Talk:R v Kirby; Ex parte Boilermakers' Society of Australia

Australia: Law Mid‑importance

	Australia portal R v Kirby; Ex parte Boilermakers' Society of Australia 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian law (assessed as Mid-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article contains broken links to one or more target anchors:

[[Australian Constitution#The Judicature|judicial power of the Commonwealth]] The anchor (#The Judicature) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

The anchors may have been removed, renamed, or are no longer valid. Please fix them by following the link above, checking the page history of the target pages, or updating the links.

Remove this template after the problem is fixed | Report an error

Why is this page The Queen v Kirby as opposed to R v Kirby (going by the guidelines on the Wikiproject Australian law page)... Enochlau 11:31, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment

I've assessed this as C-Class, because it has all the B-Class criteria, except "1. The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited." There are a couple of sub-sections that lack inline citations. For that reason only, I felt that it doesn't really fit the GA assessment of User:Nettrom/sandbox/WikiProject Law stub predictions, but it's close to a B-Class. Discuss. Bearian (talk) 05:11, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]