The source of the story does not appear to be well described as "senior Russian intelligence officers", nor "the Russian Intelligence Service".
If the office called it "ridiculous", they didn't refuse to comment; as I understand it, they said he wouldn't comment, but they had more than just "ridiculous" to say about it.
Perhaps a bit more could be said elaborating on Sharifov's office's ridicule of the accusations; with such an extremely brief mention thereof, against the relatively much greater weight given here to the accusations, the whole feels a bit biased. Elaborating a bit on that point might also help with the article length, which is atm just at the edge of our minimum-length standards (though at current length I would have allowed it, had there been no other difficulties).
If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.
The source of the story does not appear to be well described as "senior Russian intelligence officers", nor "the Russian Intelligence Service".
If the office called it "ridiculous", they didn't refuse to comment; as I understand it, they said he wouldn't comment, but they had more than just "ridiculous" to say about it.
Perhaps a bit more could be said elaborating on Sharifov's office's ridicule of the accusations; with such an extremely brief mention thereof, against the relatively much greater weight given here to the accusations, the whole feels a bit biased. Elaborating a bit on that point might also help with the article length, which is atm just at the edge of our minimum-length standards (though at current length I would have allowed it, had there been no other difficulties).
If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.
I appreciate your feedback. I've made changes to try and satisfy each of your concerns. Please let me know if I need to add further information. Much appreciated. Leila Makm (talk) 15:45, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This article feels pretty solid imho, after effectively addressing the first review.
Non-English sources are at best awkward to work with (unless the reviewer happens to read the source language fluently, which was not at all the case here), but I've muddled through. There are sometimes advantages to non-English sources, which may add more to a story than can be found in its English coverage.
It might have been worth mentioning the name and identity of the immediate source — Yuri Shvets — and the fact he's got a book coming out in Sweden. Those things do add some further perspective, though one could also argue that too much of that could simply be a distraction, since this isn't that long an article.
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.
This article feels pretty solid imho, after effectively addressing the first review.
Non-English sources are at best awkward to work with (unless the reviewer happens to read the source language fluently, which was not at all the case here), but I've muddled through. There are sometimes advantages to non-English sources, which may add more to a story than can be found in its English coverage.
It might have been worth mentioning the name and identity of the immediate source — Yuri Shvets — and the fact he's got a book coming out in Sweden. Those things do add some further perspective, though one could also argue that too much of that could simply be a distraction, since this isn't that long an article.
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.
