Talk:New Jersey jury clears man of five murders over 1978 teens' disappearance

Review of revision 1328530 [Not ready]

Revision 1328530 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 05:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: NPOV: Not ready: Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: I've got quite a lot of passages left over after verifying all I could — suggesting that either the author has left off a source, or I'm missing at least one fairly major cache of information in the sources (I've looked at, what, five or six videos embedded in the Star-Ledger source, and there's a timeline of events there too). Here's a complete list of everything I haven't verified, in order of appearance in the article text. I'm actually still having trouble verifying that the verdict was on Wednesday. I don't see that said directly; I do see deliberation started Friday and stretched over four days; and the timeline (given on Wednesday) says the verdict was "yesterday". The whole business about two trips, I found no sign of anywhere, nor of Hampton giving Evans the match. Those details really make me think there's a major cache of information somewhere that I'm not seeing. The sentence that starts "However, testimony was inconsistent" is presenting defense's claims as fact (non-neutral), and even if rephrased to attribute the claims, I can't entirely verify it; some of it I did find in the Star-Ledger, but the bit about changing over time I haven't found. I don't see the specially trained dogs, nor the sonar, nor (later in that paragraph) the thirteen hours of questioning. Questions about the above? Ask. 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.

Revision 1328530 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 05:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: NPOV: Not ready: Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: I've got quite a lot of passages left over after verifying all I could — suggesting that either the author has left off a source, or I'm missing at least one fairly major cache of information in the sources (I've looked at, what, five or six videos embedded in the Star-Ledger source, and there's a timeline of events there too). Here's a complete list of everything I haven't verified, in order of appearance in the article text. I'm actually still having trouble verifying that the verdict was on Wednesday. I don't see that said directly; I do see deliberation started Friday and stretched over four days; and the timeline (given on Wednesday) says the verdict was "yesterday". The whole business about two trips, I found no sign of anywhere, nor of Hampton giving Evans the match. Those details really make me think there's a major cache of information somewhere that I'm not seeing. The sentence that starts "However, testimony was inconsistent" is presenting defense's claims as fact (non-neutral), and even if rephrased to attribute the claims, I can't entirely verify it; some of it I did find in the Star-Ledger, but the bit about changing over time I haven't found. I don't see the specially trained dogs, nor the sonar, nor (later in that paragraph) the thirteen hours of questioning. Questions about the above? Ask. 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 recognise the NYT source in any shape from the one I cited; it has utterly changed. Going looking for mirrors achieves results: Wednesday, match, dogs, sonar, double trip. The full report as I recall it shows your NPOV concerns unfounded; it presented facts the defense used to their advantage, rather than cite a subjective view as fact. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 11:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
  • This cached quote represents my closest achievement to the full thing. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 11:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
    • quote, mirror. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 11:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Review of revision 1328704 [Passed]

Revision 1328704 of this article has been reviewed by Brian McNeil (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 12:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Reviewed on the basis of pizero's review, plus additional information dug up on talk. I know these sort of articles are "difficult". 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 1328704 of this article has been reviewed by Brian McNeil (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 12:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Reviewed on the basis of pizero's review, plus additional information dug up on talk. I know these sort of articles are "difficult". 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.