Talk:Cleo and Dolly merger leaves senior Australian Cleo editor Sharri Markson out of work

Review of revision 2131178 [Not ready]

Revision 2131178 of this article has been reviewed by LauraHale (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 11:56, 8 November 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: I added a few more relevant categories, removed the redlinked one and fixed the source formatting. I also re-ordered them as the newest sources should be listed first. That said... The article does not clearly establish when the events described took place. More information needs to be included in the first paragraph to address the when issue, because this is what makes a story newsworthy. The most recent source in November 7. Only one is from that date. The others are from November 5th or before. They fall a bit outside the general area of newsworthiness. The lead needs to be rewritten to make it clear what happened recently that is news and a second sources needs to be found to support all the recent information. The titles for the publications like Dolly and Cleo should be in italics. 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 2131178 of this article has been reviewed by LauraHale (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 11:56, 8 November 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: I added a few more relevant categories, removed the redlinked one and fixed the source formatting. I also re-ordered them as the newest sources should be listed first. That said... The article does not clearly establish when the events described took place. More information needs to be included in the first paragraph to address the when issue, because this is what makes a story newsworthy. The most recent source in November 7. Only one is from that date. The others are from November 5th or before. They fall a bit outside the general area of newsworthiness. The lead needs to be rewritten to make it clear what happened recently that is news and a second sources needs to be found to support all the recent information. The titles for the publications like Dolly and Cleo should be in italics. 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.

Headline

Well... she wasn't forced out of work... as such. She declined to apply. Hmm. --Pi zero (talk) 13:55, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Review of revision 2132008 [Passed]

Revision 2132008 of this article has been reviewed by LauraHale (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 16:57, 8 November 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: The paywall source caused some issues. I could only use it to verify the lead. Thus, some information may have been removed that was verifiable from there. Some language was tweaked and removed because it felt like sensationalist wording that, very importantly, was not verifiable. It is worth looking through the article history to see where that was done. That said, I think it does a decent job of covering the various issues while putting things into original thought. 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 2132008 of this article has been reviewed by LauraHale (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 16:57, 8 November 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: The paywall source caused some issues. I could only use it to verify the lead. Thus, some information may have been removed that was verifiable from there. Some language was tweaked and removed because it felt like sensationalist wording that, very importantly, was not verifiable. It is worth looking through the article history to see where that was done. That said, I think it does a decent job of covering the various issues while putting things into original thought. 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.