I felt the term prorogation needed explanation, keeping in mind news articles are supposed to be self-contained so they can be understood by a generally educated (but specifically ignorant) international reader, with wikilinks only for supplementary information. Hoping my introduction of it in the lede as a paraphrase for suspension is sufficient.
The quote from Nicola Sturgeon turned out to be more unsettling the further I looked into it. If BBC is really referring to the same statement, one or the other isn't reporting the direct quote faithfully; given the choice between "enormous" and "huge", I felt sure she would have said "huge" (I could just hear it in a broad Scottish accent). So I did a little poking around, and found a youtube video of her, seemingly in an interview with a Guardian watermark on it, and sure enough she said "huge" just about exactly as I'd imagined... but the quote while generally along the same lines deviated from the direct-quote by quite a lot. Further hunting indicated it probably wasn't an interview with the Guardian, either, and I wasn't readily able to determine who it was with. So I concluded even if I weren't restrained as a reviewer I had no more practical fix than to attribute to NPR.
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.
I felt the term prorogation needed explanation, keeping in mind news articles are supposed to be self-contained so they can be understood by a generally educated (but specifically ignorant) international reader, with wikilinks only for supplementary information. Hoping my introduction of it in the lede as a paraphrase for suspension is sufficient.
The quote from Nicola Sturgeon turned out to be more unsettling the further I looked into it. If BBC is really referring to the same statement, one or the other isn't reporting the direct quote faithfully; given the choice between "enormous" and "huge", I felt sure she would have said "huge" (I could just hear it in a broad Scottish accent). So I did a little poking around, and found a youtube video of her, seemingly in an interview with a Guardian watermark on it, and sure enough she said "huge" just about exactly as I'd imagined... but the quote while generally along the same lines deviated from the direct-quote by quite a lot. Further hunting indicated it probably wasn't an interview with the Guardian, either, and I wasn't readily able to determine who it was with. So I concluded even if I weren't restrained as a reviewer I had no more practical fix than to attribute to NPR.
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.
I hadn't noticed that BBC used "enormous" I just noticed NPR's quote was fuller so I used it. I will stop just shy of saying BBC misquoted her, because of how similar her words were with The Guardian, she probably has been repeating herself to a lot of media and may have swapped adjectives. In any event, we have an accurate quote because after doing a verbatim Google search, I found this tweet from her official Twitter which appears to be identical to what NPR and we have, even down to the dashes. So that's were you disappeared to in the middle of the review. Sorry that killed so much of your time. Cheers, --SVTCobra23:39, 13 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
