Talk:Ban on YouTube spreads to Google services in Turkey

Review of revision 1036921 [Failed]

Revision 1036921 of this article has been reviewed by Calebrw (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 18:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: Needs at least one better source than blogs. The sites linked don't seem as NPOV as I'd like. NPOV: Not ready: See above, but relying on POV site, can lead to NPOV issues in our article. Style: Not ready: Not everything make sense, but the quote from Mehmet Ali Köksal is completely out of context in this article. Comments by reviewer: Needs to be fixed up. 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 1036921 of this article has been reviewed by Calebrw (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 18:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: Needs at least one better source than blogs. The sites linked don't seem as NPOV as I'd like. NPOV: Not ready: See above, but relying on POV site, can lead to NPOV issues in our article. Style: Not ready: Not everything make sense, but the quote from Mehmet Ali Köksal is completely out of context in this article. Comments by reviewer: Needs to be fixed up. 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 1037317 [Failed]

Revision 1037317 of this article has been reviewed by Diego Grez (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 04:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Not ready: Style: Not ready: no. that url list needs to be cleaned up Comments by reviewer: None added. 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 1037317 of this article has been reviewed by Diego Grez (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 04:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Not ready: Style: Not ready: no. that url list needs to be cleaned up Comments by reviewer: None added. 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 1037317 [Failed]

Revision 1037317 of this article has been reviewed by Diego Grez (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 04:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Not ready: Style: Not ready: no. that url list needs to be cleaned up Comments by reviewer: None added. 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 1037317 of this article has been reviewed by Diego Grez (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 04:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Not ready: Style: Not ready: no. that url list needs to be cleaned up Comments by reviewer: None added. 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.

Sources

There are a number of style issues with this, but it does seem somewhat excessive to have seven sources for this length of article.

In terms of style, the title should answer as many of Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How as possible. The opening paragraph should do so too.

More critically, the article should - wherever possible - be written using the active voice. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 08:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

source needed?

There is no source I can find (on the page) that mentions the blocking of MySpace, WordPress, or El Mundo, and no source listing the date of blocking for Last.fm. Could you please provide them? Griffinofwales (talk) 14:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Review of revision 1037624 [Failed]

Revision 1037624 of this article has been reviewed by HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 17:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: Comments by reviewer: I have concerns about the reliability of several of the cited sources and, picking on the lead only, why disambiguate Google with "the search engine" but not YouTube, starting an article wiht "after" always raises an eyebrow and what's going on with the bold text? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC) 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 1037624 of this article has been reviewed by HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 17:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: Comments by reviewer: I have concerns about the reliability of several of the cited sources and, picking on the lead only, why disambiguate Google with "the search engine" but not YouTube, starting an article wiht "after" always raises an eyebrow and what's going on with the bold text? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC) 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.

All Issues are Fixed

i have put more sources. all respectful ones. new sources also include reference to MySpace, WordPress, and El Mundo.

i differenciated the ones which are currently banned and the ones which were banned earlier but operates now. i put an external link to a website which was found just for this issue. the topic is so hot in Turkey now. yesterday, Abdullah Gul -the president of Turkey- addressed the issue in an official speech. but i couldn't find English source for that. so i didn't include this official info.

i also edited for style issues which were addressed, as far as i could.

--Polysynaptic (talk) 17:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

i included tha news pages of El Mundo reporting that they are blocked to access in Turkey. pages are in Spanish.

--Polysynaptic (talk) 17:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

even more content with references included. sources are added.

--Polysynaptic (talk) 18:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

i added more including an image.

i hope -without further delay- the article will "pass the test".

--Polysynaptic (talk) 19:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Review of revision 1037718 [Failed]

Revision 1037718 of this article has been reviewed by Brian McNeil (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 20:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: Comments by reviewer: All issues are NOT addressed. Wikinews cannot be snow-jobbed with a million and one sources slapped on an article which fails to meet fundamental tenets of the style guide. I did not add a review template, but criticised the title on the talk page - this was utterly ignored. The title is still completely meaningless, the rendering/display of the article is a "Dog's dinner". 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 1037718 of this article has been reviewed by Brian McNeil (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 20:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: Comments by reviewer: All issues are NOT addressed. Wikinews cannot be snow-jobbed with a million and one sources slapped on an article which fails to meet fundamental tenets of the style guide. I did not add a review template, but criticised the title on the talk page - this was utterly ignored. The title is still completely meaningless, the rendering/display of the article is a "Dog's dinner". 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.

Re-Edited and Developed

Renamed the title of the article. reorganized the sources section. did put additional sources in the "External Links" section.

--Polysynaptic (talk) 22:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

i added the Related News section.

--Polysynaptic (talk) 22:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Dear Polysynaptic, thanks for the work, at times it seems hard to create a good article and have it accepted for the review. however keep working at it, it seems to be an interesting artice. goodluck ~~ Mrchris (talk) 03:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Too many sources?

Are all of the sources necessary? A source should only be included if it adds information that cannot be found anywhere else. I count 7 in the sources section and 8 in the external links, making a grand total of 15 sources to be read thoroughly by the reviewer. Some of the sources such as engelliweb.com are external links and at a glance it looks like some of the external links are sources. --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 09:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Oh and I see this issue was brought up when the last reviewer failed it. --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 09:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

i did tidy the sources. after the last edit, which i tried to address the points you made- existing sources are now only the ones referenced in the content. i removed entire external links section after all.--Polysynaptic (talk) 17:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, the number of sources is manageable now! I've reordered them into descending chronological order and moved the final one into an External links section. Regards --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 19:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Review of revision 1038383 [Failed]

Revision 1038383 of this article has been reviewed by Diego Grez (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 17:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Not ready: Stale. Old news. Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: None added. 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 1038383 of this article has been reviewed by Diego Grez (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 17:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Not ready: Stale. Old news. Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: None added. 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.

Shame on You

after all concerns pointed, i renamed the article, enriched the content referencing reputed sources like Hurriyet, and Softpedia, El Mundo, and Penguen. i removed the external links and redundant sources.

Lastly, i re-wrote the introduction.

since there is only two english newspapers in Turkey and one of them is known to be government-sided there is one english source from Turkey. Thus only one newspaper from Turkey is in the source. But Spanish newspaper, Softpedia and WIP are also reputed reporters. if i was able to put sources in Turkish i could put more content including the comments of the President of Turkey addressing the issue.

but i don't understand why the article is tagged for deletion? such a shame an internet news site is senseless against the restriction of Internet in a country. i can't understand this.

someone says it's old news other says it's not news... is this a policy?

--Polysynaptic (talk) 17:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, articles about topics more than 2-3 days old, are not news, and we don't publish old news, unless they have significant, completely new content. --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 17:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

This event is not 2-3 days old. This comment is misleading. The ban is still is on. and Turkish people are restricted from Internet. STILL RESTRICTED.--Polysynaptic (talk) 17:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The date of the most recent source is June 5 which at time of writing is yesterday, so the article is not stale. --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 19:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Review of revision 1038910 [Passed]

Revision 1038910 of this article has been reviewed by RockerballAustralia (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 06:50, 7 June 2010 (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 1038910 of this article has been reviewed by RockerballAustralia (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 06:50, 7 June 2010 (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.

New Request for Review

Two ministers and the president of Turkey made significant comments on the issue. i developed the article to a new state with reputed sources.

please review again BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE.

--Polysynaptic (talk) 16:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

When there are significant new developments on a story, and more than 24 hours have passed since publication, we write a new story, rather than modifying the old one. --Pi zero (talk) 16:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

i'm sorry. i begun developing the new one. --Polysynaptic (talk) 16:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

editprotected

{{editprotected}} please take away the pic. I BEAT COMMONS DELINKER!!! Kayau (talk · contribs) 04:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Done, but delinker can't edit this page so you didn't beat it. Bawolff ☺☻ 04:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Aw, I missed that point. How sad. Kayau (talk · contribs) 09:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)