Talk:United States Senate prepares for floor vote on net neutrality

As usual, the title is up for grabs. I had concerns about neutrality in my initial draft but the AP/ABC source provided some good quotes from people who favor the decision that included their reasons, so we should be good to go. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:38, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Review of revision 4370285 [Not ready]

Revision 4370285 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 03:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: See below. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: I really wanted this one. But, no longer fresh. It does seem there ought to be some sort of further developments, though their specific nature is not immediately obvious to me. 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 4370285 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 03:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: See below. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: I really wanted this one. But, no longer fresh. It does seem there ought to be some sort of further developments, though their specific nature is not immediately obvious to me. 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.

We can probably do something with this when the first lawsuit is officially filed. There's also talk of congressional review (when Congress votes to overturn an agency action). Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Waiting on further corroboration

The MPR and Sun Herald news sites are independent of each other, but the texts of their articles show significant overlap. It seems like that MPR used the AP as a partial sources. It looks like we should have some breathing room, and other news sources are likely to cover this soon. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who wants to can run with this. As usual, title's up for grabs. "United States states" sounds silly to me. "American states" would work, but we'd have discussions about that. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:32, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

In case this was not obvious, I added further sources when they became available and am no longer waiting. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Review of revision 4372329 [Not ready]

Revision 4372329 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 01:09, 31 December 2017 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: Alack, it's got past us this time around; event on Tuesday, date now Sunday. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: 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 4372329 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 01:09, 31 December 2017 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: Alack, it's got past us this time around; event on Tuesday, date now Sunday. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: 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.

Freshness be a harsh mistress! We might be able to try again when the lawsuits are filed. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:59, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Review of revision 4375210 [Not ready]

Revision 4375210 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 00:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: See below. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: Frustratingly, time escaped me; coming to the end of the third day after, I've only got through the data-gathering part of the preliminary check for similarities to source (which did find some; next would be weighing their significance and what might be done about them where necessary — I'll have to either save what I gathered, or act on it before I close my browser). I'd temporarily misunderstood a reference to "today", which unfortunately referenced Tuesday rather than Monday. If we're to get this article through, we're going to need a further development (which, apparently, Congressional Democrats intend to provide). I noticed some inconsistent tense; per the style guide, choose either past tense or present perfect tense and use it consistently; I quite understand that occasional deviations are naturally forced by circumstances, but the practice of slipping into present tense for "So-and-so says such-and-such" is not forced by circumstances; they aren't saying it at the time the article is published, and putting that way weakens our emphasis on specific past events (which is in the penumbra of our approach to neutrality). 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 4375210 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 00:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: See below. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: Frustratingly, time escaped me; coming to the end of the third day after, I've only got through the data-gathering part of the preliminary check for similarities to source (which did find some; next would be weighing their significance and what might be done about them where necessary — I'll have to either save what I gathered, or act on it before I close my browser). I'd temporarily misunderstood a reference to "today", which unfortunately referenced Tuesday rather than Monday. If we're to get this article through, we're going to need a further development (which, apparently, Congressional Democrats intend to provide). I noticed some inconsistent tense; per the style guide, choose either past tense or present perfect tense and use it consistently; I quite understand that occasional deviations are naturally forced by circumstances, but the practice of slipping into present tense for "So-and-so says such-and-such" is not forced by circumstances; they aren't saying it at the time the article is published, and putting that way weakens our emphasis on specific past events (which is in the penumbra of our approach to neutrality). 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.

Suggestion

I suggest we move this into {{prepare}} and rewrite it for when the vote actually comes up. Then we can refocus it on current news. Also, I should mention, the FCC has published the repeal as required before the Senate could do anything. Cheers, --SVTCobra 22:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)