Talk:Historic Scottish island castle wins the lottery

Review of revision 1327144 [Not ready]

Revision 1327144 of this article has been reviewed by RockerballAustralia (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 03:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: Templates, paragraphs, date Comments by reviewer: None added. 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 1327144 of this article has been reviewed by RockerballAustralia (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 03:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: Templates, paragraphs, date Comments by reviewer: None added. 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.

Review of revision 1327159 [Not ready]

Revision 1327159 of this article has been reviewed by Brian McNeil (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 09:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Not ready: multiple instances of too-close-paraphrase, or lifted phrasings from sources Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Not ready: By duplicating the language of press releases this fails to be impartial/neutral Style: Not ready: Wikinews does not employ enWP-style references, but uses the {{source}} template to cite where information obtained from. Fails to follow w:Inverted-pyramid style of report. Date is not formatted as-per Wikinews standards Comments by reviewer: Please scan through WN:ARTICLE to grasp the correct format for a Wikinews report. 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 1327159 of this article has been reviewed by Brian McNeil (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 09:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Not ready: multiple instances of too-close-paraphrase, or lifted phrasings from sources Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Not ready: By duplicating the language of press releases this fails to be impartial/neutral Style: Not ready: Wikinews does not employ enWP-style references, but uses the {{source}} template to cite where information obtained from. Fails to follow w:Inverted-pyramid style of report. Date is not formatted as-per Wikinews standards Comments by reviewer: Please scan through WN:ARTICLE to grasp the correct format for a Wikinews report. 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.

Review of revision 1327375 [Not ready]

Revision 1327375 of this article has been reviewed by Brian McNeil (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 12:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: Little to none of the points in the two prior reviews have been addressed. 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 1327375 of this article has been reviewed by Brian McNeil (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 12:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: Little to none of the points in the two prior reviews have been addressed. 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.

Review of revision 1327603 [Passed]

Revision 1327603 of this article has been reviewed by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 16:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I allowed the title because it's more accurate than it may appear at first glance. Think about it. It's also a nice take on the situation, and a good draw for readers. 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 1327603 of this article has been reviewed by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 16:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I allowed the title because it's more accurate than it may appear at first glance. Think about it. It's also a nice take on the situation, and a good draw for readers. 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.

Archived spankings

The only reason I don't take issue with the title is the date of the castle.

However,

"Throughout its colourful history, the castle was at one time owned by William Lever who founded Unilever."

deserves particular highlighting for both @Brianmc and @BRS. Consider this a belated trouting. - Amgine | t 15:54, 18 September 2013 (UTC)