Talk:High Court strikes down Australian Capital Territory same-sex marriage law

Review of revision 2238424 [Passed]

Revision 2238424 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 22:25, 14 December 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Although I'm allowing this, barely, it's weak on independent sourcing. Another secondary source that wasn't Canberra Times would have been good. There were some distance-from-source problems here that one suspects might have been easier to avoid with another independent source. I removed one sentence completely because I didn't think I could fix its distance-from-source problem without exceeding my purview as an independent reviewer — though that sentence also had another problem: it said something "was expected", which both begs the question of who exepcted, and also is passive voice. (Failure to attribute, which is an NPOV problem, and passive voice often go together, because the speaker is often the subject, and passive voice allows omission of the subject.) 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 2238424 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 22:25, 14 December 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Although I'm allowing this, barely, it's weak on independent sourcing. Another secondary source that wasn't Canberra Times would have been good. There were some distance-from-source problems here that one suspects might have been easier to avoid with another independent source. I removed one sentence completely because I didn't think I could fix its distance-from-source problem without exceeding my purview as an independent reviewer — though that sentence also had another problem: it said something "was expected", which both begs the question of who exepcted, and also is passive voice. (Failure to attribute, which is an NPOV problem, and passive voice often go together, because the speaker is often the subject, and passive voice allows omission of the subject.) 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.

20,000

Russian Wikinews reckons this is our 20,000th article. I'm not sure if I believe them. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• I'm pretty-sure that's wrong. The Published category currently states: "The following 200 pages are in this category, out of 19,754 total. ". Plus, I'm pretty sure that figure includes some audio brief scripts and whatnot. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 13:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Hm. That would make it pretty hard to pin down the "real" number. --Pi zero (talk) 13:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)