There was one anomaly during review. This article says the announcement was "this morning"; my corroborating evidence for that is presumed observation by the reporter (who is accredited) plus a double-check of the apparent timestamp on the announcement by the AIS. The anomaly is that the one source (Reuters) that says anything about when the announcement was, says "Saturday". It is also, however, my source for the website of the announcement that appears to be from this morning (the stamp is 10pm on the 19th, but I'm supposing that's UTC).
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.
There was one anomaly during review. This article says the announcement was "this morning"; my corroborating evidence for that is presumed observation by the reporter (who is accredited) plus a double-check of the apparent timestamp on the announcement by the AIS. The anomaly is that the one source (Reuters) that says anything about when the announcement was, says "Saturday". It is also, however, my source for the website of the announcement that appears to be from this morning (the stamp is 10pm on the 19th, but I'm supposing that's UTC).
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.
