article. Statements indicated by [Unsourced] require clarification as to where the author sourced the information. Specifically: Neither source indicates Quantas is Australia's largest airline. That statement could be uncontroversially removed, but that would render the article too short to publish. I'm not sure what is meant by "Qantas said they shifted roles..." According to News.com.au, workers were expected to strike in Brisbane but hadn't yet. The last paragraph defines the makeup of the Qantas Engineers Alliance, but our article does not tell us anything more about the Alliance, such as why the reader needs to know about it in the first place. It's only mentioned once in the News.com.au article and it is not clear what their paragraph is trying to say. Specifically, the statement "which comprises of there [emphasis added] AMWU" is odd to me. Is that a typo that should read 'comprises of their AMWU'? I added the 'video' parameter and value to the second source, per {{Source}}. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 4802695 of this article has been reviewed by Michael.C.Wright (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 15:41, 23 October 2024 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: Unsourced statements. See below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: I have used {{verify}} as a test on this article. Statements indicated by [Unsourced] require clarification as to where the author sourced the information. Specifically: Neither source indicates Quantas is Australia's largest airline. That statement could be uncontroversially removed, but that would render the article too short to publish. I'm not sure what is meant by "Qantas said they shifted roles..." According to News.com.au, workers were expected to strike in Brisbane but hadn't yet. The last paragraph defines the makeup of the Qantas Engineers Alliance, but our article does not tell us anything more about the Alliance, such as why the reader needs to know about it in the first place. It's only mentioned once in the News.com.au article and it is not clear what their paragraph is trying to say. Specifically, the statement "which comprises of there [emphasis added] AMWU" is odd to me. Is that a typo that should read 'comprises of their AMWU'? I added the 'video' parameter and value to the second source, per {{Source}}. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

I forgot to mention in the review that our article could briefly explain what an enterprise agreement is and that would certainly help the article reach the minimum word count. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 15:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Reply to review

1. "“Our teams have worked hard to put contingencies in place and we don’t expect the industrial action in Melbourne today to have any impact to customers,” the spokesperson said." is why I wrote 'shifted roles'. I understood if someone is on strike then Qantas allocates another worker from somewhere else to do work required for a flight to happen today. Correct me if I am wrong.

2. The 'Source' things don't go into published article. I presume it is okay to delete them. I deleted them all in article.

3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas says it is the largest. I see it bothers you. I deleted 'largest'. If you're comfortable I can put 'major'.

4. Put 'strike was scheduled to start in brisbane at 1.30pm' to alleviate concerns about whether or not it took place. i did not find any items confirming it occurred.

5. Thanks for leaving me note on my talk page, it generated an email and attracted my attention. Please keep doing this in future for each review of article where I was involved. I will try to configure Notifications (Echo) to also send me emails. Gryllida (talk) 21:24, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Note that I'm rather bad at time zones, please insert manually for now and if there is a template that we can steal from English Wikipedia that generates UTC time zone in parentheses automatically then it would help a lot (at least it would help me). Gryllida (talk) 21:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the above:

1. Contingencies could indeed be strikebreakers or it could be other steps. Rather than assume, I used the generic statement of 'steps were taken.'

2. The {{Verify}} is indeed not meant to be in published articles. But they are useful to leave in the article, to be removed by the reviewer prior to publication, so the reviewer can see what information is sourced from where. The template documentation describes its use.

3. It didn't bother me...it's part of policy, is all.

4. HRD verified this statement. Specific times were not necessary, especially since the source did not clarify which timezone. Maybe a time-conversion template would be handy, but authors would still need to specify in the template which timezone is being reported. Also be careful if copying/pasting templates from en.WP. We have incompatible copyright licenses so I think the individual template of ours would need to be licensed separately. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 16:13, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Review of revision 4802825 [Passed]

Revision 4802825 of this article has been reviewed by Michael.C.Wright (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 15:48, 24 October 2024 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I removed reference to specific times since the two cities are in different time zones and the source articles did not specify to which timezone they were referring. I attributed and cited the source of the strikers chanting in prose, since neither of the text sources used the quote. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 4802825 of this article has been reviewed by Michael.C.Wright (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 15:48, 24 October 2024 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I removed reference to specific times since the two cities are in different time zones and the source articles did not specify to which timezone they were referring. I attributed and cited the source of the strikers chanting in prose, since neither of the text sources used the quote. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.