Talk:Canada approves revision to previously anti-competitive broadcaster acquisition

Headline

This headline is an alphabet soup. I look at it and have no idea what part of the world it involves, what manner of creature is approving something, or what sort of "deal" they may be approving. Granted, you can't simply expand all those acronyms without making the headline way too long — but the current headline also does not perform the headline's basic function of telling the most important and unique thing. See WN:Headline.

Somebody — the reporter, a reviewer, somebody — needs to do far better with this headline. --Pi zero (talk) 22:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

That's a good point. I changed it to "Canada approves revision to previously anti-competitive broadcaster acquisition". I think this may solve the problem, although it's a bit more vague. Kudu ^~I/O~ 02:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

It reads much better, to me. I read it, and immediately know what the story is about. Thanks. --Pi zero (talk) 10:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Review of revision 1938248 [Not ready]

Revision 1938248 of this article has been reviewed by LauraHale (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 18:20, 29 June 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: My major issue at the moment is being unable to verify the claim of 22 things needing to be sold. I see 10+11 which would be 21 but cannot see where this 22 number comes from. 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 1938248 of this article has been reviewed by LauraHale (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 18:20, 29 June 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: My major issue at the moment is being unable to verify the claim of 22 things needing to be sold. I see 10+11 which would be 21 but cannot see where this 22 number comes from. 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.

Hi LauraHale, thanks for reviewing my article. I got the figure from the ii) section of the press release: 7+5+10=22, counting English and French-language services separately. The weird thing is that, taking the data from the ii) section and only counting services once regardless of the language, I get 20 services, not 21. Should I just use 21? Kudu ^~I/O~ 19:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

If you're not sure of the number, you shouldn't be asserting it as fact in the article. How one avoids asserting the uncertain information depends on context; sometimes one can simply leave it out without harm to the article, sometimes one can be vague (typically involving words like "about", "around", "over/under", "more/less than", etc.), sometimes one can get around the problem by being more precise (I recall an earthquake where the US and European estimates of the magnitude differed, and the article was vague in one place and spelled out who had given what figure in another), and so on. --Pi zero (talk) 20:08, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure of the services, it's just that they can be counted in different ways… I see your point though, I changed it to "almost two dozen". Thanks for the help! Kudu ^~I/O~ 20:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Review of revision 1938346 [Passed]

Revision 1938346 of this article has been reviewed by LauraHale (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 06:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: The issues from the last review have been addressed and the problem facts have been fixed by removing. It is now good to go. 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 1938346 of this article has been reviewed by LauraHale (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 06:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: The issues from the last review have been addressed and the problem facts have been fixed by removing. It is now good to go. 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.