Talk:Refracktion

This article was nominated for deletion on 7 June 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations 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.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Environment

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Energy

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy 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.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Misrepresentation of ASA complaint result.

I think the article currently misrepresents the results of the complaint. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In what way? It seems to match pretty closely with the referenced BBC report. Pburka (talk) 15:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It gives only the anti-fracking result that 'Six of 18 specific complaints were upheld, with a total of 21 breaches of the ASA code being identified' but does not mention the other side of the coin, where we have, 'However, 11 of the 18 controversial passages identified in the brochure, sent to households in Lancashire, were deemed to be acceptable'. The source also has "pleased that the ASA has also validated the majority of points made in Cuadrilla's leaflet", and "important to note the ASA has confirmed that hydraulic fracturing can be done safely".

I think a more even handed summary of the process is called for. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:57, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'd read "6 of 18" as if it were already damning with faint praise. I suggest adding a sentence mentioning those points to the paragraph. Pburka (talk) 17:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it is like the difference between half-empty and half-full. I will make some changes. Let me know what you think. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]