Talk:U.S. President creates Chimney Rock National Monument

Review of revision 1632273 [Not ready]

Revision 1632273 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 21:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: The first paragraph should be a lede that summarizes the focal news event by succinctly answering as many as reasonably possible of the basic questions about it. Then the article should proceed in inverted pyramid style. Likely a suitable lede could be achieved here by simply inserting a paragraph break after the second sentence, which is within an independent reviewer's purview to do, but then the rest wouldn't divide well into paragraphs with one thought per paragraph. A gigantic block quote with more text in it than the rest of the article isn't good style The full text of the proclamation should be easily enough included in an External links section at the bottom (below Sources). The article seems to beg for some further perspective. Just throwing some thoughts out there — History of this site, perhaps, or has there been controversy over monumenthood for it? Or how common or rare the creation of national monuments is? Or an explanation of what a "swing state" is? 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 1632273 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 21:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: The first paragraph should be a lede that summarizes the focal news event by succinctly answering as many as reasonably possible of the basic questions about it. Then the article should proceed in inverted pyramid style. Likely a suitable lede could be achieved here by simply inserting a paragraph break after the second sentence, which is within an independent reviewer's purview to do, but then the rest wouldn't divide well into paragraphs with one thought per paragraph. A gigantic block quote with more text in it than the rest of the article isn't good style The full text of the proclamation should be easily enough included in an External links section at the bottom (below Sources). The article seems to beg for some further perspective. Just throwing some thoughts out there — History of this site, perhaps, or has there been controversy over monumenthood for it? Or how common or rare the creation of national monuments is? Or an explanation of what a "swing state" is? 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.

de minimus

The section with use of this 'cute' Latin shorthand caught my eye.

I've checked the sources, and didn't find anyone saying outright that additional costs would be negligible. And, if this is being linked to the election, the action is not being linked to the election by the White House, nor is such being clearly attributed to any political player within the cited sources. Bill Hudson's editorial implies such, but it would need to be more-unambiguously sourced.

And, 'de mnimus' is, as I say, "cute Latin shorthand". If there is no more-natural way to phrase this in English, that link should go to Wiktionary. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 08:34, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I hope "negligible" doesn't have too many letters. Yours aye,  Buaidh  00:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Review time

Perhaps I am naive, but it seems as if we should be able to review an article in less than six hours. Your comments? Yours aye,  Buaidh  18:30, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Review of revision 1634389 [Passed]

Revision 1634389 of this article has been reviewed by Brian McNeil (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 20:33, 23 September 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Couldn't find any 'direct' reference in sources (and I searched outwith those cited) for republicans directly criticising this proclamation as election-year pandering - though I don't doubt it's been muttered about. I've reworded to mention their longer-term, and definitely sourced, 'uh',... "drill baby, drill" 'attitude' :P 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 1634389 of this article has been reviewed by Brian McNeil (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 20:33, 23 September 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Couldn't find any 'direct' reference in sources (and I searched outwith those cited) for republicans directly criticising this proclamation as election-year pandering - though I don't doubt it's been muttered about. I've reworded to mention their longer-term, and definitely sourced, 'uh',... "drill baby, drill" 'attitude' :P 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.