Talk:Barry Bonds guilty of obstruction

Review of revision 1213750 [Passed]

Revision 1213750 of this article has been reviewed by Tom Morris (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 07:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. 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 1213750 of this article has been reviewed by Tom Morris (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 07:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. 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.

Too Small

The News page is too small to be considered newsworthy....

It is still news. Phearson (talk) 10:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Article inaccurate

Bonds was found guilty by a jury of one count of obstruction of justice by a jury. The judge declared a mistrial for the other three charges, as the jury could not agree. The words "while three other charges that were levied were dropped after an agreement with the prosecution and Bonds' defense lawyer" are untrue.

There was no agreement between "the prosecution and Bonds' defense lawyer" to drop the charges. In fact the sources state that the prosecution will decide whether it is worth the time and effort to retry Bonds again.

"Federal prosecutors must decide whether it is worth the time and expense to try Bonds for a second time on the deadlocked charges."[1]

"The judge in the case declared a mistrial on three remaining counts."[2]

Please correct the article. Thanks, Mattisse (talk) 13:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I've submitted a change for peer review. Thanks for pointing this out! — which said, it would be very helpful if you would submit a fix to such a thing yourself. This is a wiki. The point of flaggedrevs is that anyone can edit the article and thereby propose such a change, and then someone else will peer-review it and accept, reject, accept-with-changes, or even change and leave for yet another to peer-review. Not submitting an edit slows down the process of fixing the problem by adding extra steps (involving three people including you, rather than you and one independent peer-reviewer), and sometimes it can even result in the problem not being fixed until after the 24-hour horizon, at which point a correction notice is needed (and nobody enjoys that). --Pi zero (talk) 13:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I am never sure when it is ok to make major changes in an article that is already published. I rewrote an article by the same editor once before but that was before it was published. I have been reprimanded in the past for making a change after publication. I know it is ok to make minor changes, punctuation, slight rewording etc. but in this case the change I would have made would make the article very different. (I still needs fixing, so I guess you are saying that I should go ahead and do it.) Regards, Mattisse (talk) 14:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

If it needs fixing, yes, fix it (and someone then does a peer-review of your change). The rule for changing things after publication is that substantive edits can be made for 24 hours after publication. --Pi zero (talk) 15:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I have completely rewritten the article. Mattisse (talk) 18:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I went back and reviewed the sources and they appeared to have changed. Apologies for inaccuracy. Phearson (talk) 01:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)