Talk:Nintendo delays US pre-orders for Switch 2, cites tariff impact

Neutrality

While the article is awaiting review, consider working on its balance for neutrality. At present, it mainly reflects Nintendo’s perspective and includes a single analysis from Wesley Yin-Poole of IGN. It would benefit from input representing other viewpoints—such as a response or justification from the U.S. government, or alternative perspectives from economists or industry analysts.

WN:NPOV requires that we represent all significant views fairly.—Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 14:58, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

How does it look now? Lofi Gurl (talk) 13:19, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

I get where you're coming from. I just don't really like writing about Trump in general. I wanted to write about video games. But I get it. Lofi Gurl (talk) 13:19, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Published

Says it's published, not showing up on leads. BigKrow (talk) 16:37, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

@Michael.C.Wright: BigKrow (talk) 16:37, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Working now! BigKrow (talk) 16:40, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

I got ahead of myself and published it to the front page before completing the review. That is now corrected. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 16:41, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Sounds good! BigKrow (talk) 16:41, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Review of revision 4847921 [Passed]

Revision 4847921 of this article has been reviewed by Michael.C.Wright (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 16:39, 7 April 2025 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Re-ordered content for clarity and to follow the inverted pyramid style. Removed a statement regarding tariffs applied to China, as it was unrelated as presented and introduced an implied association, contrary to WN:NPOV. Adjusted language for neutrality, changing "decried" to "characterized" and removing subjective assessment and predictive language that risked editorial tone. As the original author has previously expressed a personal dislike for writing about Trump, they may wish to avoid covering topics involving him to minimize the risk of bias affecting neutrality. 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 4847921 of this article has been reviewed by Michael.C.Wright (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 16:39, 7 April 2025 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Re-ordered content for clarity and to follow the inverted pyramid style. Removed a statement regarding tariffs applied to China, as it was unrelated as presented and introduced an implied association, contrary to WN:NPOV. Adjusted language for neutrality, changing "decried" to "characterized" and removing subjective assessment and predictive language that risked editorial tone. As the original author has previously expressed a personal dislike for writing about Trump, they may wish to avoid covering topics involving him to minimize the risk of bias affecting neutrality. 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.

I’d like to expand on my earlier comment regarding the author’s stated dislike for writing about Trump. While avoidance is one option, it's not the only one. Another is to embrace the principle of writing for the enemy (labeling them “enemies” is certainly not helpful, but that's what the policy currently states). I regret presenting only the option of avoidance without also mentioning this alternative, which is in fact part of our official guidance. According to WN:NPOV:

Policy entails that it is our job to speak for the other side. If we don't commit ourselves to doing that, Wikinews will be much weaker for it. We should all be engaged in explaining each other's points of view as sympathetically as possible.

Ideally, this approach—sympathetically presenting the other side's views—can help maintain neutrality without avoiding important topics. Our ultimate goal is to prevent biased coverage. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 18:20, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm glad we were able to make the article stronger by correcting the neutrality issues. It's just frustrating and disheartening knowing I can fairly present the other side's perspective and it's STILL "fake" and "biased" in their view just because it isn't flattering or cognitively convenient for the preconceived notions they've held their entire lives. I guess I'm referring to some very specific people who are very close to me in my personal life. I'll quit blogging, I've just been fuming lately. Thanks for talking about this with me. Lofi Gurl (talk) 18:34, 7 April 2025 (UTC)