Talk:Dust storm causes multi-vehicle pile-up on I-70 in Kansas

Clean up

This needs some notable clean up.--Bddpaux (talk) 19:08, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Saturday this happened? Stale? BigKrow (talk) 22:14, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

The sources say this happened on Friday. Lofi Gurl (talk) 22:49, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

OK. BigKrow (talk) 00:08, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Categories

Don't wanna edit conflict -- but do you guys think we should add Arizona and New Mexico to the cats? Thanks. Lofi Gurl (talk) 16:23, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Done. BigKrow (talk) 00:08, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

thanks. Lofi Gurl (talk) 00:13, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Not to reviewers and original author

I started reviewing this article this morning but ran out of time for now. Reviewers, if you have time, feel free to review it—I think it's pretty close to being publishable as-is. Lofi Gurl, I know the image needs accurate attribution (using the image authors' names not the copyright license).

If no one else gets to it, I'll try to return to it later today. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 16:31, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Review of revision 4844968 [Passed]

Revision 4844968 of this article has been reviewed by Michael.C.Wright (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 14:12, 21 March 2025 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: As part of the review, I made changes to align with the style guide, including reordering content to follow the inverted pyramid structure and moving the page to correct the headline—making it shorter, action-oriented, and removing specific statistics that may change, though the non-exact figure might have been acceptable after the other adjustments. There was one instance where a source was misinterpreted [1], and another where a statement was included that was unrelated to the focal event [2]. In general, we should avoid suggesting causal links not explicitly stated in sources, even if a source implies one, as this constitutes analysis. We can only report when a qualified individual has observed a correlation, per Wikinews:Neutral_point_of_view#Reporting_analysis_and_speculation 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 4844968 of this article has been reviewed by Michael.C.Wright (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 14:12, 21 March 2025 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: As part of the review, I made changes to align with the style guide, including reordering content to follow the inverted pyramid structure and moving the page to correct the headline—making it shorter, action-oriented, and removing specific statistics that may change, though the non-exact figure might have been acceptable after the other adjustments. There was one instance where a source was misinterpreted [3], and another where a statement was included that was unrelated to the focal event [4]. In general, we should avoid suggesting causal links not explicitly stated in sources, even if a source implies one, as this constitutes analysis. We can only report when a qualified individual has observed a correlation, per Wikinews:Neutral_point_of_view#Reporting_analysis_and_speculation 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.