Talk:Opposition protests disrupt Maldivian president's speech in parliament

Source usage

Unilandofma, before re-submitting the article for review, please clarify how each of the ten listed sources has been used in the article. Per WN:Source, all information must be sourced, and every listed source must have been used:

Only cite sources used for information — do not add sources if you did not include any information from them.

– WN:Source

You can indicate source usage by adding <!-- HTML comments --> within the article, using {{verify}}, and/or providing explanations on the article's talk page as necessary, i.e., if your usage isn't immediately clear from reading the source.

For a synthesis article like this, the focal event requires just two sources. Additional sources should support general or background information that is otherwise not already included in those first two sources.

If you have any questions, let me know. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 16:06, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi,

I've indicated source usage using the verify template as well as HTML comments. Unilandofma (talk) 16:57, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Review of revision 4839725 [Passed]

Revision 4839725 of this article has been reviewed by Michael.C.Wright (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 18:09, 12 February 2025 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: In my review, I considered that English is likely not the first language of the article's author and several of the sources. I accounted for this when evaluating language clarity and expression, focusing on factual accuracy, neutrality, and coherence. Please be mindful of the review process when including sources. It is not required to list multiple sources to support a single piece of information (beyond the focal event, which requires at least two) unless they disagree with each other, in which case we should be reporting on the disagreement as well. I attributed a statement containing subjective judgement (what was considered the most important bill announced). Please remember to attribute any analysis or speculation or remove it before submitting for review. See WN:NPOV (policy) and WN:Neutrality (essay) for more details on analysis (including subjective judgements) and speculation. See the edit history and edit summaries for additional changes made during review. 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 4839725 of this article has been reviewed by Michael.C.Wright (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 18:09, 12 February 2025 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: In my review, I considered that English is likely not the first language of the article's author and several of the sources. I accounted for this when evaluating language clarity and expression, focusing on factual accuracy, neutrality, and coherence. Please be mindful of the review process when including sources. It is not required to list multiple sources to support a single piece of information (beyond the focal event, which requires at least two) unless they disagree with each other, in which case we should be reporting on the disagreement as well. I attributed a statement containing subjective judgement (what was considered the most important bill announced). Please remember to attribute any analysis or speculation or remove it before submitting for review. See WN:NPOV (policy) and WN:Neutrality (essay) for more details on analysis (including subjective judgements) and speculation. See the edit history and edit summaries for additional changes made during review. 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.