Talk:Philippines' largest television network shut down by government

Review of revision 4563094 [Not ready]

Revision 4563094 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 17:58, 5 May 2020 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: I've got several particulars I wasn't able to find in the sources. If they're in the sources and I missed them, please explain (here on the talk page) where they are; if they aren't in the sources, please either provide sources for them or remove them. Note Wikipedia cannot be used as a source, and we also can't (due to our more permissive license) import text from Wikipedia without violating Wikipedia's copyright; if there is information on Wikipedia that you wish to use here, you need to find a trust-worthy source for the information (which Wikipedia may suggest), and use that. The whole final sentence of the lede, about Marcos. Didn't see any of that in the sources. In paragraph 3 sentence 2, it says "he franchise and its respective bill had already expired"; sources do say the franchise expired that same day, though that's not the same as saying it had already expired; but I'm not sure what bill is meant here; is there somewhere in the sources that mentions a bill expiring? In paragraph 4 sentence 2, it says "and allegedly refusing to refund him", but I didn't find that in the sources. 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 4563094 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 17:58, 5 May 2020 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: I've got several particulars I wasn't able to find in the sources. If they're in the sources and I missed them, please explain (here on the talk page) where they are; if they aren't in the sources, please either provide sources for them or remove them. Note Wikipedia cannot be used as a source, and we also can't (due to our more permissive license) import text from Wikipedia without violating Wikipedia's copyright; if there is information on Wikipedia that you wish to use here, you need to find a trust-worthy source for the information (which Wikipedia may suggest), and use that. The whole final sentence of the lede, about Marcos. Didn't see any of that in the sources. In paragraph 3 sentence 2, it says "he franchise and its respective bill had already expired"; sources do say the franchise expired that same day, though that's not the same as saying it had already expired; but I'm not sure what bill is meant here; is there somewhere in the sources that mentions a bill expiring? In paragraph 4 sentence 2, it says "and allegedly refusing to refund him", but I didn't find that in the sources. 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.

Resolved issue #1 by adding a source that mentions the previous incident with Marcos (1). Resolved issue #2 by removing the statement. I think this might be a bit difficult to understand for non-Filipino readers, so I'll just mention the franchise instead. The franchise is granted by a Republic Act, which is started with either a Senate Bill or a House Bill. Resolved issue #3 by rewording the statement and adding a source (2). To clarify: he claimed that the network committed fraud by refusing to air already-paid ads. However, the network did try to return the money, although it was refused by his campaign.

I hope this resolves the issues regarding verifiability. If you have additional queries, feel free to talk to me. Thanks. Chlod (say hi!) 02:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Review of revision 4563164 [Passed]

Revision 4563164 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 05:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: There were several tricky points to adjust regarding precision/neutrality in reporting some of these quite complicated/nuanced details; see (as always) the detailed history of edits during review. 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 4563164 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 05:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: There were several tricky points to adjust regarding precision/neutrality in reporting some of these quite complicated/nuanced details; see (as always) the detailed history of edits during review. 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.

Image

@Pi zero: an image of the network's HQ or its logo could be a good addition for this article.
103.254.130.254 (talk) 08:07, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

This was done. --Pi zero (talk) 14:04, 6 May 2020 (UTC)