Talk:Australia: Victoria Cross recipient Ben Roberts-Smith loses war crimes defamation case against media outlets

Review of revision 4730546 [Not ready]

Revision 4730546 of this article has been reviewed by Heavy Water (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 17:22, 1 June 2023 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: The New York Times is paywalled and thus WN:PAYWALL disallows it. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: @Commemorative1. 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 4730546 of this article has been reviewed by Heavy Water (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 17:22, 1 June 2023 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: The New York Times is paywalled and thus WN:PAYWALL disallows it. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: @Commemorative1. 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.

Title

Alright guys, I'm unsure about this one. On the one hand, he is an alleged war criminal, insofar as he has been alleged, by media outlets, to be a war criminal. But in all the sources, and even the top sentence here, his top qualifier is as Australia's most-decorated soldier. Considering the weightiness of these allegations I'm not sure whether its inclusion is warranted or breaking NPOV; perhaps better, more neutral title (while still distanced from BBC) would be "Decorated soldier Ben Roberts-Smith loses war crimes defamation case against Australian media outlets"? JJLiu112 (talk) 04:00, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Fair point. "Decorated Australian soldier Ben Roberts-Smith loses war crime defamation case against media outlets" might work better? Commemorative1 (talk) 05:18, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Review of revision 4731410 [Passed]

Revision 4731410 of this article has been reviewed by Heavy Water (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 03:52, 8 June 2023 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: @Commemorative1: Please see the edit history and write in the active voice. Also, what's in quote templates needs to be in the article proper, too. ABC, the only source to mention the "great Australian hero" quote, says "former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull", which is misleading as he was in office when he said this; "Prime Minister", as I changed it to, can refer to former or current, so the sources technically support it. 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 4731410 of this article has been reviewed by Heavy Water (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 03:52, 8 June 2023 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: @Commemorative1: Please see the edit history and write in the active voice. Also, what's in quote templates needs to be in the article proper, too. ABC, the only source to mention the "great Australian hero" quote, says "former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull", which is misleading as he was in office when he said this; "Prime Minister", as I changed it to, can refer to former or current, so the sources technically support it. 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.

Review of revision 4731421 [Passed]

Revision 4731421 of this article has been reviewed by Heavy Water (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 03:56, 8 June 2023 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I conflicted with my own last edit in trying to publish; "cancel" apparently doesn't stop EzPR from leaving the successful template on the talk page. 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 4731421 of this article has been reviewed by Heavy Water (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 03:56, 8 June 2023 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I conflicted with my own last edit in trying to publish; "cancel" apparently doesn't stop EzPR from leaving the successful template on the talk page. 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.