Talk:Federal grand jury indicts former US President Donald Trump in classified documents inquiry

Review of revision 4731543 [Not ready]

Revision 4731543 of this article has been reviewed by Heavy Water (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 00:44, 9 June 2023 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: The New York Times and The Washington Post are both paywalled. Please replace them per WN:PAYWALL. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: @LFaraone: Also, please remove the Mr.'s and correct the statement this is "the first time a former United States president has been formally criminally indicted." (Trump himself became the first in March, see Manhattan grand jury indicts former United States President Donald Trump.) 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 4731543 of this article has been reviewed by Heavy Water (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 00:44, 9 June 2023 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: The New York Times and The Washington Post are both paywalled. Please replace them per WN:PAYWALL. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: @LFaraone: Also, please remove the Mr.'s and correct the statement this is "the first time a former United States president has been formally criminally indicted." (Trump himself became the first in March, see Manhattan grand jury indicts former United States President Donald Trump.) 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.

I guess you meant federally indicted. Heavy Water (talk) 01:58, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

@Heavy Water Corrected. But WaPo opens in incognito for me, and the NYT's article is viewable with a free account. LFaraone (talk) 03:32, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

For the NYT, yes, but you get a limited number of articles from a free account, so it's not like Reuters, which is unlimited for a free account — so Reuters is allowed but the NYT, especially recently, isn't because one can interpret "request payment to view content on the site" as including "request payment from anyone, including a person who's exceeded their limit, to view content on the site", cf. Brianmc, "[t]he rationale behind rejecting paywalled sources is that nobody should need to give away any personal data, or actually pay, to verify the content of a Wikinews article" at Talk:Over 270 civilians reported killed from shelling in Syria. And a reader is in principle a verifier, in line with the idea of being transparent about sourcing. As for WaPo, the rule must be one free article a month — this is the first article of theirs I've accessed this month, and when I tried opening a second I got a choice between limited free registration or a subscription. So I recommend replacing both with completely-free sources. Heavy Water (talk) 05:36, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I've replaced it with sources to CNN and Politico. LFaraone (talk) 11:08, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

@LFaraone: Also, can you please add the focal event's "when" to the lead? Heavy Water (talk) 17:14, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

@Heavy Water Done. LFaraone (talk) 18:19, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

As an aside -- NYT / WaPo allow "gifting" links. Would such links be suitable, or not really because they probably have some internal limit on number of viewers. LFaraone (talk) 18:24, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

If there's a limit, then I would think so. BTW, the indictment was just unsealed. Heavy Water (talk) 18:32, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I heavily expanded it to include information from the indictment. LFaraone (talk) 06:52, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

@Heavy Water I wanted to add File:Classified intelligence material found during search of Mar-a-Lago.jpg to the article, either as a supplement or replacing the existing image, but I wasn't sure if that was OK to do while you were reviewing it. LFaraone (talk) 23:28, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, it's recommended to not edit during a review to avoid edit conflicts. I just added it. Heavy Water (talk) 23:52, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Review of revision 4731928 [Passed]

Revision 4731928 of this article has been reviewed by Heavy Water (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 05:46, 11 June 2023 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: @LFaraone: Well, in terms of the Main Page, Wikipedia only beat us by a few hours this time. We could have beaten them to it, but there is a learning curve on one's first article, by which I think you did well. Please add categories, remove unnecessary sources, and see the edit history for more. 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 4731928 of this article has been reviewed by Heavy Water (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 05:46, 11 June 2023 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: @LFaraone: Well, in terms of the Main Page, Wikipedia only beat us by a few hours this time. We could have beaten them to it, but there is a learning curve on one's first article, by which I think you did well. Please add categories, remove unnecessary sources, and see the edit history for more. 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.