Talk:Joe McElderry wins UK X Factor final

Review of revision 922219 [Passed]

Revision 922219 of this article has been reviewed by The wub (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 21:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. 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 922219 of this article has been reviewed by The wub (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 21:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. 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.

Review of revision 922225 [FAILED]

-->

Revision 922225 of this article has been reviewed by Iceflow (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 21:48, 13 December 2009. Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: fail NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Statement about estimated revenue to ITV is listed but is only an opinion, not a solid amount, several are mentioned. Too dodgy to leave in without firm figure being available. 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 922225 of this article has been reviewed by Iceflow (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 21:48, 13 December 2009. Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: fail NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Statement about estimated revenue to ITV is listed but is only an opinion, not a solid amount, several are mentioned. Too dodgy to leave in without firm figure being available. 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.

Without wishing to be rude-read the second BBC article.    Tris   21:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Have done, see the changed review above, still fails. Sort it :) Iceflow (talk) 21:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Review of revision 922253 [Passed]

Revision 922253 of this article has been reviewed by ShakataGaNai (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 22:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: First, it is extremely bad to unpublish something. Within 5 minutes of an article being published, it can be up on all the feeds (including twitter and facebook). The only reason an article should be pulled is if a review was massivly lacking. (IE the article was mostly copyvio or something similar). That being said, the 100m number is what the BBC said. Without calling up a bunch analysts, this is the best enwn is going to get. Our "Verifiability" is if the sources backup what is written in our story, not if the BBC was lieing in the first place. 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 922253 of this article has been reviewed by ShakataGaNai (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 22:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: First, it is extremely bad to unpublish something. Within 5 minutes of an article being published, it can be up on all the feeds (including twitter and facebook). The only reason an article should be pulled is if a review was massivly lacking. (IE the article was mostly copyvio or something similar). That being said, the 100m number is what the BBC said. Without calling up a bunch analysts, this is the best enwn is going to get. Our "Verifiability" is if the sources backup what is written in our story, not if the BBC was lieing in the first place. 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.

Instead of revoking a published article, why not take the simpler road next time? --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 22:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thank you. I can see Iceflow's point that the wording could have been tighter, but that could easily be changed without unpublishing. This is supposed to be a wiki after all. the wub "?!" 22:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)