Talk:Dibaba’s comeback: Long-distance track star wins her first World Championship title since 2007

Review of revision 1969929 [Not ready]

Revision 1969929 of this article has been reviewed by LauraHale (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 08:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: The title is not verifiable. The sources do not support it. The lead paragraph opens with this fact, but it is not apparent from the sources that this is true. As this is the perspective the article is making, it should be much more clearly articulated somewhere for it to be verifiable int he sources. "Dibaba can rightly be lauded as queen of the 10km event" is not quite it, and the world's fastest woman tends to refer to the 100 meter race anyway. "Dibaba, who also has two world 5000m titles, left nothing to chance." is also not quite it. Other issues: It needed more categories. Categories are like tags and should be there. Do not use dash offsets in place of commas. It makes things confusing to read. Inverted pyramid needs considering. The last paragraph is actually MORE important than the second because it refers to the title information. Most important facts first. 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 1969929 of this article has been reviewed by LauraHale (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 08:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: The title is not verifiable. The sources do not support it. The lead paragraph opens with this fact, but it is not apparent from the sources that this is true. As this is the perspective the article is making, it should be much more clearly articulated somewhere for it to be verifiable int he sources. "Dibaba can rightly be lauded as queen of the 10km event" is not quite it, and the world's fastest woman tends to refer to the 100 meter race anyway. "Dibaba, who also has two world 5000m titles, left nothing to chance." is also not quite it. Other issues: It needed more categories. Categories are like tags and should be there. Do not use dash offsets in place of commas. It makes things confusing to read. Inverted pyramid needs considering. The last paragraph is actually MORE important than the second because it refers to the title information. Most important facts first. 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.

Review of revision 1969984 [Passed]

Revision 1969984 of this article has been reviewed by LauraHale (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 09:04, 12 August 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Fixed up a few more minor things. (Please see article history.) Looks much better post edits. 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 1969984 of this article has been reviewed by LauraHale (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 09:04, 12 August 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Fixed up a few more minor things. (Please see article history.) Looks much better post edits. 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.