Talk:Australian Labor Party shelves government oversight of media legislation

Journalist notes

The AAP claims government oversight of media not necessary article was published in a number of newspapers. I was trying to think of a way of framing this and this might be one of the points where I worry about the two source verification part though maybe the reprints count as multiples? (Stretching badly, I know.)

Some of the bills need to be looked at and may require going to http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation and looking at all the recent bills or all the legislation currently before the government. This manual searching was why I considered it original reporting.

The topic is in the news and ties into the UK situation a bit but not directly. Hence, I did not reference. I wanted to name all the bills since this is 6 part legislation. It is viewed as a bit of a campaign issue here and the media have taken it up. I think the media is going to pillory Gillard for it based on their previous responses and since Turnball, who is likely to replace Abbott in the not so distant future, has roundly condemned it as an attack on free speech. (It sits against a weird backdrop of the uber rich trying to media organizations to exert editorial control.)

Blah. Not certain how happy I am with this. --LauraHale (talk) 12:31, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Prospect for update

I'm given to understand a small update may be given to this article later today (Australian time). --Pi zero (talk) 23:57, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. The legislation was shelved that did not pass. Needs to be rewritten and refocused. --LauraHale (talk) 01:51, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Review of revision 1852147 [Not ready]

Revision 1852147 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 17:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: The biggest problem here is that only five of the six bills are linked in the Sources. Clearly all six were meant to be there, but the sixth was a repeat of the second. Verification repeatedly depends on checking all six, and one is missing. The list of them in the article contains the same hiccup. It took me a while to catch on, so I thought I'd verified some points by checking all six before realizing I'd really been checking only five. One of the sources says two of the bills passed, while this article claimed only one had passed. Unfortunately, the one that passed is the one we had duplicated. So without the sixth bill I don't even know how many passed; I'd changed "one" to "two" in the lede, then realized "one" was built deep into the infrastructure of the third paragraph and that's when things started to unravel. It isn't technically accurate to say it became law — it passed both houses. It actually needs royal assent or some such, doesn't it? Except for what depends on the missing sixth bill, and perhaps the phrasing in the lede that seems to say all six were shelved, all source-checking has been completed. 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 1852147 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 17:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: The biggest problem here is that only five of the six bills are linked in the Sources. Clearly all six were meant to be there, but the sixth was a repeat of the second. Verification repeatedly depends on checking all six, and one is missing. The list of them in the article contains the same hiccup. It took me a while to catch on, so I thought I'd verified some points by checking all six before realizing I'd really been checking only five. One of the sources says two of the bills passed, while this article claimed only one had passed. Unfortunately, the one that passed is the one we had duplicated. So without the sixth bill I don't even know how many passed; I'd changed "one" to "two" in the lede, then realized "one" was built deep into the infrastructure of the third paragraph and that's when things started to unravel. It isn't technically accurate to say it became law — it passed both houses. It actually needs royal assent or some such, doesn't it? Except for what depends on the missing sixth bill, and perhaps the phrasing in the lede that seems to say all six were shelved, all source-checking has been completed. 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 1852504 [Passed]

Revision 1852504 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 22:59, 22 March 2013 (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 1852504 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 22:59, 22 March 2013 (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.