Talk:Labor employees celebrate International Women’s Day

Original reporting notes

I attended this event and observed the events noted in the article (i.e. the food, the flowers, the notes. I saw the employees distributing the flowers at the doors of the building. Evrik (talk) 16:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Review of revision 1429329 [Not ready]

Revision 1429329 of this article has been reviewed by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 17:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: Quite a lot of the material here isn't backed up by the sources. (One of which had no actual information in it; I removed that one. It was just a landing page.) In fact, the majority of it isn't there. I suspect it's all stuff you observed yourself. If that's the case, what's needed is detailed notes on the talk page explicitly stating how you gleaned each fact; for example, did you read the notes on the flowers? However, some of the background (the fire) I couldn't obviously see, either. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: What are "bargaining unit employees"? This may seem a trivial problem to mark as not-ready on, and indeed it is, but the term is so foreign to me I can't copyedit it myself because I have zero understanding of its meaning. So that needs rewritten or an explanation or something. Comments by reviewer: I suspect most of the sources here can actually be removed if indeed this is an OR-heavy piece. With that said, some (including the one I removed already) might well do to be external links instead. I thought your name looked familiar. It's good to see you around again. I trust you to do OR and not make stuff up and all that (I'm mainly saying that for the benefit of future reviewers: we're dealing with someone trustworthy, here). 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 1429329 of this article has been reviewed by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 17:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: Quite a lot of the material here isn't backed up by the sources. (One of which had no actual information in it; I removed that one. It was just a landing page.) In fact, the majority of it isn't there. I suspect it's all stuff you observed yourself. If that's the case, what's needed is detailed notes on the talk page explicitly stating how you gleaned each fact; for example, did you read the notes on the flowers? However, some of the background (the fire) I couldn't obviously see, either. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: What are "bargaining unit employees"? This may seem a trivial problem to mark as not-ready on, and indeed it is, but the term is so foreign to me I can't copyedit it myself because I have zero understanding of its meaning. So that needs rewritten or an explanation or something. Comments by reviewer: I suspect most of the sources here can actually be removed if indeed this is an OR-heavy piece. With that said, some (including the one I removed already) might well do to be external links instead. I thought your name looked familiar. It's good to see you around again. I trust you to do OR and not make stuff up and all that (I'm mainly saying that for the benefit of future reviewers: we're dealing with someone trustworthy, here). 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 1429418 [Passed]

Revision 1429418 of this article has been reviewed by Cirt (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 18:47, 8 March 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: All issues have been successfully addressed. Great 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 1429418 of this article has been reviewed by Cirt (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 18:47, 8 March 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: All issues have been successfully addressed. Great 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.