Talk:Optus Sport

Controversies location

I'm of the belief that the 'Controversies' section should go above the list of channels and sports. It should continue logically from the 'history' section. potentially it could be reduced to more accurate sub-headings under 'history'. Eg 'Initial Controversy', 'World Cup Fiasco', etc... Eddyavespin317 (talk) 17:47, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Optus Sport/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ed! (talk · contribs) 19:03, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Going to put down some comments on this one. —Ed!^(talk) 19:03, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

On the overall unfortunately, this one is going to be a Quick Fail on the basis of some substantive issues. However, I'm putting down a few comments on the current state of the article in hopes that future authors and nominators have some suggestions to work from. —Ed!^(talk) 19:25, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)

1. It is reasonably well written:

   Fail

   • The lead should more adequately summarize the entire article, as is it's got a few establishing lines but doesn't really set up what the subject is very well.
   • "In the beginning of Optus Television,..." When was this? Also, it would be helpful to start this section off with some context explaining what Optus Television is and what market it's shooting for, so we know more about the context surrounding this subject.
   • Any numbers on viewership or intended audience? It's likely before this channel was launched, it was done with extensive market research that could probably be taken.
   • "Optus announced pricing for the EPL coverage in May, which was revised after being poorly received by customers, with new pricing, including a period of 'free' coverage, announced in June.[10][11]" -- the initial pricing should be indicated here since it was the subject of such a reception.
   • "Optus also announced they had done a deal with the Nine Network..." -- what are the terms of this deal?
   • "The news that Optus had secured the Premier League rights was not received well by existing supporters. Most were locked into plans..." -- Quantify and watch out for weasel words here.
   • "Initial controversy" and "response" can probably be merged into one section but needs to be fleshed out a bit more.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable:

   Fail See WP:V for guidelines on how to cite sources for an article like this one.

   • "Initial controversy" section has an uncited graph.
   • "Growth" has several graphs that don't have sources, either.
   • "Channels and Content" and "Sports" sections need extensive sourcing to better back up what's in the article.

3. It is broad in its coverage:

   Fail Article needs a bit more context on the marketplace for these kinds of channels. Ratings? Viewership? National interest in the subject? These might be a few starting points for a section that explains what kind of interest there is that would create a business move like this.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy:

   Major ref formatting needed:

   • Refs 1-14 need formats into {{cite web}} templates with details on publisher, format and other things. See WP:CITE for more on this.
   • Refs 15-16, 34-37 are bare urls and have no formatting at all, very needed.
   • More details need to be filled in to Refs 25-33, 38-39 for verifiability.

5. It is stable:

   No problems there.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:

   • Logo is in the public domain, but more images are needed. Are there photos of people involved in production? Locations where filming takes place? Notable events?

7. Other:

   Fail As is, the article has multiple substantial issues which I think would some pretty significant work, and as such, I don't think these can be addressed in a week's time. But would be happy to see this one come back once some of these issues are addressed. —Ed!^(talk) 19:25, 13 January 2019 (UTC)