Talk:Nevada prop plane crash near Las Vegas leaves two dead, three injured

Headline

Spell out small numbers. --Pi zero (talk) 02:52, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

@Pi zero: Done - can you delete the redirect? Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 03:01, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Done --Pi zero (talk) 03:06, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

@Pi zero: thanks. Also, is there any chance you could review this? Its pretty short, and has inline HTML comments for sources for each sentence; given that the focus is on an event from Saturday (though news agencies didn't report it until Sunday) I'm worried this will go stale --DannyS712 (talk) 03:08, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Not tonight; I should be in bed in the next few minutes. --Pi zero (talk) 03:11, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Review of revision 4510854 [Passed]

Revision 4510854 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 04:00, 10 September 2019 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Attribution was needed. Perhaps I should have not-ready'd this asking for it, though there was already concern over freshness here. Adding attribution during review is sometimes tolerable as it's often quite straightforward and fundamentally limited in nature, but in this case there was quite a bit of it needed in a minimal article (a bit more material would have been good, to provide margin above minimality). I'm allowing it this time, on a one-time basis; but please take note for future articles, as I wouldn't be on solid ground to do this much regularly. Indeed, it concerns me I might not have done as well on attribution as the material deserves — that being part of the point of reporter/reviewer redundancy, that one can do better on a second pass of someone else's first pass. 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 4510854 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 04:00, 10 September 2019 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Attribution was needed. Perhaps I should have not-ready'd this asking for it, though there was already concern over freshness here. Adding attribution during review is sometimes tolerable as it's often quite straightforward and fundamentally limited in nature, but in this case there was quite a bit of it needed in a minimal article (a bit more material would have been good, to provide margin above minimality). I'm allowing it this time, on a one-time basis; but please take note for future articles, as I wouldn't be on solid ground to do this much regularly. Indeed, it concerns me I might not have done as well on attribution as the material deserves — that being part of the point of reporter/reviewer redundancy, that one can do better on a second pass of someone else's first pass. 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.

@Pi zero: thanks so much. I'll be sure to write more in the future, and attribute better --DannyS712 (talk) 04:15, 10 September 2019 (UTC)