Talk:Russia accused of supporting Ukrainian rebels' advance

My review

I've tried reviewing this but it's just proving a touch to complicated/tiring for me to do now. I'll hopefully get back to it in the morning my time (UTC+10).

Some initial thoughts. As far as I can tell, only the Reuters source mentions Russia actually entering Ukraine. I've been struggling to find any mention of Novoazovsk in the sources provided. I found mention of Mariupol, but not Novoazovsk.

Style definitely checks out, NPOV checks out AFAIC tell and copyright doesn't seem to be an issue. --RockerballAustralia contribs 11:52, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. Hope I can clarify the issues. The Reuters article seems to have been moved. I have updated the source to use this url instead. This is also the source where I found the mention of Novoazovsk. The BBC source also mentions accusations of troops crossing the border with the phrase "Ukraine and the West blame Russian military support for the rebel advances, saying armoured columns have crossed the border". CSJJ104 (talk) 12:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

After looking at the article again after a break, I think I may have seen my mistake. The headline was phrased to suggest support of different types, I have added info about Russia supplying hardware to the rebels in the hope of making this clearer, would also like to mention The Guardian also mention Russia sending troops to back a new offensive. Hope this helps when the article is next reviewed, and thanks for allowing me to clarify the issues, is there anyway I could perhaps make the providence of facts clearer to a reviewer in future? I do appreciate your efforts, and would like to help where possible. CSJJ104 (talk) 12:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Review of revision 2851326 [Passed]

Revision 2851326 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 15:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Good example of a useful technique: Juxtapose objective facts, enabling the reader to analyze things, rather than trying to reconcile NPOV with anonymous analysis from the sources. One does have to be careful not to slide over into innuendo, but in the bit about the corridor between the Russian border and Crimea, it seemed fair to me. As submitted, that bit begged the question Who said that?, and the source passage was even vaguer, begging complementary questions of Whose fears? and How do you know?. Yet, pull back to presenting the geographical fact, and both questions disappear. Regarding what a reporter can do to aid reviewers in finding things in the sources — a technique sometimes used is to embed html comments <!-- like this --> in the article text. In William Saturn's On the campaign trail articles, he'd routinely have on the order of fifty synthesis sources, and the review load would have been crushing except that he provided excellent notes to the reviewer on which sources to look in. (The review load was pretty heavy anyway, but it was only once a month, and it was worth it — seriously, take a look at those articles; it was a privilege to be involved in publishing them.) 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 2851326 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 15:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Good example of a useful technique: Juxtapose objective facts, enabling the reader to analyze things, rather than trying to reconcile NPOV with anonymous analysis from the sources. One does have to be careful not to slide over into innuendo, but in the bit about the corridor between the Russian border and Crimea, it seemed fair to me. As submitted, that bit begged the question Who said that?, and the source passage was even vaguer, begging complementary questions of Whose fears? and How do you know?. Yet, pull back to presenting the geographical fact, and both questions disappear. Regarding what a reporter can do to aid reviewers in finding things in the sources — a technique sometimes used is to embed html comments <!-- like this --> in the article text. In William Saturn's On the campaign trail articles, he'd routinely have on the order of fifty synthesis sources, and the review load would have been crushing except that he provided excellent notes to the reviewer on which sources to look in. (The review load was pretty heavy anyway, but it was only once a month, and it was worth it — seriously, take a look at those articles; it was a privilege to be involved in publishing them.) 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.