Talk:Serbia Broadband

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Companies

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles

??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

Serbia Mid‑importance

	Serbia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Serbia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SerbiaWikipedia:WikiProject SerbiaTemplate:WikiProject SerbiaSerbia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Criticism section - neutrality disputed[edit]

Based on [1], and according to the WP:Neutral point of view, WP:NPOV dispute, I find the neutrality of the article's section "Criticism" disputed. Even though its name looks fairly neutral, in my opinion, the whole content of it looks one-sided, without sorting out different opinions which take part in it. Even some sources linking to these statements are coming from a Blog articles, which is kind of problematic - WP:Blogs as sources, as its content may be subjective and doesn't perceive many different views on the current situation.--AirWolf ^talk 05:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality dispute[edit]

I believe the section on Criticism to be factual in relation to the loss of service suffered by SBB customers on 28th March 2015. The provider offered little guidance to subscribers for a considerable time after the outage. An apology was issued on the company's Twitter and Facebook accounts. Subscribers continued to suffered service outages for a number of days following the incident.

The section should provide further evidence of alleged poor customer service by the company to support the author's opinion.

Royphish (talk) 15:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The criticism in question may be factual, but should also be based on reliable sources in order to establish relevance. However, the central claim (outage on 29 March 2015) is sourced to a forum. I don't think that's sufficient. I tend to agree with what AirWolf has said above.

I've changed the order so that the article does not begin with a "Criticism" section right away. GregorB (talk) 01:21, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]