Talk:Canada keeping eye on Deepwater Horizon spill
Add topicReview of revision 1031182 [Failed]
[edit]  |
Revision 1031182 of this article has been reviewed by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 11:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: None added. 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 1031182 of this article has been reviewed by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 11:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: None added. 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. |
- Hmm, true, but personally I found the article really interesting because its a different angle on the BP oil spill. I don't think it has lost relevance, but it is based on information from a while ago. Bawolff ☺☻ 11:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- I suspect you could fairly easily find current information on this angle. Look for a press release; are they still doing it? (well, yes, but can we verify that?). Maybe even shoot some questions about it, go for OR... Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 12:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- As Bawolff said, its still newsworthy... While the information is a little old, this is origional reporting for a lot of it (yes it has been said that the oil spill could get picked up by the loop current, and yes it has been said that it could travel up the Eastern Seaboard, but no one has talked about how that could affect Canada. Now we also know that Canada has been flying missions daily to keep track of it... I think this seems highly news worthy. Of course I have a bias because I wrote the article. I have updated the article with a news story that was posted yesterday. ☠ Travis "TeamColtra" McCrea ☠ - (T)(C) 18:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- I, too added a newer dated article, however, it is an editorial, and even though it would be nice to have another Canadian article, this one, too sounds more like an editorial and not really like news news. If there was actually oil on CA beaches, then news...So far only CA migratory birds seem to be actually really affected [1] and NEB is watching. [2] SriMesh | talk 19:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- I feel its news -- Canada is keeping an eye on the BP spill... If a country one day massively increased their military size, and started doing a lot of military drills, then that could be an indicator that there could be war, and would be newsworthy. I feel this is newsworthy in the same sense. Thats just my opinion ☠ Travis "TeamColtra" McCrea ☠ - (T)(C) 20:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- I, too added a newer dated article, however, it is an editorial, and even though it would be nice to have another Canadian article, this one, too sounds more like an editorial and not really like news news. If there was actually oil on CA beaches, then news...So far only CA migratory birds seem to be actually really affected [1] and NEB is watching. [2] SriMesh | talk 19:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- As Bawolff said, its still newsworthy... While the information is a little old, this is origional reporting for a lot of it (yes it has been said that the oil spill could get picked up by the loop current, and yes it has been said that it could travel up the Eastern Seaboard, but no one has talked about how that could affect Canada. Now we also know that Canada has been flying missions daily to keep track of it... I think this seems highly news worthy. Of course I have a bias because I wrote the article. I have updated the article with a news story that was posted yesterday. ☠ Travis "TeamColtra" McCrea ☠ - (T)(C) 18:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Review of revision 1031733 [Passed]
[edit]  |
Revision 1031733 of this article has been reviewed by Diego Grez (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 01:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: Stale-borderline but OK. Another victim of the articles for review murder. 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 1031733 of this article has been reviewed by Diego Grez (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 01:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: Stale-borderline but OK. Another victim of the articles for review murder. 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. |
Exponentially
[edit]I doubt the oil spill is growing exponentially at all. That's misleading if you ask me.
- Quite right. It is already fixed. --InfantGorilla (talk) 09:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Edit
[edit]{{editprotected}} "Walkom: Threat of oil spill disaster worse in Canad": This should be changed to "Canada", as that is what the title of the source is. Heavy Water (talk) 17:58, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
