Talk:Next phase of search for MH 370 begins

Doubts about other incident

I just found a source named Investigation crash MH17, 17 July 2014 about the airliner shoot-down that I referenced at the end of the article that says it was shot down on July 17, but the second source I cited says July 18 within its article, therefore they show conflicting dates. So, since it is already under an in-depth review, I going to recommend from this collaboration page that it just say early July, based on what I read. Sam.gov (talk) 17:57, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Caution is a healthy instinct. :-)

In this, case, though, we have a previously published (therefore, rigorously reviewed) article about the event, and looking it over, I don't think we reasonably could have botched the date of the event. --Pi zero (talk) 18:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, sounds cool to me. Sam.gov (talk) 18:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Review of revision 2945425 [Passed]

Revision 2945425 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 18:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: There were a few passages a bit overly close to source. There were problems with the lede (a key thing to get right — a good lede can set an article on the right track, and a bad one can completely sink it; usually one can tell from the lede whether an article will be basically sound). I added attribution on something that wed best presented as a claim rather than a fact, and I fact-checked a few passages. However, the biggest problem here was a paragraph I ended up cutting entirely; it seemed to me the several facts asserted there had all gotten garbled one way or another. Not sure what might have happened there, so since I had no basis for repairing any of it, and given that review delays have left this alarming close to the outer edge of discretionary freshness, I just cut the paragraph; it seems to drop out of the article cleanly. 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 2945425 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 18:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: There were a few passages a bit overly close to source. There were problems with the lede (a key thing to get right — a good lede can set an article on the right track, and a bad one can completely sink it; usually one can tell from the lede whether an article will be basically sound). I added attribution on something that wed best presented as a claim rather than a fact, and I fact-checked a few passages. However, the biggest problem here was a paragraph I ended up cutting entirely; it seemed to me the several facts asserted there had all gotten garbled one way or another. Not sure what might have happened there, so since I had no basis for repairing any of it, and given that review delays have left this alarming close to the outer edge of discretionary freshness, I just cut the paragraph; it seems to drop out of the article cleanly. 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.