Some background facts were not, afaict, supported by the sources. We of course support our sister projects, with an optional Sister links section, but Wikipedia is manifestly incapable of serving as a source (and is quite open about this property of itself). If you want to use facts claimed by a Wikipedia article, look to see if it provides trust-worthy sources that contain those facts, and if so, use them.
Due to review delays (which inevitably sometimes happen, keeping in mind everyone here is a volunteer), this is well toward the outer end of its freshness window, and I thought carefully about this point when I started this review. A story can age faster if especially heavily covered in the mainstream media, but I don't think this was, particularly. It can also become out-of-date due to subsequent developments in the story; but, eyeballing mainstream outlets, I see word of no significant progress on Friday and Saturday, and reports of a bomb in a government office (or some such) in Homs on Saturday with a claim of responsibility by a jihadist group opposed to the peace process — to which everybody said pretty much just what you'd expect if it wasn't actually going to affect the talks: the UN negotiator said don't let them derail the talks, the government delegation said anyone who doesn't condemn the attack is a terrorist, but we're not actually leaving the talks, and the opposition delegation said the government wants to use this as an excuse to derail the talks, but we're not leaving either. All of which seems to me rather unremarkable from the perspective of the talks and doesn't seem to invalidate a story focusing specifically on the opening of the talks.
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.
Some background facts were not, afaict, supported by the sources. We of course support our sister projects, with an optional Sister links section, but Wikipedia is manifestly incapable of serving as a source (and is quite open about this property of itself). If you want to use facts claimed by a Wikipedia article, look to see if it provides trust-worthy sources that contain those facts, and if so, use them.
Due to review delays (which inevitably sometimes happen, keeping in mind everyone here is a volunteer), this is well toward the outer end of its freshness window, and I thought carefully about this point when I started this review. A story can age faster if especially heavily covered in the mainstream media, but I don't think this was, particularly. It can also become out-of-date due to subsequent developments in the story; but, eyeballing mainstream outlets, I see word of no significant progress on Friday and Saturday, and reports of a bomb in a government office (or some such) in Homs on Saturday with a claim of responsibility by a jihadist group opposed to the peace process — to which everybody said pretty much just what you'd expect if it wasn't actually going to affect the talks: the UN negotiator said don't let them derail the talks, the government delegation said anyone who doesn't condemn the attack is a terrorist, but we're not actually leaving the talks, and the opposition delegation said the government wants to use this as an excuse to derail the talks, but we're not leaving either. All of which seems to me rather unremarkable from the perspective of the talks and doesn't seem to invalidate a story focusing specifically on the opening of the talks.
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.
