Talk:Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 31 days  |
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When editing this article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve it, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, use the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
.svg){kind=small} | This article is written in Australian English, which has its own spelling conventions (centre, colour, realise, program, travelled) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review prior discussions if you are considering renomination.
Discussions
|
 | Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024 has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
 | A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on December 11, 2025. | ||||||||||||
| Current status: Good article | |||||||||||||
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=icon}
Good Article nomination
Hi all,
I have nominated this page to achieve Good Article status as I think it is very well-sourced and the prose is written in an encyclopaedic way. I'm glad that the article has been correspondingly updated for every new bit of information and has a reliable source to go with those changes. Anyone that wants to improve this article to help achieve Good Article status is more than welcome. I am especially looking to upgrade the classification of this article because the social media ban this article is referring to is coming into force very soon on 10 December (as of original posting).
I look forward to see what the review process can do to help this article!
Update (30 December 2025): I would still like to help this article achieve Good Article status but I doubt the article can be renominated soon given the volume of edits to the article. Qwerty123M (talk) 00:43, 5 December 2025 (UTC). Updated 01:25, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
- I think this article might a bit too unstable to qualify for GA. 1) It has an active maintenance tag (the requested move tag). 2) When the ban takes effect, that'll probably add a bunch of content to it. However feel free to keep the nomination open in case I am mistaken. Good luck. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:13, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
- I also feel the article won’t be considered stable enough for GA1, and it would stand a better chance once the ban has been in place for a while and new developments/reporting on the ban has slowed. Feel free to keep the nom open though as it might be stable enough by the time it gets picked up by a reviewer! SnowyRiver28 (talk) 21:48, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- In general I would avoid nomming for GA ongoing news events. By definition they will not be stable and often fail other criteria. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 23:27, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- Well the review has been picked up now, but I also think it's too unstable to pass as of now. HurricaneZetaC 17:11, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- Would it be a good idea to renominate the article given the recent low levels of activity? I doubt a name change as currently proposed will bring too much instability to the article. Qwerty123M (talk) 11:22, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
- I think the GA criteria requires no active maintenance tags, so we’d have to wait until the current proposal is resolved, but then yeah I think it would be considered stable enough for a nom. SnowyRiver28 (talk) 10:28, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
- I have nominated the article for Good Article status again but it has been more than two months since the article was nominated and I'm wondering if there are other ways in which I could publicise the nomination so someone can review the article. Qwerty123M (talk) 03:40, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
- There are over 700 GA nominations currently, and this article is not even close to being one of the oldest in the Law section (they're not reviewed in order, but sometimes reviewers prioritse older noms).
- Starting a WP:GARC is probably the only way you could speed this up, but it's recommended to have some experience reviewing other nominations first. SnowyRiver28 (talk) 08:21, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
List of platforms affected - include those unaffected?
@Qwerty123M I removed the list of the platforms unaffected because, to me, it seemed redundant with the platforms affected listed above. AntarcticFoxes 00:57, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
- I admit that it does sound a little bit strange to include a sentence saying "not required to implement age restrictions" in this article because this list should go without saying, but this is an extraordinary and very notable law so context should be provided as to what platforms will and will not be banned to certain users. If there is a concern over using a primary source rather than a secondary citation, then I may reconsider my position based on notability criteria per the general notability guideline. Qwerty123M (talk) 02:03, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
- Yeah I think its better now with the list of the platforms that have self complied with the law, any thoughts on having it come before the platforms that are unaffected? Also it should have something about them being platforms that the eSafety commissioner considered to come within the scope of the ban but ultimately deciding not to add them. AntarcticFoxes 04:05, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
GA review
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Qwerty123M (talk · contribs) 10:13, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
Reviewer: TheEpicEgg56 (talk · contribs) 03:00, 24 August 2026 (UTC)
- I will review this probably tonight. TheEpicEgg56 03:00, 24 August 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you! Qwerty123M (talk) 03:07, 24 August 2026 (UTC)
- Inline citations have not been used for the lead section because all of this content is verified elsewhere in the article and that section should be kept tidy per MOS:LEADCITE. Edit wars would indicate to me that this is a contentious topic but that has rarely happened so I see no need to make that change but I could change that section if you think otherwise. Qwerty123M (talk) 00:02, 25 August 2026 (UTC)
- @TheEpicEgg56, can you please tell me why exactly it is necessary to add citations to the lead? I have told you that MOS:LEADCITE recommends not adding citations to the lead as relevant information can be verified elsewhere. WP:GACN says that
Leads, plot summaries, and image captions don't usually need citations
so I don't see why they are needed to designate this as a good article. Qwerty123M (talk) 10:09, 25 August 2026 (UTC)- I surely missed that. I should remove them. Thanks!!! TheEpicEgg56 10:13, 25 August 2026 (UTC)
- @TheEpicEgg56, can you please tell me why exactly it is necessary to add citations to the lead? I have told you that MOS:LEADCITE recommends not adding citations to the lead as relevant information can be verified elsewhere. WP:GACN says that
- Inline citations have not been used for the lead section because all of this content is verified elsewhere in the article and that section should be kept tidy per MOS:LEADCITE. Edit wars would indicate to me that this is a contentious topic but that has rarely happened so I see no need to make that change but I could change that section if you think otherwise. Qwerty123M (talk) 00:02, 25 August 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you! Qwerty123M (talk) 03:07, 24 August 2026 (UTC)
- GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
This message is to be filled after full review has concluded
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose, spelling, grammar, and understandability):
b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
- All OK.
- a (prose, spelling, grammar, and understandability):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
- a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- a (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- Broad yet focused.
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Both positive and negative reception included!
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- There is somewhat frequent vandalism, however I put in a request to increase the page protection to PC. Should wait until the protection request goes through. — Apparently the request was declined because the vandalism wasn’t recent enough.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- All OK.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Everything is OK! Although not very stable, it is stable enough. Certainly a GA.
- Pass/Fail:
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.