Talk:Super Bowl 50: Denver Broncos defeat Carolina Panthers 24–10

Review of revision 4190864 [Not ready]

Revision 4190864 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 21:40, 8 February 2016 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: I can't access the NYT source; it's behind a paywall for, afaick, anyone in North America. We do have an explicit policy against pay-to-read sources; from a practical standpoint, I can't verify based on what I can't read. (It doesn't look like there are any reviewers outside North America available atm.) Basic principle: don't use NYT as a source. (The same goes for The Australian, and often The Wall Street Journal.) Btw, a general reader isn't going to know what "12–4" and "15–1" mean in this lede; the lede especially, as well as the whole article to some extent, should be written for a general audience. (In fact, I only have a guess as to what those numbers mean, but that's not the point; the information may be in the NYT source that I can't access. As they are, they're just confusing for a general reader who looks at the lede and doesn't know what those numbers signify.) 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 4190864 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 21:40, 8 February 2016 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: I can't access the NYT source; it's behind a paywall for, afaick, anyone in North America. We do have an explicit policy against pay-to-read sources; from a practical standpoint, I can't verify based on what I can't read. (It doesn't look like there are any reviewers outside North America available atm.) Basic principle: don't use NYT as a source. (The same goes for The Australian, and often The Wall Street Journal.) Btw, a general reader isn't going to know what "12–4" and "15–1" mean in this lede; the lede especially, as well as the whole article to some extent, should be written for a general audience. (In fact, I only have a guess as to what those numbers mean, but that's not the point; the information may be in the NYT source that I can't access. As they are, they're just confusing for a general reader who looks at the lede and doesn't know what those numbers signify.) 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.

@Pi zero: Weird, I can access it freely even though I'm from North America (Imgur mirror of it if you're interested), but I've replaced it with an ESPN source. The record's in the ESPN source as well. ZappaOMati 23:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

@ZappaOMati: Months ago, when I was new here, I had faced a similar scenario. NYT was visible for me, but Pi zero was unable to access it. Few hours later, even I could not access it. And that time, Pi zero said that just omit NYT. And now, I don't even care to look for it as we are a free news source.
Agastya Chandrakant ⚽️ 🏆 🎾 🎬 🎤 📰 05:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Review of revision 4191148 [Passed]

Revision 4191148 of this article has been reviewed by SVTCobra (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 04:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. 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 4191148 of this article has been reviewed by SVTCobra (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 04:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. 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.