The article does not say when the focal event — the lecture — took place. Actually, even after reading the cited sources I don't know for sure when it happened, although it probably happened on either the 18th or the 19th. It must surely be possible to dig up the information, though, presumably involving finding another source (which is beyond what a reviewer can do without compromising their independent status).
I couldn't verify the last paragraph (I hadn't yet attempted to verify everything, btw; I noticed this lapse because the use of a term quoted from source, which is not good practice, drew my attention to it). The Wales Online source that's actually cited here doesn't even testify that the lecture took place, only that it was going to take place; and I didn't find the word "handful" in any of the sources. The newest source says there were about 25 protesters, which as a substitute fact would involve completely rewriting that passage; and I didn't find at all the quote later in the paragraph. With this article already down close to the threshold of minimal article size, losing that paragraph would put it below the threshold. Perhaps there's a differentWales Online article whose citation was omitted?
I had already completely cut a sentence about Greer having previously said she wouldn't give the lecture and then relented after reassurance by the university. I'd first noticed it was structurally close to the Independent — not the Guardian, to which the sentence had attributed it — then that the Independent used the qualifier "reportedly", suggesting they wanted to distance themselves from the claim, then that the Guardian said she'd 'hinted' she wouldn't give the lecture. So by that point it's all looking rather like gossip bandied about by the news media. Coming up with a verifiable sentence would require rewriting it completely, clearly beyond what I could do without compromising my independence for review (in addition to there being very little hard fact left to report after all those weakening factors).
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.
The article does not say when the focal event — the lecture — took place. Actually, even after reading the cited sources I don't know for sure when it happened, although it probably happened on either the 18th or the 19th. It must surely be possible to dig up the information, though, presumably involving finding another source (which is beyond what a reviewer can do without compromising their independent status).
I couldn't verify the last paragraph (I hadn't yet attempted to verify everything, btw; I noticed this lapse because the use of a term quoted from source, which is not good practice, drew my attention to it). The Wales Online source that's actually cited here doesn't even testify that the lecture took place, only that it was going to take place; and I didn't find the word "handful" in any of the sources. The newest source says there were about 25 protesters, which as a substitute fact would involve completely rewriting that passage; and I didn't find at all the quote later in the paragraph. With this article already down close to the threshold of minimal article size, losing that paragraph would put it below the threshold. Perhaps there's a differentWales Online article whose citation was omitted?
I had already completely cut a sentence about Greer having previously said she wouldn't give the lecture and then relented after reassurance by the university. I'd first noticed it was structurally close to the Independent — not the Guardian, to which the sentence had attributed it — then that the Independent used the qualifier "reportedly", suggesting they wanted to distance themselves from the claim, then that the Guardian said she'd 'hinted' she wouldn't give the lecture. So by that point it's all looking rather like gossip bandied about by the news media. Coming up with a verifiable sentence would require rewriting it completely, clearly beyond what I could do without compromising my independence for review (in addition to there being very little hard fact left to report after all those weakening factors).
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.
Attribution is an important tool of news reporting, but don't over-attribute. For example, if The Guardian reports that Greer said something to BBC Newsnight, it's probably true that Greer did say that to BBC Newsnight, so perhaps the reader doesn't have to be burdened with why we believe that Greer said it to BBC Newsnight; and the only exclusive apparently involved, calling for giving credit, is the exclusive to BBC Newsnight; so perhaps we don't need to burden the reader with the information that Greer's comment to BBC Newsnight was reported to us by The Guardian (we already have that listed in our sources, so the reader who wants to know can dig it up).
It seems to me more precise to say the petition was started by the women's officer of the student union; avoids semantic quibbles about terminology for action by the student union versus by an officer of the student union.
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.
Attribution is an important tool of news reporting, but don't over-attribute. For example, if The Guardian reports that Greer said something to BBC Newsnight, it's probably true that Greer did say that to BBC Newsnight, so perhaps the reader doesn't have to be burdened with why we believe that Greer said it to BBC Newsnight; and the only exclusive apparently involved, calling for giving credit, is the exclusive to BBC Newsnight; so perhaps we don't need to burden the reader with the information that Greer's comment to BBC Newsnight was reported to us by The Guardian (we already have that listed in our sources, so the reader who wants to know can dig it up).
It seems to me more precise to say the petition was started by the women's officer of the student union; avoids semantic quibbles about terminology for action by the student union versus by an officer of the student union.
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.
