Talk:Network18 Group/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: DiplomatTesterMan (talk · contribs) 05:23, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

The article is in good shape. I have started the review, here are a few points, DTM (talk) 05:23, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

History

 * 1996–2007 : Acquisition and restructuring
 * Bhatia's The Caravan piece requires URL access level.
 * Done.


 * the news channel to be launched was called CNBC Awaaz - the Business Standard reference does not use the word "Awaaz".
 * Changed the citation.


 * In the financial year 2004–2005, TEIL supplemented its initial investment with an additional ₹39.10 crore - note the year; the reference says "in the form of investment in the equity shares of SGA News to the tune of an additional Rs 39.10 crore in 2005-06."
 * Fixed.


 * For the sentence GBN had entered into a franchising partnership with CNN Worldwide to launch..., please confirm that it adequately cites the text.
 * Changed the citation, I must have mixed up somewhere.


 * Kaushik's The Caravan piece requires URL access level.
 * Done.


 * 2007–2011 : Expansion, consolidation and increasing debt
 * The EPW reference "Mapping the Power of Major Media Companies in India" requires URL access level.
 * Done.


 * Nikhil Pahwa's MediaNama article requires URL access level.
 * Done. I have added URL access levels for the rest of the article as well. Tell me if I missed anything.


 * With regard to Kohli-Khandekar's The Indian Media Business, is the correct page number mentioned?
 * It should be correct now.
 * The citation is pointing to the paperback print version, edition 4, pg 154. No, this page does not cite the text. DTM (talk) 14:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)


 * 2011–2014 : Takeover by Mukesh Ambani
 * According to company..., please check the citation.
 * Fixed the citation. It was from a different Livemint article.


 * .when the company - extra fullstop.
 * Fixed.


 * reacted by filing a lawsuit against Kejriwal - was the lawsuit actually filed or was it just a PR warning?
 * Fixed. It was a warning which they didn't carry out.


 * The Hindu allows only a limited number of articles to be viewed freely. Access level can accordingly be set to 'subscription' or 'limited'. This can be done for all articles from The Hindu. This does not include The Hindu BusinessLine.
 * Done for The Hindu. Though as far as I'm aware, BusinessLine (and Livemint) does this too, no?
 * No, BusinessLine and Livemint to not do this. None of the links related to these two publications in this article are behind paywalls or any form of subscription/registration. (If they have premium content behind paywalls that is a different issue) DTM (talk) 14:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)


 * 2014–Present : Reliance Industries era
 * Gowda & Sharalaya (2016) requires access level.
 * Done.


 * One of the reasons... and public relations. - Please double check these lines for close paraphrasing, and to be sure that the summarisation does not introduce any new meaning, other than what the citation says.
 * Changed the wording, the meaning should reflect the citation now. Though not sure if the new wording is any different from the previous one in how much it resembles the one in the source but I don't think there was close paraphrasing in the previously anyways. Tell me if you think something's off.


 * The News Minute citation has two authors.
 * Done.


 * There is a lot packed into these two sub-headers (2011–2014 & 2014–Present). Is introducing level-4-headers possible? This is just a suggestion and not a necessity. "2011–2014" has one image. Is there anything that could be placed in "2014–Present"? The next two level-3-headers have a table, sub-sections, so they are ok. This said, apart from what it says in Manual of Style, I don't feel too strongly about forcing or placing redundant sub-headers or images, so only if it helps. This is more of an editorial decision. However, I do see some content grouping.
 * I've had the same concern about those two subsections, particularly the latter one but haven't quite figured out what to do about it. Which content groupings do you see?
 * Creation of headers creates it own problems, such as the due weightage given to words in headers.


 * Thakurta is linked, Justin Rowlatt could also be linked. While linking publications and authors in citations is not necessary, some readers do like the extra information, and MOS:REPEATLINK acknowledges it.
 * Linked.


 * On 28 November...as a retaliatory piece - is this entire episode needed?
 * If you ask I'll remove it. It isn't terribly important, it's only a sideshow that went down right at a time when the negotiations with Sony had just begun and could have impacted it.


 * According to analysts,...strategic investors,... the Deccan Herald reference does refer to any third part in plural (sources, experts, analysts etc). Further, is this entire sentence needed? - According to analysts... over foreign ownership.
 * Added an additional citation for the first part and changed the wording. Regarding the sentence; it's snippet of the commentary–analysis related to a major deal in the media industry that almost went through after nearly two years of negotiations so I'd think some mention of it might be relevant. Though, if you think it's necessary, I can remove this as well. It'd probably help in skimming down the length of the section.


 * The implementation of the consolidation itself was delayed and eventually cancelled in April 2021 - Which consolidation is being referred to?
 * Specified that it was about the one with the distribution companies.

Corporate affairs

 * Ownership
 * Where does the figure 73.19% come from? An outlink (link) on the page throws up a similar figure 73.16%.
 * Fixed the number and the citation. It was probably an error on my part.


 * The group was acquired by; this uses group while the very next point ...shareholding of the company uses the word company. The third point starts off with "Network18", so whichever word is used after this is less confusing. Some consistency between the three points would help.
 * Done.


 * Management
 * Rahul Joshi redirects to The Economic Times. Not very helpful.
 * Removed the wikilinks to Joshi and changed the redirect to Network18 since that's outdated. Pretty sure he is independently notable though, but doesn't seem to have an article yet.

Operating divisions and subsidiaries

 * Broadcast subsidiary
 * Is it possible to place a timeframe here- ...2 national general news channels and 14 regional general news channels...
 * It's supposed to reflect the number of channels at present. I'm not sure what you mean by timeframe. Do you mean the increase and/or fluctuation of the number of channels over time? Because that isn't as well documented by reliable sources as one might expect; for some of the more obscure channels the only thing that can be found might be an odd press release.
 * The Business Standard reference does not have any upload date, last update date... further, the last year it refers to is "2019". It does not refer to any events in 2020 or 2021. That is what I meant when I said "Is it possible to place a timeframe here". I also feel this page is one of those which Business Stardard keeps updating. But we don't know how frequently it updates, nor do they mention anything, so that can't be mentioned in the reference either. It is good it is already archived. Nothing left to do with this point really.


 * Digital and publishing divisions
 * BloombergQuint allows only 2 free articles, it is the same as The Hindu in terms of access level.
 * and the distribution deal eventually cancelled in 2015- the reference doesn't confirm the cancellation.
 * Investments
 * Done

Infobox

 * Please format and improve the citation details for the first infobox reference; including spellings.
 * Spelling of Capital18
 * Maybe you could provide a link under Divisions linking to the section #Operating divisions and subsidiaries

Introduction

 * Done

Finishing off the review
Please get the page number for Kohli-Khandekar's The Indian Media Business book correct. Please see the new points added above. DTM (talk) 14:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * This is the only worry point. There are a few lines that could fall into the case of extra detail. But on the other hand, those same points could help with readability for some. Does it fall into a case "unnecessary detail", no, not as per what I understand about Summary style.
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * I don't see any discussions or requests for removal of information on the talk page. However, there has been removal of information, even during the period of this review. As per WP:EDITWAR, and the edit history of this page over the last few months, I don't see an edit war or content dispute at this stage. Yes, someone has a problem with some information, some edits are disruptive, but as part of this GA review I am passing this point. I would request those aggrieved to take it to the talk page.
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 2-3 small points mentioned above to be done, and some content behind paywalls, considered in good faith; the six points have been addressed. DTM (talk) 14:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * I don't see any discussions or requests for removal of information on the talk page. However, there has been removal of information, even during the period of this review. As per WP:EDITWAR, and the edit history of this page over the last few months, I don't see an edit war or content dispute at this stage. Yes, someone has a problem with some information, some edits are disruptive, but as part of this GA review I am passing this point. I would request those aggrieved to take it to the talk page.
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 2-3 small points mentioned above to be done, and some content behind paywalls, considered in good faith; the six points have been addressed. DTM (talk) 14:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 2-3 small points mentioned above to be done, and some content behind paywalls, considered in good faith; the six points have been addressed. DTM (talk) 14:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking the time to review the article. I'll address the remaining points shortly. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 17:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)