I don't see anything about May 2015 or the US Department of Justice in the sources. Where did that come from? An unlisted source? Note btw that Wikipedia cannot be used as a source; by it's very nature it can't be trust-worthy, although it's entirely possible that if you find facts there you want to use, you may be able to cite sources provided by Wikipedia for them (though you have to check, of course; it's not uncommon for a Wikipedia article to diligently cite sources that don't contain the information they're cited for).
This is really quite minimal in length as it is, so I wasn't comfortable about cutting that bit and so making it even shorter.
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 don't see anything about May 2015 or the US Department of Justice in the sources. Where did that come from? An unlisted source? Note btw that Wikipedia cannot be used as a source; by it's very nature it can't be trust-worthy, although it's entirely possible that if you find facts there you want to use, you may be able to cite sources provided by Wikipedia for them (though you have to check, of course; it's not uncommon for a Wikipedia article to diligently cite sources that don't contain the information they're cited for).
This is really quite minimal in length as it is, so I wasn't comfortable about cutting that bit and so making it even shorter.
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.
As noted, this is quite minimal; one might have wished for another sentence or two. (For a more ambitious measure, one might have tried drawing in a source or two from last year for historical background.)
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.
As noted, this is quite minimal; one might have wished for another sentence or two. (For a more ambitious measure, one might have tried drawing in a source or two from last year for historical background.)
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.
