Two things I could have been stuffy about; instead, I'm allowing them and simply advising to steer clear of them in future.
We ask the focal event be corroborated by two mutually independent sources. Depending on the nature of the event, it may suffice that one source says the thing was going to happen, and one source testifies that it actually did happen. Here, afaics only one source testifies to the Nigerian military tackling those two towns on Friday; it's a logical development, and I'm allowing it, but I'm somewhat uncomfortable doing so and encourage the reporter to strive for greater redundancy.
We have an explicit policy against pay-to-read sources. Unfortunately, WSJ has a paywall... sometimes. It's not entirely clear who the paywall applies to; possibly only readers within the US? At any rate, on this occasion I was able to get around their paywall, but I wouldn't be comfortable doing that systematically, so please avoid the problem in future.
There are, of course, only so many ways to say some things. I was somewhat bemused, after tweaking the (relatively long/distinctive) phrase "a group with suspected ties to Boko Haram" for distance-from-source to "suspected Boko Haram militants", to subsequently find phrase "suspected Boko Haram militants" appeared elsewhere in the same source 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.
Two things I could have been stuffy about; instead, I'm allowing them and simply advising to steer clear of them in future.
We ask the focal event be corroborated by two mutually independent sources. Depending on the nature of the event, it may suffice that one source says the thing was going to happen, and one source testifies that it actually did happen. Here, afaics only one source testifies to the Nigerian military tackling those two towns on Friday; it's a logical development, and I'm allowing it, but I'm somewhat uncomfortable doing so and encourage the reporter to strive for greater redundancy.
We have an explicit policy against pay-to-read sources. Unfortunately, WSJ has a paywall... sometimes. It's not entirely clear who the paywall applies to; possibly only readers within the US? At any rate, on this occasion I was able to get around their paywall, but I wouldn't be comfortable doing that systematically, so please avoid the problem in future.
There are, of course, only so many ways to say some things. I was somewhat bemused, after tweaking the (relatively long/distinctive) phrase "a group with suspected ties to Boko Haram" for distance-from-source to "suspected Boko Haram militants", to subsequently find phrase "suspected Boko Haram militants" appeared elsewhere in the same source 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.
