Talk:Philippine economic growth slows slightly in 2nd quarter of 2012

Just a little thing

Rather than pass or fail the story, I should just note this: I had a look through the sources and can't find anything about the typhoon season. This may be mentioned in the FT article which I couldn't read without registering (and I'm not doing that). The rest seems well sourced. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• Sources which require registration to be accessed should be avoided. Sources which require payment to access are a sure-fire way to get an article failed on verifiability. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 14:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Premise is wrong

This is a bit misleading as the economy actually shrank by 0.2 in this quarter (5.9% PA vs 6.1% PA) if I am reading the sources correctly which is why the BBC article is a little downbeat. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:38, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Washington Post have it as 6.1% adjusted while Bloomberg have 6.3% revised. Others agree on 6.3. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Second para risks needs checking. No time for me to do that now. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Review of revision 1605388 [Not ready]

Revision 1605388 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 13:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not ready: See below. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: This reads like economic analysis. Attributing such things rather than presenting them as fact is core to WN:NPOV. 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 1605388 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 13:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not ready: See below. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: This reads like economic analysis. Attributing such things rather than presenting them as fact is core to WN:NPOV. 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 1606335 [Not ready]

Revision 1606335 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 03:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not ready: See below. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: Some but not all of the attribution problem has been fixed. Remaining neutrality problems are quite serious: the focal event here, according to the headline and the lede, is an opinion, which the headline clearly presents as fact, though it's a bit less clear whether that's the case with the lede — which is also a problem with the lede, which should have a much clearer focus than it does. The second paragraph continues to have the same attribution/neutrality problem it did before. Lack of a clear neutral focus appears to have been a fundamental problem with this article since its initial version. 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 1606335 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 03:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not ready: See below. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: Some but not all of the attribution problem has been fixed. Remaining neutrality problems are quite serious: the focal event here, according to the headline and the lede, is an opinion, which the headline clearly presents as fact, though it's a bit less clear whether that's the case with the lede — which is also a problem with the lede, which should have a much clearer focus than it does. The second paragraph continues to have the same attribution/neutrality problem it did before. Lack of a clear neutral focus appears to have been a fundamental problem with this article since its initial version. 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.

Premise

Title has now been changed to "Philippine economy grew 5.9% in Q2 of 2012 compared to more than 6% in Q1".

I may be wrong, but I think it is 5.9% for the whole year to end of quarter 2 not 5.9% in quarter 2, otherwise the Philippines would be growing c. 24% PA! Philafrenzy (talk) 11:10, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm just not too crazy about the title. --Bddpaux (talk)

Review of revision 1609990 [Passed]

Revision 1609990 of this article has been reviewed by Bddpaux (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 21:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Really could've done OK with just 3 sources; focus now seems a little tighter...still marginal in places.--Bddpaux (talk) 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 1609990 of this article has been reviewed by Bddpaux (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 21:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Really could've done OK with just 3 sources; focus now seems a little tighter...still marginal in places.--Bddpaux (talk) 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.