There were two anomalies with the Sources; conceivably they may be related.
The November 8 BBC sources did not appear to be needed, though I cautiously left it in.
There was only one source (afaics) for the focal news event, the investigation by the commissioner.
It seems possible the BBC source may have been originally the second source for the focal event, and then the focus was changed and the sourcing didn't catch up with the change.
The lack of a second source could have justified a not-ready review –I could see a reasonable reviewer choosing to go that route— but I chose not to. It is not an option here to simply waive the requirement; the need for a second source for the focus is not to be compromised. However, in this case it seemed to me admissible to apply the principle that:
If there's just one, straightforward way to fix a problem, the reviewer is no more "involved" in the article by actually doing it, than by requiring the author to do it.
Here it seemed the fix was to Google for an independent source, a pedestrian task involving no significant creativity on the reviewer's part. So that's what I did. I'm not real fond of the Daily Mail, but it seemed tolerable for the purpose.
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.
There were two anomalies with the Sources; conceivably they may be related.
The November 8 BBC sources did not appear to be needed, though I cautiously left it in.
There was only one source (afaics) for the focal news event, the investigation by the commissioner.
It seems possible the BBC source may have been originally the second source for the focal event, and then the focus was changed and the sourcing didn't catch up with the change.
The lack of a second source could have justified a not-ready review –I could see a reasonable reviewer choosing to go that route— but I chose not to. It is not an option here to simply waive the requirement; the need for a second source for the focus is not to be compromised. However, in this case it seemed to me admissible to apply the principle that:
If there's just one, straightforward way to fix a problem, the reviewer is no more "involved" in the article by actually doing it, than by requiring the author to do it.
Here it seemed the fix was to Google for an independent source, a pedestrian task involving no significant creativity on the reviewer's part. So that's what I did. I'm not real fond of the Daily Mail, but it seemed tolerable for the purpose.
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.
