Talk:Austrian Airlines cancels Moscow-bound flight after Russia refuses a reroute outside Belarusian airspace

Stale

As this is hours from going stale, I'd ask if someone would please review this article. --JJLiu112 (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Source

Re the PDF, I assumed it would be cited as per 2021-10 : Operations in Belarus Airspace, which links directly to the attachment. --JJLiu112 (talk) 18:34, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

If the URI is different, you must cite it.
•–• 18:35, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Je ne savais rien. --JJLiu112 (talk) 18:37, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Also, should that PDF be used as the source? I cannot move it to sources section as an uninvolved reviewer -- not unless the reporter confirms it.
•–• 18:42, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that's precisely the source I used. Could I please enter it in? --JJLiu112 (talk) 18:46, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Recommended edits

RT also reported LOT Polish Airlines's modified routes were approved instead of "RT reported even LOT Polish Airlines's modified routes were approved" because "even" hints it's particularly exceptional.

Revert https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Austrian_Airlines_cancels_Moscow-bound_flight_after_Russia_refuses_a_reroute_outside_Belarusian_airspace&oldid=4621571 except third-party -> third country because it makes more grammatical sense: "recommends, that" vs "recommended, the". Also, the recommendation was issued, but is still recommended, hence recommends. --JJLiu112 (talk) 19:16, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Review of revision 4621586 [Passed]

Revision 4621586 of this article has been reviewed by Acagastya (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 20:02, 29 May 2021 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Thanks for the article, @JJLiu112:. Apart from the issue of the PDF source, everything else was all right. Make sure the links and cats are all right. Adding a wikisource link to such conventions is a good idea. See the edit history for more details. 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.

Revision 4621586 of this article has been reviewed by Acagastya (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 20:02, 29 May 2021 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Thanks for the article, @JJLiu112:. Apart from the issue of the PDF source, everything else was all right. Make sure the links and cats are all right. Adding a wikisource link to such conventions is a good idea. See the edit history for more details. 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.