Talk:Expected U.S. Senate special election taking shape in Massachusetts

Review of revision 1755267 [Not ready]

Revision 1755267 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 20:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not ready: See below. Style: Not ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: I'm seeing two problems here. (Sincerely hoping there isn't some less obvious problem waiting to be encountered deeper into a review.) Saying someone is favored to win, a nomination, is a claim that needs on-side attribution. Is this indicated by some poll or polls? Which polls might or might not be something that can go further down in the article than the lede, depending. If the information is here, atm, I'm missing it. It's not something that can be presented as unattributed fact, so it falls under the 'NPOV' review criterion. The lede is too long. By about a factor of two (and even shorter than that would be good). The punchline should be right up front, succinctly put, leaving background/details for later. Anything in the current first paragraph not covered by the lede that needs saying can go in a second paragraph, per inverted pyramid style. 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 1755267 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 20:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not ready: See below. Style: Not ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: I'm seeing two problems here. (Sincerely hoping there isn't some less obvious problem waiting to be encountered deeper into a review.) Saying someone is favored to win, a nomination, is a claim that needs on-side attribution. Is this indicated by some poll or polls? Which polls might or might not be something that can go further down in the article than the lede, depending. If the information is here, atm, I'm missing it. It's not something that can be presented as unattributed fact, so it falls under the 'NPOV' review criterion. The lede is too long. By about a factor of two (and even shorter than that would be good). The punchline should be right up front, succinctly put, leaving background/details for later. Anything in the current first paragraph not covered by the lede that needs saying can go in a second paragraph, per inverted pyramid style. 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.

Here's what I did:

• fixed grammar and flow
• removed the parts referring to Markey as favored to win and added a source which refers to him as the frontrunner
• removed unnecessary detail from the lead about Markey's supporters, Elizabeth Warren, etc., added it to the article body, and removed redundancy

--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Review of revision 1756254 [Passed]

Revision 1756254 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 19:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Removed a number of scatted bits I didn't find in the sources. 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 1756254 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 19:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Removed a number of scatted bits I didn't find in the sources. 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.