Adding a direct quote is more than I'd normally do, but it seems the only way to neutrally inform on the point, as anything other than a direct quote is apt to be controversial analysis. I was careful with this. Given the clarifying nature of the edit, size of the article, and penumbra of the principle that if there's only one way to fix a problem, there's no moral difference between the reviewer doing it or requiring the writer to do it, I figure it's in-bounds. I also consulted with the reporter off-wiki after the edit.
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.
Adding a direct quote is more than I'd normally do, but it seems the only way to neutrally inform on the point, as anything other than a direct quote is apt to be controversial analysis. I was careful with this. Given the clarifying nature of the edit, size of the article, and penumbra of the principle that if there's only one way to fix a problem, there's no moral difference between the reviewer doing it or requiring the writer to do it, I figure it's in-bounds. I also consulted with the reporter off-wiki after the edit.
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.
