Talk:Glasgow Climate Pact deal struck; nations to reduce coal usage
Add topicReview of revision 4649870 [Not ready]
[edit]
Revision 4649870 of this article has been reviewed by LivelyRatification (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 23:35, 14 November 2021 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: This article only has two paragraphs that aren't single-sentence, and so I'm going to err on the side of caution and reject it here pere WN:Length. While I was able to verify the facts, and it is not yet stale, it does seem to me like there is not enough detail. More info perhaps on who was pushing to phase out coal completely or why limiting warming to 1.5 degrees is viewed as necessary might be good here. Not much needs to be added (though feel free to add more if you'd like!) just need to get this to at least three full paragraphs. 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 4649870 of this article has been reviewed by LivelyRatification (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 23:35, 14 November 2021 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: This article only has two paragraphs that aren't single-sentence, and so I'm going to err on the side of caution and reject it here pere WN:Length. While I was able to verify the facts, and it is not yet stale, it does seem to me like there is not enough detail. More info perhaps on who was pushing to phase out coal completely or why limiting warming to 1.5 degrees is viewed as necessary might be good here. Not much needs to be added (though feel free to add more if you'd like!) just need to get this to at least three full paragraphs. 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. |
- @LivelyRatification: How does it look now? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 23:31, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- @TheSandDoctor: Based solely off length, looks better. I will continue the review in a moment. LivelyRatification (talk) 00:04, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- @TheSandDoctor: All ready to publish, but would you mind submitting the article for review again? LivelyRatification (talk) 00:10, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- @TheSandDoctor: Based solely off length, looks better. I will continue the review in a moment. LivelyRatification (talk) 00:04, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Review of revision 4650032 [Passed]
[edit]
Revision 4650032 of this article has been reviewed by LivelyRatification (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 00:14, 16 November 2021 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: Thanks for sticking with me through this review process - all looks good now. Nice 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 4650032 of this article has been reviewed by LivelyRatification (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 00:14, 16 November 2021 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: Thanks for sticking with me through this review process - all looks good now. Nice 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. |
typo
[edit]{{editprotected}}
Typo: "exasperate" should be "exacerbate". (Or perhaps "increase" to veer toward Simple English.)
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gnuish (talk • contribs)
- Seems to be done by @LivelyRatification:.
•–• 08:13, 28 November 2021 (UTC)