Talk:USA raises tariffs on inexpensive Chinese solar panels

Headline

The current headline comes across very non-neutral. The word "cheap", although in theory it can mean "inexpensive", generally has the sense, or at least the overtone, of "shoddy".

Also puts "injuring the US solar industry" in quotes. This means it's a direct quote from someone. Naturally, I simply used a string search for it in the sources. It appears to be a quote from USA Today. We do not quote competing news organizations unless they become part of the story (which is rare). --Pi zero (talk) 00:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Review of revision 1656013 [Not ready]

Revision 1656013 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 02:28, 12 October 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: First paragraph. First sentence. The lower end of this range is reported differently by the sources; one says 24%, the other 18%. I'm not sure where the 34% figure came from. There are various approaches one might take when the sources disagree; one is, since we're claiming the figure will fall within a range, use the most inclusive bounds for the range (in this case, that looks like using 18% for the lower figure). Second sentence, "The tariffs raise from 34% the department suggested earlier this year." This isn't quite grammatical; consulting the sources, I gather it's meant to indicate the tariffs are higher than suggested. However, in the source this number is specific to one particular manufacturer. Third sentence. The fact that China has complained doesn't appear to be causally connected to waiting for ITC confirmation, which is the impression I thought came across from this as written. I can see keeping the ITC thing in the lede, but if the complaint isn't linked to the ITC thing, the complaint belongs in the later part of the article that addresses objections. Second paragraph. First sentence. First six words are verbatim from source (aim for no more than three), and identical turn of phrase (avoid distinctive turns of phrase and similar phrase and sentence structure). Second sentence. Saying "some of the manufacturers" sounds as if we're not talking about the same ones as in the first sentence. The claims are, I gather, of illegal actions on the Chinese side; the illegality seems an essential point but imho doesn't come across clearly here. Issues with the headline are mentioned above. As usual, I'm not claiming to have an exhaustive list of problems here. 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 1656013 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 02:28, 12 October 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: First paragraph. First sentence. The lower end of this range is reported differently by the sources; one says 24%, the other 18%. I'm not sure where the 34% figure came from. There are various approaches one might take when the sources disagree; one is, since we're claiming the figure will fall within a range, use the most inclusive bounds for the range (in this case, that looks like using 18% for the lower figure). Second sentence, "The tariffs raise from 34% the department suggested earlier this year." This isn't quite grammatical; consulting the sources, I gather it's meant to indicate the tariffs are higher than suggested. However, in the source this number is specific to one particular manufacturer. Third sentence. The fact that China has complained doesn't appear to be causally connected to waiting for ITC confirmation, which is the impression I thought came across from this as written. I can see keeping the ITC thing in the lede, but if the complaint isn't linked to the ITC thing, the complaint belongs in the later part of the article that addresses objections. Second paragraph. First sentence. First six words are verbatim from source (aim for no more than three), and identical turn of phrase (avoid distinctive turns of phrase and similar phrase and sentence structure). Second sentence. Saying "some of the manufacturers" sounds as if we're not talking about the same ones as in the first sentence. The claims are, I gather, of illegal actions on the Chinese side; the illegality seems an essential point but imho doesn't come across clearly here. Issues with the headline are mentioned above. As usual, I'm not claiming to have an exhaustive list of problems here. 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.

I was a bit worried, btw, about giving a misleading impression that these tariffs apply to all Chinese manufacturers. --Pi zero (talk) 02:32, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Review of revision 1656976 [Passed]

Revision 1656976 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 21:49, 12 October 2012 (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 1656976 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 21:49, 12 October 2012 (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.