Talk:Queensland state election shorts: January 30, 2012

Regarding OR notes

As the Greens short claims OR — and requires it, otherwise it would be single-source — there should have been OR notes on the talk page. The nature of the videos, together with their explanatory captions, does corroborate the short, and after careful consideration I'm allowing it, but the OR notes should have been here. The fact that the OR notice did not contain a talk-page link, may have contributed to this oversight — if there had been a link, it would have been red. --Pi zero (talk) 06:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The absence of the link, along with all the other stuff I had on this weekend gone, did indead contribute to the oversight. I probably just noted the videos anyhow. --RockerballAustralia c 06:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Review of revision 1387246 [Passed]

Revision 1387246 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 06:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: The lack of OR notes is discussed above on this talk page. It did cross my mind —though there seems no problem here— that OR combined with a subject one has to disclose about is a classic recipe for COI. Addendum (I'd in mind to include this in the review comments, but it slipped my mind in the event): The stories are all somewhat aged, and one would clearly be stale if standalone; I'm treating the collection as a whole and also giving some measure of OR-leeway. 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 1387246 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 06:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: The lack of OR notes is discussed above on this talk page. It did cross my mind —though there seems no problem here— that OR combined with a subject one has to disclose about is a classic recipe for COI. Addendum (I'd in mind to include this in the review comments, but it slipped my mind in the event): The stories are all somewhat aged, and one would clearly be stale if standalone; I'm treating the collection as a whole and also giving some measure of OR-leeway. 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.