The News Limited stuff can all be drawn from the relevant Wikipedia articles on the papers; the references cited on Wikipedia are embedded in HTML comments, and confirm my rewrite of the N.L. controversy into the article. Can be broken out as sources if needed, citing where used should be more readily reviewed. --Brian McNeil / talk22:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Early in this review, there was a lively discussion on IRC about its newsworthiness, which I followed with interest though engaged in only minimally. Press following politicians isn't news but that's because it lacks specificity (like continental drift, as opposed to an earthquake). As for relevance, I think a significant portion of those interested in the sport would be interested in this; it's got some good supporting details that paint an engaging picture. So I'm comfortable with its newsworthiness.
Through off-wiki coordination with the reviewer, several edits by other users were made whilst the article was {{under review}}.
Nearly two paragraphs were added by Brianmc. Although I fully fact-checked these, and made edits for neutrality of specific language, ultimately I had to consider how the material fit into the article as a whole, and concluded that much of it didn't fit: its presence in the article was not justified by the story being told by the article, coming across as a non-neutrally chosen pocket of deep background. Two sentences added by Brianmc remained, in the three-sentence paragraph on how newspapers spun the story; those two sentences still felt awkward until Laura insightfully reversed the order of two paragraphs, as the nature of the press coverage is relevant background on their attitude toward the announcement, but is less important than their behavior at the event.
The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.
Early in this review, there was a lively discussion on IRC about its newsworthiness, which I followed with interest though engaged in only minimally. Press following politicians isn't news but that's because it lacks specificity (like continental drift, as opposed to an earthquake). As for relevance, I think a significant portion of those interested in the sport would be interested in this; it's got some good supporting details that paint an engaging picture. So I'm comfortable with its newsworthiness.
Through off-wiki coordination with the reviewer, several edits by other users were made whilst the article was {{under review}}.
Nearly two paragraphs were added by Brianmc. Although I fully fact-checked these, and made edits for neutrality of specific language, ultimately I had to consider how the material fit into the article as a whole, and concluded that much of it didn't fit: its presence in the article was not justified by the story being told by the article, coming across as a non-neutrally chosen pocket of deep background. Two sentences added by Brianmc remained, in the three-sentence paragraph on how newspapers spun the story; those two sentences still felt awkward until Laura insightfully reversed the order of two paragraphs, as the nature of the press coverage is relevant background on their attitude toward the announcement, but is less important than their behavior at the event.
The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.
