Talk:'42-year detour' ends: Garrison Keillor homeward bound

Review of revision 4227853 [Not ready]

Revision 4227853 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 00:28, 28 June 2016 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: We require at least two mutually independent trust-worthy sources corroborating the focal event of a synthesis article. This really isn't just a matter of verifiability (although this reviewer usually lists it under verifiability, as a convenient shorthand); on Wikinews the two-source rule contributes variously to four out of five review criteria (all but style). We recommend reading all articles before starting to write, as this makes it much easier for the multiple sources to contribute to avoiding "copyright" (which includes plagiary) and neutrality difficulties. The lede should succinctly answer as many as reasonably possible of the five Ws and H about the focal event and, in the process, should establish its newsworthiness (so that, between the answering and the establishing, if the leded doesn't contain a "day" word there's probably something wrong). Note that the lede should also be accessible to a general international audience; for example, the country involved should generally be identified (though this is also implicit in "where", of course). 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 4227853 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 00:28, 28 June 2016 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: We require at least two mutually independent trust-worthy sources corroborating the focal event of a synthesis article. This really isn't just a matter of verifiability (although this reviewer usually lists it under verifiability, as a convenient shorthand); on Wikinews the two-source rule contributes variously to four out of five review criteria (all but style). We recommend reading all articles before starting to write, as this makes it much easier for the multiple sources to contribute to avoiding "copyright" (which includes plagiary) and neutrality difficulties. The lede should succinctly answer as many as reasonably possible of the five Ws and H about the focal event and, in the process, should establish its newsworthiness (so that, between the answering and the establishing, if the leded doesn't contain a "day" word there's probably something wrong). Note that the lede should also be accessible to a general international audience; for example, the country involved should generally be identified (though this is also implicit in "where", of course). 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.

@Pi zero: that's what I get for assuming that everyone on the planet has heard of Keillor, eh? 🖖ATS / Talk 01:15, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Review of revision 4229328 [Passed]

Revision 4229328 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 22:48, 2 July 2016 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Interesting to review this while listening to the final show on the radio. 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 4229328 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 22:48, 2 July 2016 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Interesting to review this while listening to the final show on the radio. 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.

@Pi zero: heh, nice! Anyway, thanks again for your work. 🖖ATS / Talk 22:53, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

EMDASH

@Pi zero: I've always profoundly disapproved of its profound disapproval. But, oh well ... 😜 🖖ATS / Talk 23:08, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, we're not gonna see eye-to-eye on that one, I think. Believe it or not, one of the little things I especially loved about the web when it came along was that we could finally put whitespace around our em dashes. --Pi zero (talk) 23:23, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

AP's been doing it for decades—one of a handful of problems I've had with that style for decades (😜). My pet peeve: the insistence on using commas within quote marks to separate titles. It's a holdover from the days when italic typeset was rare. 🖖ATS / Talk 23:34, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I've always figured omitting whitespace around em dashes for a holdover from the expense of paper real estate. --Pi zero (talk) 23:44, 2 July 2016 (UTC)