Dreadfully much got cut as unverified, in order to publish. I considered alternatives to cut-and-publish, but with the story aging, I decide to get it out if at all possible within my purview as an independent reviewer. (Deletions are relatively non-involving, while additions are potently involving.)
Additions after publication are limited to the first 24 hours, and must not use any source dated after the date of publication (not much of a problem here, since it's already past midnight UTC).
The disturbingly extensive verification problems can have a wide range of causes.
Sources could have gotten replaced with later versions, so information seen in the sources during writing could be missing from them during review.
With media frenzy on this story, and very many sources already listed, it'd be easy to accidentally put things in that didn't come from the sources.
With so many sources it'd be easy for a reviewer to fail to find some of what is, in theory, in the sources to be found. (With articles having many sources, it can be very helpful to indicate for reviewers what came from where, either by comments in the article markup, or by remarks on the talk page.)
Technical problems on my end interfered with viewing some of the videos embedded in the sources, which could easily have had significant missing information in them. Recusal did not seem in the best interest of the article.
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.
Dreadfully much got cut as unverified, in order to publish. I considered alternatives to cut-and-publish, but with the story aging, I decide to get it out if at all possible within my purview as an independent reviewer. (Deletions are relatively non-involving, while additions are potently involving.)
Additions after publication are limited to the first 24 hours, and must not use any source dated after the date of publication (not much of a problem here, since it's already past midnight UTC).
The disturbingly extensive verification problems can have a wide range of causes.
Sources could have gotten replaced with later versions, so information seen in the sources during writing could be missing from them during review.
With media frenzy on this story, and very many sources already listed, it'd be easy to accidentally put things in that didn't come from the sources.
With so many sources it'd be easy for a reviewer to fail to find some of what is, in theory, in the sources to be found. (With articles having many sources, it can be very helpful to indicate for reviewers what came from where, either by comments in the article markup, or by remarks on the talk page.)
Technical problems on my end interfered with viewing some of the videos embedded in the sources, which could easily have had significant missing information in them. Recusal did not seem in the best interest of the article.
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.
