The lede here appears to be background, which belongs further down the inverted pyramid. Work out what specific thing just happened, that you can pin a specific day to; then write a lean, mean brief summary of that specific focal event, that does its thing by succinctly answering as many as reasonably possible of the five Ws and an H about the focal event — often one of those Ws+H might take two or three words, or half a dozen — and, in the process of succinctly answering those, it should make clear that the focal event satisfies the elements of newsworthiness.
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.
The lede here appears to be background, which belongs further down the inverted pyramid. Work out what specific thing just happened, that you can pin a specific day to; then write a lean, mean brief summary of that specific focal event, that does its thing by succinctly answering as many as reasonably possible of the five Ws and an H about the focal event — often one of those Ws+H might take two or three words, or half a dozen — and, in the process of succinctly answering those, it should make clear that the focal event satisfies the elements of newsworthiness.
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.
It's good to have some coverage of this, especially in concert with previous articles in our archives (though one could have drawn on those to provide more historical background here; increasing background is a benefit of having an ongoing serious of articles).
This was not up to the standard that should be expected of someone who considers themself ready for the review bit. Things like the first submission, that lacked a focal event in the lede, absolutely should not happen. The revised article contained analysis and a WN:Future violation.
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.
It's good to have some coverage of this, especially in concert with previous articles in our archives (though one could have drawn on those to provide more historical background here; increasing background is a benefit of having an ongoing serious of articles).
This was not up to the standard that should be expected of someone who considers themself ready for the review bit. Things like the first submission, that lacked a focal event in the lede, absolutely should not happen. The revised article contained analysis and a WN:Future violation.
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.
I now have doubts about having let this through in this form. I'm not so sure it gives an unbiased first impression of the overall scope of the thing. --Pi zero (talk) 23:21, 2 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
