Talk:Australia's Channel Seven breaches children TV standards regulations by broadcasting McDonald's advertisement

Review of revision 1287513 [Failed]

Revision 1287513 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 23:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: Comments by reviewer: The news event here is that the ACMA made this finding, but the ACMA isn't even mentioned in the lede. It is, in any case, a clearer representation of the situation to say that ACMA found they'd broken the regulations, than to simply say they broke them. Can we make the headline shorter? Active voice would be good, too. WN:SG#Headlines. This is marginal in length alone, and seems short on content. Surely there are some further important details that could be included. It wouldn't take too much, two or three more sentences could make a huge difference in how much readers get from the article. One has to read between the lines to try to guess what the nature of the spot was that Channel Seven would have thought it okay in the first place. Something should be said about the context in which this happened (is this the first time they've made such a finding under this regulation?). This is an interesting story for an international audience; it shouldn't take much to whip it into shape so we can publish it. 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 1287513 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 23:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: Comments by reviewer: The news event here is that the ACMA made this finding, but the ACMA isn't even mentioned in the lede. It is, in any case, a clearer representation of the situation to say that ACMA found they'd broken the regulations, than to simply say they broke them. Can we make the headline shorter? Active voice would be good, too. WN:SG#Headlines. This is marginal in length alone, and seems short on content. Surely there are some further important details that could be included. It wouldn't take too much, two or three more sentences could make a huge difference in how much readers get from the article. One has to read between the lines to try to guess what the nature of the spot was that Channel Seven would have thought it okay in the first place. Something should be said about the context in which this happened (is this the first time they've made such a finding under this regulation?). This is an interesting story for an international audience; it shouldn't take much to whip it into shape so we can publish it. 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.

Review of revision 1287841 [Passed]

Revision 1287841 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 17:42, 15 September 2011 (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 1287841 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 17:42, 15 September 2011 (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.