Talk:Amended USA Freedom Act draws questions from civil liberties groups

Comments

Noted on a preliminary look:

• Non-neutral description "watered down" in lede; implies a value judgement
• Not 100% sure about "The bill was originally regarded as the best bill to reform the National Security Agency (NSA) among civil liberties groups".

--Pi zero (talk)

Is there an easy way to rename articles? How about 'Amended USA Freedom Act draws questions from civil liberties groups'? If not, I am open. I will attribute the other directly to a source. Thanks for the feedback and please rename if you are more familiar with it than me. --Nosfartu (talk) 02:11, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I attempted to address the wording concern, I am unaware of how to rename. Please feel free to rename if you want, and make any other changes or suggestions. I'd be happy to get concerns addressed and then publish. Thanks for the feedback! --Nosfartu (talk) 02:22, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Your account is too new for you to rename the article yourself; accounts get that privilege after, I believe, four days; until then, you just ask us to rename it. I'll do that for you now. --Pi zero (talk) 03:00, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I see. Thanks --Nosfartu (talk) 03:12, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone else have any other changes they would like to make?--Nosfartu (talk) 00:43, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Review of revision 2612015 [Passed]

Revision 2612015 of this article has been reviewed by RockerballAustralia (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 07:45, 11 May 2014 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: After a bit of chopping, everything seems to be in order. Bulk quoting of another news source is a no-no. Other than that everything seemed to be addressed 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 2612015 of this article has been reviewed by RockerballAustralia (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 07:45, 11 May 2014 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: After a bit of chopping, everything seems to be in order. Bulk quoting of another news source is a no-no. Other than that everything seemed to be addressed 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.

FTR — This was just about to go stale when reviewed --RockerballAustralia c 07:47, 11 May 2014 (UTC)