Talk:Taskforce launched as search for Gus Lamont expands in South Australia's north
Add topicNeeds a second source
[edit]I made one, still needs a second @CheatCodes4ever BigKrow (talk) 18:59, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
What is going on?
[edit]This article was waiting a full week for review and no one commented on it, and now it has been marked stale. Tduk (talk) 18:01, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
- Fixed @Tduk BigKrow (talk) 20:45, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
Stale
[edit]Our Wikinews:Freshness guideline states that "An unpublished article is typically considered stale when it's five to seven days old."
For this article to qualify for a review, the article and headline will need to be refocused on a more recent news event, such as this event.Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Reviewer) 17:11, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
who has been missing since Saturday,
[edit]who has been missing since Saturday,
Is copyrighted needs adjustment. Thanks pinging @Michael.C.Wright BigKrow (talk) 16:58, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
Review of revision 4887174 [Passed]
[edit]  |
Revision 4887174 of this article has been reviewed by Michael.C.Wright (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 17:55, 14 October 2025 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: Thank you for sticking with the article and refocussing it. As part of the review process, a series of edits were made to bring the article into compliance with Wikinews style and sourcing standards. These included verifying statements against listed sources and improving attribution throughout. Dates and formatting were adjusted to match WN:Style, the image description was clarified and image was properly attributed. See the edit history for full details. For future articles, please be sure to attribute statements in line with WN:NPOV. For example, phrases like “Gus was reportedly playing in the backyard” or “He is believed to have walked off the property” should identify who reported or believed it, such as police, family members, or another named source, rather than standing alone without attribution. 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 4887174 of this article has been reviewed by Michael.C.Wright (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 17:55, 14 October 2025 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: Thank you for sticking with the article and refocussing it. As part of the review process, a series of edits were made to bring the article into compliance with Wikinews style and sourcing standards. These included verifying statements against listed sources and improving attribution throughout. Dates and formatting were adjusted to match WN:Style, the image description was clarified and image was properly attributed. See the edit history for full details. For future articles, please be sure to attribute statements in line with WN:NPOV. For example, phrases like “Gus was reportedly playing in the backyard” or “He is believed to have walked off the property” should identify who reported or believed it, such as police, family members, or another named source, rather than standing alone without attribution. 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’ll be completely unavailable starting tomorrow and continuing into next week, though I may be back by Monday. I don’t like publishing right now, given how few active reviewers we have and the fact I won’t be around for several days if any issues come up. But the choice was to publish now or leave it and hope another reviewer picks it up. At the moment, three reviewers, myself included, are on stated wikibreaks.Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Reviewer) 18:00, 14 October 2025 (UTC)