Talk:California court sentences parents who kept their children in captivity

New York Times

@Qwerty number1: Heads-up, Qwerty. The reviewers around here usually treat the NYT as a paywalled source because of that five-article-a-month limit. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:53, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Post! I see the source is actually the post and that "New York Times" was a typo. Fixed. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:37, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I really.......

...want this article to pass review, but it has some MAJOR deficits regarding style, tone and voice. I don't fancy myself a person who likes to slam other peoples' English fluency, but the contributor has some <ahem> entertaining user boxes on their page, espousing their mastery of English and from the likes of this article, such mastery is suspect. Nevertheless, one appreciates contributions here (trying is trying, after all) so I will over the next hour or so, try to clean this up a wee bit. --Bddpaux (talk) 01:09, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Review of revision 4476499 [Not ready]

Revision 4476499 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 04:35, 20 April 2019 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: The sources disagree about how many children there were. It's not sufficient to decide one trusts one of two sources more than the other (that's a valid position to take, but in this case, over the number of children, not sufficient); additional sourcing would be appropriate, and if the reporter has any thoughts to offer regarding how such a discrepancy might have happened, by all means offer those thoughts on the talk page. The lede should try succinctly answer as many as reasonably possible of the five Ws and an H, and in the process should establish newsworthiness; here, in particular, there is no "day" word answering when (i.e. "today", "yesterday", or the name of a day of the week). Is the quoted judge the one who heard the case? That should be clarified. 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 4476499 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 04:35, 20 April 2019 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: The sources disagree about how many children there were. It's not sufficient to decide one trusts one of two sources more than the other (that's a valid position to take, but in this case, over the number of children, not sufficient); additional sourcing would be appropriate, and if the reporter has any thoughts to offer regarding how such a discrepancy might have happened, by all means offer those thoughts on the talk page. The lede should try succinctly answer as many as reasonably possible of the five Ws and an H, and in the process should establish newsworthiness; here, in particular, there is no "day" word answering when (i.e. "today", "yesterday", or the name of a day of the week). Is the quoted judge the one who heard the case? That should be clarified. 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.

Children

It appears they had 13 but admitted they tortured 12. Qwerty number1 (talk) 07:24, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. --Pi zero (talk) 21:38, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Review of revision 4476596 [Passed]

Revision 4476596 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 21:40, 20 April 2019 (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 4476596 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 21:40, 20 April 2019 (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.