Talk:Major Colombian newspaper reveals Bogotá mayor does not hold claimed PhD degree

Review of revision 4206117 [Not ready]

Revision 4206117 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 14:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: This is an interesting story; I didn't find any coverage of it in English-language news media. The Sources section claims WN:original reporting (OR), but there are no reporter's notes at all on the collaboration page. OR generally requires extensive documentation, certainly including with an explanation of what content in the article is original and how it was gathered. The last sentence ascribes a sentence to an interview with a Brazilian newspaper. Although it's generally difficult for us to review based on non-English sources, I'm not at all convinced that source article is an interview. Please recheck the source in this regard. "second most important newspaper of Bogotá" is perhaps a poor choice of words; did you perhaps mean "second biggest"? "second most important" is a value judgement on importance, which violates our neutrality policy. 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 4206117 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 14:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: This is an interesting story; I didn't find any coverage of it in English-language news media. The Sources section claims WN:original reporting (OR), but there are no reporter's notes at all on the collaboration page. OR generally requires extensive documentation, certainly including with an explanation of what content in the article is original and how it was gathered. The last sentence ascribes a sentence to an interview with a Brazilian newspaper. Although it's generally difficult for us to review based on non-English sources, I'm not at all convinced that source article is an interview. Please recheck the source in this regard. "second most important newspaper of Bogotá" is perhaps a poor choice of words; did you perhaps mean "second biggest"? "second most important" is a value judgement on importance, which violates our neutrality policy. 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 4206418 [Passed]

Revision 4206418 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 21:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: The focal event was five days ago. It's not really clear to me whether any of the facts from sources of three days ago (Sunday) are new. My decision on freshness here takes into account the apparent dearth of coverage in English-language news channels. Prompter would be better. (Of course, one day's delay at least is partly because this was the author's first submission to en.wn, so hopefully things can go more smoothly in future.) 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 4206418 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 21:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: The focal event was five days ago. It's not really clear to me whether any of the facts from sources of three days ago (Sunday) are new. My decision on freshness here takes into account the apparent dearth of coverage in English-language news channels. Prompter would be better. (Of course, one day's delay at least is partly because this was the author's first submission to en.wn, so hopefully things can go more smoothly in future.) 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.