Talk:Moldova denies Russian allegations of Ukrainian plan to attack breakaway Transnistria

Duplicates

@Johnson524: Can you remove The Moscow Times source, please? It's a duplicate of The Guardian one. I can then review it. Heavy Water (talk) 01:48, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Oh sure thing, I included it mainly to have multiple sources from different viewpoints. Also congratulations on becoming reviewer! Johnson524 (talk) 01:53, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, @Johnson524! Sorry, one more thing: none of the sources include a "when" (though they have datelines). Could you add one with the "when" in it? Since we still have to include a when. Heavy Water (talk) 18:56, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

@Heavy Water: I'm sorry, I'm not sure if fully I understand 😅 From what I understand, the information in the article is accredited to the dates that they happened. Are you asking for different citations, or clarification? Thank you again for taking a look at this article! Johnson524 (talk) 19:37, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

@Johnson524: It's OK. I was asking for additional citation(s) who mention the date of this event (the Moldovan rebuttal to Russia's claims) since these don't. Heavy Water (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

@Heavy Water: I added a citation from Reuters which starts off by saying "Moldova dismissed an accusation by Russia's defence ministry on Thursday...", hopefully this fixes the issue! (Oh, and sorry for the later response, I was driving) Johnson524 (talk) 00:48, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

All good, and that fixes it. Heavy Water (talk) 01:38, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Review of revision 4711830 [Passed]

Revision 4711830 of this article has been reviewed by Heavy Water (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 18:41, 27 February 2023 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Once the problems above were resolved, this went smoothly. I did some editing for conciseness/directness and WN:PYRAMID (some information about the actual focal event was squeezed to the bottom of the article). A very good second article about an event whose complexity is encapsulated by the headline! 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 4711830 of this article has been reviewed by Heavy Water (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 18:41, 27 February 2023 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Once the problems above were resolved, this went smoothly. I did some editing for conciseness/directness and WN:PYRAMID (some information about the actual focal event was squeezed to the bottom of the article). A very good second article about an event whose complexity is encapsulated by the headline! 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.

Thank you again @Heavy Water for taking the time to review this article 😁 Your descriptive edit summaries and comments have been particularly helpful to look back on to learn from in making this article, and for future articles. Cheers! Johnson524 (talk) 22:14, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome! --Heavy Water (talk) 22:26, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

@Johnson524: Somehow this slipped past my review comments, but remember Anadolu is run by the Turkish state, so it will be biased. This headline of theirs, for example, suggested the US and NATO were also "in" on this supposed plot. Here they were helpful for Russian quotes, but AA is sometimes one to avoid. --Heavy Water (talk) 04:57, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

@Heavy Water: Alright, I'll keep that in mind! Johnson524 (talk) 05:21, 2 March 2023 (UTC)