Talk:Drone delivers transfusion blood intact

Thoughts

@Darkfrog24: A few things catch my eye, here.

• As I remarked on the earlier article, there's a rule of thumb that if the lede doesn't contain a "day" word — "today", "yesterday", "Tuesday", etc. — there's probably something wrong. There are rare exceptions, and I can see various plausible reasons BRS allowed the slightly modified form in that article (making it one of those rare exceptions), but it's a good principle. The lede should succinctly answer as many of the five Ws and an H as reasonably possible, and if it's not "reasonably possible" to pin down a recent day for the focal event, is it really both specific and fresh (two out of three elements of newsworthiness)? Also the lede should make clear to the reader (and reviewer) that the article is newsworthy, so, again.
• We'd like two mutually independent trust-worthy sources corroborating the focal event. There are rare situations where it's possible for one of these two sources to anticipate the event and the other to witness that it really did happen, in which case only the latter may be dated after the event, but that really is quite rare, and requires a situation where the anticipation is pretty strong (just how strong... depends on whatever other factors there are in the particular situation). This hasn't been submitted, quite obviously; I'm just remarking because I notice atm there's only one source with a recent date.
• For {{QuoteRight}} and {{QuoteLeft}}, the quote should be in the article proper as well as in the template. Cf. Wiktionary's entry pull-quote.

Fwiw. --Pi zero (talk) 13:21, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Redundancy=good, like in space. Got it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:19, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Review of revision 4268621 [Passed]

Revision 4268621 of this article has been reviewed by Bddpaux (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 15:39, 8 December 2016 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: A few random thoughts (not criticisms, per se): After your cleanup, this article is HEAVILY sourced...and you did a pretty good job of keeping appropriate distance from source material (not easy sometimes). It's perfectly fine to use scholarly journals but make sure (as you did here) that there is a FREE link within the ref/ad so review (as a minimum) can verify your text. Good work!! 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 4268621 of this article has been reviewed by Bddpaux (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 15:39, 8 December 2016 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: A few random thoughts (not criticisms, per se): After your cleanup, this article is HEAVILY sourced...and you did a pretty good job of keeping appropriate distance from source material (not easy sometimes). It's perfectly fine to use scholarly journals but make sure (as you did here) that there is a FREE link within the ref/ad so review (as a minimum) can verify your text. Good work!! 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.