Talk:Japan government panel urges reinterpretation of pacifist constitution

Review of revision 2380568 [Not ready]

Revision 2380568 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 00:08, 8 February 2014 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not ready: See below. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: The two-source rule isn't really limited to verifiability, but I tend to list it under that criterion when not-readying for it. Could be copyright or even NPOV. Anyway, the two sources for the focus aren't mutually independent; they're both AP. The second paragraph is not phrased neutrality. Don't assert reasons, or ascribe emotions (such as hope) to people; instead, attribute such claims to who said them, so that we are presenting objective facts. (When attributing analysis, it needs to be attributable to someone other than another news agency, except in those rare cases where a news agency becomes part of the story.) 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 2380568 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 00:08, 8 February 2014 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not ready: See below. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: The two-source rule isn't really limited to verifiability, but I tend to list it under that criterion when not-readying for it. Could be copyright or even NPOV. Anyway, the two sources for the focus aren't mutually independent; they're both AP. The second paragraph is not phrased neutrality. Don't assert reasons, or ascribe emotions (such as hope) to people; instead, attribute such claims to who said them, so that we are presenting objective facts. (When attributing analysis, it needs to be attributable to someone other than another news agency, except in those rare cases where a news agency becomes part of the story.) 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.

• Note, this article is, so I understand, a rearrangement of material from Wikinews Shorts: February 4, 2014, by User:Jjbayes. --Pi zero (talk) 00:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

It is; I should've possibly noted that on this talk page also. I have addressed the sourcing problem, inherited from the briefs. Surprisingly I couldn't locate the news on NK's newspaper website. (I can read the alphabet, and their English and Korean versions appear to be the same content-wise, but nothing similar to the Hitler thing came to my view; I'm trying to locate it, now, to find who to attribute the claim to, if possible.) --Gryllida 01:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Review of revision 2382380 [Passed]

Revision 2382380 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 19:18, 8 February 2014 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: The two AP sources appear to be essentially the same article, but I'm not going to try to sort out between them. 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 2382380 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 19:18, 8 February 2014 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: The two AP sources appear to be essentially the same article, but I'm not going to try to sort out between them. 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.