Talk:Australian Building Codes Board

Australia Low‑importance

	Australia portal Australian Building Codes Board 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	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.

Architecture Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture 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.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Organizations Low‑importance

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

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.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by BorgQueen (talk) 02:28, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that the Australian Building Codes Board, the body responsible for writing the National Construction Code, was criticised for themselves not knowing what was in the code? Source: https://nova.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/services/Download/uon:22992/ATTACHMENT02 Page 129
- ALT1: ... that the National Construction Code contains clauses cross referenced to other clauses with open ended conditions, which the Australian Building Codes Board themselves don't know the answers to?
- ALT2: ... that the National Construction Code contains unclear open-ended conditions which the Australian Building Codes Board, the body responsible for writing and revising the code, don't understand?
- Reviewed:

Created by Gazozlu (talk). Self-nominated at 21:29, 14 November 2022 (UTC).[reply]

The article is new enough and long enough. I have no access to the sources for the hooks so AGF on that. I personally prefer the first hook myself. The nominator only has three nominations including this one so a QPQ is not required. However, the article is in dire need of a copyediting. Multiple sentences in the article read awkwardly. The "Publication" section may also need wikifying. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:03, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Narutolovehinata5:, for the review, I have copy edited the article a bit in the mean time.Gazozlu (talk) 18:13, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article is improved but it still needs more copyediting. I suggest making a request at WP:GOCE so that the nomination can proceed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:28, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just an update, the copyedit request on WP:GOCE is pending.Gazozlu (talk) 23:03, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: ~~Verified the first hook. Good to go.~~ BorgQueen (talk) 15:18, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"while Scott Morrison was the Prime Minister he abolished the COAG and replaced it by the National Cabinet. It is unclear if the current national cabinet administers the ABCB." needs a citation. SL93 (talk) 05:06, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Utterly ridiculous. Under no circumstances are we going to run a passive-voice hook ("has been criticized") sourced to a PhD dissertation, much less a dissertation citing a random focus-group member. Same for the other hooks. Out of the question. E Eng 05:57, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes indeed; I stand corrected. Should I close this nom? BorgQueen (talk) 19:06, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well speaking as a bit of a building-codes geek myself, I really wish there was something we could find to say about the subject that would be "likely to be perceived as unusual or intriguing by readers with no special knowledge or interest", but AFACS it's a topic of exemplary dullness. Like watching paint dry, you might say. I'm glad your wrote the article, because it deserves to be covered, but I don't see it as DYK material. E Eng 22:36, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the record: I didn't write the article. I'm just a nom-closing admin. :-D BorgQueen (talk) 02:27, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]