The lede had two problems that required address. First, the focal event wasn't even hinted at in the entire lengthy first sentence, only mentioned in the short second sentence at the end. (One of my favorite quotes, from Arthur Brisbane: "Never forget that if you don't hit a newspaper reader between the eyes with your first sentence, there is no need of writing a second one.") Second, there was no hint in the entire lede of who the heck Larry Nassar is. Faced with a choice between not-reading the article (and guaranteeing it would go stale) or finding a way to cope, I tried to make the minimal rearrangement of existing material in the lede that would address the first problem; and tried to mitigate the second problem by embedding the mention of Larry Nassar in the midst of the rest of the context of the lede (rather than putting it up front) with the added words "for sex abuse". Then I considered carefully whether the edit was within my purview. I think it's marginally within bounds, though I wouldn't be comfortable going nearly so far on anything like a regular basis.
The USAG letter says "posted on 01/24/2018". That's Wednesday. The independent sources clearly indicate their response came out on Friday, and the the thing they were responding to evidently didn't even occur until Thursday. So I figure the posted-on date is a mistake; it's hardly surprising they might be in some degree of disarray atm.
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.
The lede had two problems that required address. First, the focal event wasn't even hinted at in the entire lengthy first sentence, only mentioned in the short second sentence at the end. (One of my favorite quotes, from Arthur Brisbane: "Never forget that if you don't hit a newspaper reader between the eyes with your first sentence, there is no need of writing a second one.") Second, there was no hint in the entire lede of who the heck Larry Nassar is. Faced with a choice between not-reading the article (and guaranteeing it would go stale) or finding a way to cope, I tried to make the minimal rearrangement of existing material in the lede that would address the first problem; and tried to mitigate the second problem by embedding the mention of Larry Nassar in the midst of the rest of the context of the lede (rather than putting it up front) with the added words "for sex abuse". Then I considered carefully whether the edit was within my purview. I think it's marginally within bounds, though I wouldn't be comfortable going nearly so far on anything like a regular basis.
The USAG letter says "posted on 01/24/2018". That's Wednesday. The independent sources clearly indicate their response came out on Friday, and the the thing they were responding to evidently didn't even occur until Thursday. So I figure the posted-on date is a mistake; it's hardly surprising they might be in some degree of disarray atm.
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.
