Talk:Australian newspapers could be fined for breaches of media standards

Review of revision 1314526 [Not ready]

Revision 1314526 of this article has been reviewed by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 11:55, 4 November 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: As ever, I decline to accept that a person can be accepted for a journalism course at university without ever having been taught what a paragraph is. In addition, the headline is problematic; 'media' is neither a barrier nor a rule, and therefore cannot be breached. The article correctly identifies that this is in fact about breaches of 'media standards'. Comments by reviewer: The article also implies this is a mere suggestion at present, whereas the headline suggests it has already been approved by the powers that be. 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 1314526 of this article has been reviewed by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 11:55, 4 November 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: As ever, I decline to accept that a person can be accepted for a journalism course at university without ever having been taught what a paragraph is. In addition, the headline is problematic; 'media' is neither a barrier nor a rule, and therefore cannot be breached. The article correctly identifies that this is in fact about breaches of 'media standards'. Comments by reviewer: The article also implies this is a mere suggestion at present, whereas the headline suggests it has already been approved by the powers that be. 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 1315417 [Passed]

Revision 1315417 of this article has been reviewed by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 14:51, 4 November 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 1315417 of this article has been reviewed by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 14:51, 4 November 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.