Talk:Disney–Charter Communications dispute/GA1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: MovieTalk101178 (talk · contribs) 22:40, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article. MovieTalk101178 (talk) 22:40, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Overview

1. Prose

2. Factually accurate and verifiable

3. Broad in its coverage

4. Neutral POV

5. Article stability

6. Images

Overall

Lead section

I’m missing any mention of the significance of the dispute that is alluded to under Reactions. Would it be possible to add that in?

Background

• In 2021, YouTube TV…. Dish Networks - Paraphrase feels a little close? Maybe change to “In 2021, YouTube TV dropped Disney channels from its service for two days when the two parties failed to renegotiate their agreement. In 2022, Disney channels went dark on Dish Network under similar circumstances”? (Or something else).
• According to ESPN, ESPN programming aired in more than half of homes with Spectrum in 2022 - Ref 5 is not working anymore so at the moment, this can’t be verified.
• Ref 16 requires subscription so it’s possible I’m missing something here but it's a little confusing that we have a sentence stating that the dispute “prevented viewers from watching the premiere of The View…. “ followed by another one that says it “…[COULD] have prevented Spectrum customers from viewing…”

Impact

• The Walt Disney Company US$4 billion in revenue - Would it be possible to find another reference? Ref 22 requires subscription so I can’t verify this. The source is reputable though.
• “….relative to internal expectations” - Maybe change to “in respect to internal forecasts”? (Or something else)

Reactions

• Disney called the dispute a "disservice to consumers - Ref 29 requires subscription so I can't see the source but the title and publisher look reputable.
• Axios reserved that.. – Observed?

References

• Refs 1, 2, 16, 17, 18, 22, 29, 38, and 39 require subscription but based on their titles and publishers, they look reputable.
• Ref 5 doesn't exist anymore (perhaps it's been archived)
• Not required for GA but sources could be archived. Again, maybe some of the sources requiring subscriptions already exist in the in the archives.

Images

If possible, it would be great to have an image in the article. Could you add? It could just be an image of the Disney Channel Headquarters or something else from WikiCommons.

Discussion

Hi ElijahPep Thank you for nominating the article. :) I’ve finished my review. There are just a few small prose issues, and the lead could use a few more things. It would also be great to add an image if possible. I hope you find my comments useful. Let me know how it goes. :) MovieTalk101178 (talk) 19:20, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

All issued resolved or not considered. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 02:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm ok with your revisions and will promote the article. MovieTalk101178 (talk) 16:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)