Although I wasn't sure enough to actually remove any sources, it seemed to me that several of these sources were not actually used. Although obviously it's great to add more sources that allow us to produce a better article, keep in mind that every source added increases the burden for any reviewer. This is why listing unused sources is against policy.
Do not present things as hearsay. "It is understood that..." doesn't name the actor: who understands this? Either the writer understands it, in which case it's a violation of our neutrality policy (no analysis/opinion in our own voice); or some significant person has said it, in which case by failing to give clear attribution we're omitting important information for the reader to assess the merits of the claim; or it was said by a reporter or even more anonymous party or parties, in which case it's just gossip. Things like this can sometimes be rescued, but any such rescue involves some form of attribution.
Please don't edit an article directly while it's marked {{under review}}; such edits can cause a variety of problems for the reviewer.
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.
Although I wasn't sure enough to actually remove any sources, it seemed to me that several of these sources were not actually used. Although obviously it's great to add more sources that allow us to produce a better article, keep in mind that every source added increases the burden for any reviewer. This is why listing unused sources is against policy.
Do not present things as hearsay. "It is understood that..." doesn't name the actor: who understands this? Either the writer understands it, in which case it's a violation of our neutrality policy (no analysis/opinion in our own voice); or some significant person has said it, in which case by failing to give clear attribution we're omitting important information for the reader to assess the merits of the claim; or it was said by a reporter or even more anonymous party or parties, in which case it's just gossip. Things like this can sometimes be rescued, but any such rescue involves some form of attribution.
Please don't edit an article directly while it's marked {{under review}}; such edits can cause a variety of problems for the reviewer.
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.
