This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency 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 Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations 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.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
@Skyring: I noticed that you removed the criticism section in this edit. As far as I can tell, the news sources seem reliable as meeting WP:EVENTCRIT due to having national significance and multiple analyses and re-analyses. Coverage from larger news organisations is not necessary according to WP:NEWSORG as Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics, and a significant part of the criticism was towards the legal and medical [1] (ie. scholarly or high-quality non-scholarly) aspects of AHPRA policy. This is in addition to the news sources I used. The section as I wrote it was there to indicate that news sources have reported on criticism of the AHPRA innerworkings, and in response to that criticism multiple senate inquiries have been held. I think multiple senate inquiries being held, along with the fact that they are discussed in the sources, meets notability requirements for inclusion. I am also inclined to believe reporting from well known organisations like the RACGP is a reliable source on this matter([2]).
Here are some that discuss the senate inquiries that were in the article prior to your edit:[3][4]. Here are some other reliable secondary sources I have found that could also be included regarding coverage of the senate inquiries: [5][6][7][8]. There are also plenty of senate inquiry submissions which I did not include and indicate significant coverage from independent sources to the notability of the senate inquiries themselves.
As per WP:ATD, would you be able to help me in rescuing the content, such as adding these citations, adding an issue tag to provide editors like myself notice, or looking for other coverage sources—there are plenty—rather than deleting the whole section? Thanks Darcyisverycute (talk) 08:05, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
Feel free to restore your text. Make cut and paste your friend but if someone hasn't said what we claim then it cannot remain. We need good secondary sources. Primary sources typically require analysis on the part of the reader and while they may have their uses, things like government documents are typically dense and limited in any definite statements. Things like blogs or political opinion sites are of little use here where we are trying to observe NPOV. Basically, if a reliable secondary source hasn't stated what we claim then one is entitled to ask, why not? --Pete (talk) 10:56, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
The sourcing still sucks. If we are giving this much space to criticism, how come mainstream media entirelyn missed the story? --Pete (talk) 22:24, 10 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
.svg){kind=logo}
